benchmarking air emissions - courthouse news service › wp-content › uploads › ...benchmarking...

Benchmarking Air Emissions of the 100 Largest Electric Power Producers in the United States

Data tables and maps at: www.mjbradley.com

June 2019

Benchmarking Air EmissionsOf the 100 Largest Electric Power Producers in the United States

June 2019Data Downloads at: www.mjbradley.com

Contributors:

http://www.mjbradley.com/




June 2019

Preface

The 2019 Benchmarking report is the 15th collaborative effort highlighting environmental performance and progress in the nation’s

electric power sector. The Benchmarking series began in 1997 and uses publicly reported data to compare the emissions

performance of the 100 largest power producers in the United States. The company rankings are based on 2017 generation and

emissions data and aggregate industry trends are presented through 2018.

Data on U.S. power plant generation and air emissions are available to the public through several databases maintained by state

and federal agencies. Publicly- and privately-owned electric generating companies are required to report fuel and generation data

to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). Most power producers are also required to report air pollutant emissions data

to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). These data are reported and recorded at the boiler, generator, or plant level,

and must be combined and presented so that company-level comparisons can be made across the industry.

The Benchmarking report facilitates the comparison of emissions performance by combining generation and fuel consumption data

compiled by EIA with emissions data on sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOx), carbon dioxide (CO2) and mercury (Hg)

compiled by EPA; error checking the data; and presenting emissions information for the nation’s 100 largest power producers in a

graphic format that aids in understanding and evaluating the data. The report is intended for a wide audience, including electric

industry executives, environmental advocates, financial analysts, investors, journalists, power plant managers, and public

policymakers.

Report Authors: Christopher Van Atten, Amlan Saha, Luke Hellgren, Ted Langlois

For questions or comments about this report, please contact:

Christopher Van Atten

M. J. Bradley & Associates LLC

47 Junction Square Drive

Concord, MA 01742, USA

Telephone: +1 978 369 5533

E-mail: [email protected]

Plant and company level data used in this report are available at www.mjbradley.com.

2


mailto:[email protected]




June 2019

Key Findings

• The 100 largest power producers in the United States

own roughly 3,000 power plants and account for more

than 80 percent of the sector’s electric generation and

reported air emissions. Their fuel mix, emissions, and

emission rates vary widely as summarized throughout this

report (based on 2017 data).

• For the electric sector overall, in 2018, power plant SO2

and NOx emissions were 92 percent and 84 percent

lower, respectively, than they were in 1990 when

Congress passed major amendments to the Clean Air Act.

In 2018, power plant SO2 and NOx emissions were 5.5

percent and 3.7 percent lower than they were in 2017.

• Power sector CO2 emissions increased about 1 percent

between 2017 and 2018. This marked a reversal of the

annual declines that had occurred each year since 2014.

In 2018, power plant CO2 emissions were 4 percent lower

than 1990 levels, and 25 percent percent lower than their

peak in 2007. Some of the factors driving this longer-term

trend include energy efficiency improvements and the

displacement of coal by natural gas and renewable

energy resources.

• Mercury air emissions from power plants (as reported to

the TRI database) have decreased 90 percent since

2000. The first-ever federal limits on mercury and other

hazardous air pollutants from coal-fired power plants went

into effect in 2015.

3

Download plant level data from the 2019

Benchmarking Air Emissions report at:

www.mjbradley.com

Electricity in the United States

The electricity sector in the United States includes a

wide array of companies that produce and distribute

electricity to homes and offices, industrial facilities,

and other customers. The services it provides are

essential to the growth and functioning of the U.S.

economy. In 2018, electricity accounted for almost

40 percent* of primary energy use in the United

States, and its share of energy supply is expected to

increase in the coming decades with the

electrification of transportation and other end-uses.

*U.S. EIA Monthly Energy Review, March 2019





June 2019

Benchmarking Analytical Resources

The Benchmarking Report now includes a series of interactive, web-

based dashboards to further visualize the emissions and electricity

generation from power producers in the United States. These tools

provide insight into how facility- and company-level emissions and

generation are changing over time by utilizing historical Benchmarking

data (2008-2017). Data include:

Environmental: Company-specific emissions and emission rates by

company type and pollutant

Operational: Electricity generation and relevant data aggregated by

company type, company, and other metrics

Locational: Facility-level emissions and generation visualized by fuel

type, company ownership, and other metrics

These tools are available at www.mjbradley.com.

4

Environmental

LocationalOperational





June 2019

Section I

U.S. Electric Sector Highlights

5




June 2019

U.S. Generation by Fuel Type

• In 2018, the U.S. electric system continued

its general shift away from coal toward lower-

and zero-emitting sources. For the second

consecutive year, natural gas was the

leading source of electricity generation in the

U.S. (35 percent), followed by coal (27

percent).

• Nuclear plants accounted for 19 percent,

hydroelectric resources 7 percent, and oil-

fired resources <1 percent. Non-hydroelectric

renewables: wind, solar, and geothermal,

accounted for 9 percent of total U.S.

generation.

• Other fuel sources such as biomass,

municipal solid waste, tire-derived fuel,

manufactured and waste gases, etc.,

accounted for 2 percent.

• This is a significant shift from the generation

mix a decade ago. In 2006, coal accounted

for 49 percent of power production, while

natural gas generated only 20 percent.

6

Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration. Electric Power Monthly, Tables 1.1 and 1.1A. March 2019.

U.S. Electricity Generation by Fuel Type (2018)

Zero-Carbon Generation in the United States

In 2017, renewables and other zero-carbon resources

generated more than 35% of U.S. electricity, making it the

leading source of power generation for the first time. Natural

gas was second (32.1%) and coal was third (29.8%). Of the

zero-carbon resources, nuclear made up 56.3%, renewables

22.6%, and hydro 21.1%.




June 2019

Share of Emissions by Sector

7

Share of Emissions: U.S. Electric Sector and Other Sectors

Carbon Dioxide

(CO2)

Sulfur Dioxide

(SO2)

Nitrogen Oxides

(NOx)

Mercury

(Hg)

Other Sectors

Electric Sector

Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Air Emissions Inventory for Criteria Air Pollutants (March 2019). TRI National Analysis (October 2018).

Note: Mercury emissions reflect those reported to EPA TRI




June 2019

Section II

Emissions of the 100 Largest Electric Power Producers

8




June 2019

RANK PRODUCER NAME

2017 MWh

(million) RANK PRODUCER NAME

2017 MWh


2017 MWh


2017 MWh

(million)

1 Duke 221.4 26 PPL 34.5 51 IDACORP 14.9 76 Austin Energy 9.4

2 Exelon 194.7 27 Salt River Project 29.8 52 General Electric 14.9 77 Buckeye Pow er 9.4

3 Southern 192.5 28 New York Pow er Authority 27.8 53 EDP 14.6 78 J-Pow er 9.4

4 NextEra Energy 185.1 29 Pinnacle West 26.3 54 Low er CO River Authority 14.0 79 PUD No 1 of Chelan County 9.2

5 Tennessee Valley Authority 134.1 30 Oglethorpe 26.2 55 Brookfield 13.8 80 Tenaska 9.0

6 Entergy 121.7 31 EDF 26.0 56 Portland General Electric 13.0 81 Dow Chemical 9.0

7 Dynegy 117.3 32 CPS Energy 24.0 57 PNM Resources 13.0 82 El Paso Electric 9.0

8 Berkshire Hathaw ay Energy 113.3 33 Emera 23.7 58 The Carlyle Group 13.0 83 Algonquin Pow er 8.8

9 Dominion 102.2 34 AES 23.0 59 Municipal Elec. Auth. of GA 12.3 84 Great River Energy 8.5

10 AEP 102.0 35 Ares 22.6 60 JEA 12.2 85 Energy Northw est 8.4

11 NRG 97.4 36 Westar 22.5 61 Fortis 11.8 86 Intermountain Pow er Agency 8.4

12 Calpine 94.2 37 Great Plains Energy 22.0 62 NiSource 11.5 87 International Paper 8.3

13 Vistra Energy 89.2 38 SCANA 22.0 63 Seminole Electric Coop 11.0 88 Sempra 7.9

14 US Corps of Engineers 76.5 39 CMS Energy 21.7 64 Exxon Mobil 10.8 89 Enel 7.8

15 FirstEnergy 76.2 40 Panda Pow er Funds 21.5 65 Omaha Public Pow er District 10.8 90 Avista 7.4

16 Xcel 71.8 41 Alliant Energy 19.8 66 Puget Holdings 10.7 91 NC Public Pow er 7.4

17 PSEG 52.3 42 Basin Electric Pow er Coop 19.6 67 CLECO 10.4 92 East Kentucky Pow er Coop 7.4

18 Riverstone 50.0 43 OGE 18.5 68 ALLETE 10.3 93 Sacramento Municipal Util Dist 7.3

19 US Bureau of Reclamation 46.5 44 Santee Cooper 18.0 69 Occidental 10.1 94 Energy Capital Partners 7.1

20 Ameren 41.1 45 Avangrid 17.8 70 E.ON 9.9 95 Southern California P P A 6.8

21 DTE Energy 40.4 46 The Blackstone Group 16.8 71 Los Angeles City 9.8 96 Oaktree Capital 6.5

22 ArcLight Capital 39.8 47 Edison International 15.9 72 Arkansas Electric Coop 9.8 97 BP 6.5

23 LS Pow er 37.6 48 NE Public Pow er District 15.9 73 Starw ood Energy 9.7 98 Florida Municipal Pow er Agency 6.4

24 WEC Energy Group 35.5 49 Associated Electric Coop 15.7 74 PUD No 2 of Grant County 9.7 99 Seattle City Light 6.4

25 PG&E 34.8 50 Invenergy 14.9 75 Tri-State 9.6 100 Pow erSouth Energy Coop 6.3

The 100 Largest Electric Power Producers

9

The report examines and compares the stack air pollutant emissions of the 100 largest power producers in the United States based on their 2017 generation,

plant ownership, and emissions data. The table below lists the 100 largest power producers featured in this report ranked by their total electricity generation

from fossil fuel, nuclear, and renewable energy facilities. These producers include public and private entities (collectively referred to as “companies” or

“producers” in this report) that own roughly 3,000 power plants and account for 84 percent of reported electric generation and 86 percent of the industry’s

reported emissions.1

The report focuses on four power plant pollutants for which public emissions data are available: sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOx), mercury (Hg), and

carbon dioxide (CO2). At sufficient concentrations, these pollutants are associated with significant environmental and public health problems, including acid

deposition, mercury deposition, nitrogen deposition, global warming, ground-level ozone, regional haze, and/or fine particle air pollution, which can lead to

asthma and other respiratory illnesses. The report benchmarks, or ranks, each company’s absolute emissions and its emission rate (determined by dividing

emissions by electricity produced) for each pollutant.

The 100 largest power producers emitted in aggregate approximately 1.15 million tons of SO2, 0.89 million tons of NOx, 4 tons of mercury, and 1.64 billion tons

of CO2.




June 2019

-50

0

50

100

150

200

250

Duke

Exe

lon

So

uth

ern

NextE

ra E

nerg

yT

en

ne

ssee

Va

lley A

uth

ority

En

terg

yD

yne

gy

Be

rksh

ire

Hath

aw

ay E

nerg

yD

om

inio

nA

EP

NR

GC

alp

ine

Vis

tra E

ne

rgy

US

Co

rps o

f E

ngin

eers

FirstE

ne

rgy

Xce

lP

SE

GR

ivers

ton

eU

S B

ure

au o

f R

ecla

ma

tion

Am

ere

nD

TE

Energ

yA

rcLig

ht

Ca

pita

lLS

Po

wer

WE

C E

nerg

y G

roup

PG

&E

PP

LS

alt R

iver

Pro

ject

New

York

Po

we

r A

uth

ority

Pin

nacle

We

st

Og

leth

orp

eE

DF

CP

S E

ne

rgy

Em

era

AE

SA

res

Westa

rG

rea

t P

lain

s E

nerg

yS

CA

NA

CM

S E

nerg

yP

and

a P

ow

er

Fu

nds

Allia

nt E

nerg

yB

asin

Ele

ctr

ic P

ow

er

Co

op

OG

ES

ante

e C

oop

er

Ava

ng

rid

The

Bla

cksto

ne G

roup

Ed

ison I

nte

rna

tiona

lN

E P

ub

lic P

ow

er

Dis

tric

tA

sso

cia

ted E

lectr

ic C

oop

Inven

erg

yID

AC

OR

PG

ene

ral E

lectr

icE

DP

Lo

wer

CO

Riv

er

Au

thority

Bro

okfield

Po

rtla

nd

Ge

ne

ral E

lectr

icP

NM

Reso

urc

es

The

Carl

yle

Gro

up

Mun

icip

al E

lec. A

uth

. of

GA

JE

AF

ort

isN

iSou

rce

Se

min

ole

Ele

ctr

ic C

oo

pE

xxo

n M

obil

Om

ah

a P

ub

lic P

ow

er

Dis

tric

tP

uge

t H

old

ings

CLE

CO

AL

LE

TE

Occid

enta

lE

.ON

Lo

s A

nge

les C

ity

Ark

an

sas E

lectr

ic C

oo

pS

tarw

ood

En

erg

yP

UD

No 2

of G

ran

t C

ounty

Tri-S

tate

Au

stin E

ne

rgy

Bu

ckeye

Po

we

rJ-P

ow

er

PU

D N

o 1

of C

he

lan C

oun

tyT

en

aska

Dow

Che

mic

al

El P

aso

Ele

ctr

icA

lgonq

uin

Po

we

rG

rea

t R

iver

En

erg

yE

nerg

y N

ort

hw

est

Inte

rmou

nta

in P

ow

er

Ag

en

cy

Inte

rna

tion

al P

ape

rS

em

pra

En

el

Avis

taN

C P

ublic P

ow

er

Ea

st K

entu

cky P

ow

er

Coo

pS

acra

mento

Mun

icip

al U

til D

ist

En

erg

y C

apita

l P

art

ners

So

uth

ern

Ca

liforn

ia P

P A

Oa

ktr

ee C

apita

lB

PF

lori

da M

unic

ipa

l P

ow

er

Age

ncy

Se

att

le C

ity L

ight

Po

werS

ou

th E

nerg

y C

oop

Rankings by Generation

10

Generation of the 100 Largest Power Producers by Fuel Type (2017)(million MWh)

Renewable/Other

Hydro

Nuclear

Oil

Natural Gas

Coal

Breakdown of ownership categories provided on Endnotes slide: privately/investor owned public power cooperative




June 2019

-50

0

50

100

150

200

250

Exe

lon

NextE

ra E

nerg

yD

uke

US

Co

rps o

f E

ngin

eers

Ten

ne

ssee

Va

lley A

uth

ority

En

terg

yD

om

inio

nS

outh

ern

US

Bure

au o

f R

ecla

ma

tion

Be

rksh

ire

Hath

aw

ay E

nerg

yF

irstE

ne

rgy

PS

EG

PG

&E

ED

FN

ew

York

Po

we

r A

uth

ority

AE

PR

ivers

ton

eX

ce

lN

RG

Vis

tra E

ne

rgy

Ava

ng

rid

ED

PB

roo

kfield

Ed

ison I

nte

rna

tiona

lO

gle

thorp

eD

TE

Energ

yA

mere

nP

innacle

We

st

E.O

NP

UD

No 2

of G

ran

t C

ounty

Inven

erg

yP

UD

No 1

of C

he

lan C

oun

tyID

AC

OR

PC

PS

Ene

rgy

En

erg

y N

ort

hw

est

En

el

NC

Pu

blic P

ow

er

NE

Pub

lic P

ow

er

Dis

tric

tM

un

icip

al E

lec. A

uth

. of

GA

Se

att

le C

ity L

ight

Westa

rS

alt R

iver

Pro

ject

Calp

ine

Arc

Lig

ht

Ca

pita

lG

rea

t P

lain

s E

nerg

yE

l P

aso

Ele

ctr

icS

CA

NA

Se

mp

ra BP

Avis

taA

LLE

TE

PN

M R

eso

urc

es

Au

stin E

ne

rgy

Po

rtla

nd

Ge

ne

ral E

lectr

icLo

s A

nge

les C

ity

Alg

onq

uin

Po

we

rA

ES

Sa

cra

mento

Mun

icip

al U

til D

ist

En

erg

y C

apita

l P

art

ners

Ge

ne

ral E

lectr

icS

tarw

ood

En

erg

yS

ante

e C

oop

er

Pu

ge

t H

old

ings

Allia

nt E

nerg

yS

outh

ern

Ca

liforn

ia P

P A

WE

C E

nerg

y G

roup

OG

ELS

Po

wer

CM

S E

nerg

yB

asin

Ele

ctr

ic P

ow

er

Co

op

Flo

rida M

unic

ipa

l P

ow

er

Age

ncy

Ten

aska

Ark

an

sas E

lectr

ic C

oo

pP

PL

Lo

wer

CO

Riv

er

Au

thority

Fort

isT

ri-S

tate

Em

era

NiS

ou

rce

Are

sP

ow

erS

ou

th E

nerg

y C

oop

Inte

rna

tion

al P

ape

rE

ast K

entu

cky P

ow

er

Coo

pD

yne

gy

Pa

nd

a P

ow

er

Fu

nds

The

Bla

cksto

ne G

roup

Asso

cia

ted E

lectr

ic C

oop

The

Carl

yle

Gro

up

JE

AS

em

inole

Ele

ctr

ic C

oo

pE

xxo

n M

obil

Om

ah

a P

ub

lic P

ow

er

Dis

tric

tC

LE

CO

Occid

enta

lB

uckeye

Po

we

rJ-P

ow

er

Dow

Che

mic

al

Gre

at R

iver

En

erg

yIn

term

ou

nta

in P

ow

er

Ag

en

cy

Oa

ktr

ee C

apita

l

83 of the Top 100 power producers

generated power from zero-carbon

resources in 2017, accounting for 89

percent of the national total generated

from resources including nuclear, hydro,

and renewables.

Rankings by Zero-Carbon Generation

11

Zero-Carbon Generation of the 100 Largest Power Producers (2017)(million MWh)





June 2019

Emission Rankings

12

Important Note on Emission Rankings

The Benchmarking Report presents generation and emissions information of power producers, not distribution utilities that deliver electricity to customers. In

order to apply a uniform methodology to all power producers, the Report assigns electricity generation and associated emissions to power producers according

to their known generating asset ownership as of December 31, 2017.

The above is true even when a producer’s generating facilities are part of one or more contractual agreements (e.g., power purchase contracts, etc.) with other

entities (often utilities). In other words, this Report attributes all generation and emissions to the owner of an asset, not to purchasers of the asset’s output or to

counterparties to the contracts. Publicly available data do not allow the accurate and exhaustive tracking of such agreements.

There are a host of reasons why a company’s generation profile may differ from that of the electricity it delivers to customers. For example, rural cooperatives,

which are non-profit entities and are thus generally unable to directly take advantage of renewable tax credits, tend to rely on power purchase agreements and

other non-asset owning mechanisms to deliver renewable electricity to their customers.

A vertically integrated utility that owns a large fossil generating fleet, but also delivers purchased renewable electricity to its customers, might have lower

average emission rates than the level attributed in this report to the power producer that owns the said fossil fleet, if the renewable energy purchases were

factored into the utility’s performance. By the same token, the utility’s emissions or emission rate would increase if it contracted with a higher emitting facility or

relied on market purchases with associated emissions.

The charts in the next few slides present both the total emissions by company as well as their average emission rates. The evaluation of

emissions performance by both emission levels and emission rates provides a more complete picture of relative emissions performance than

viewing these measures in isolation. Total emission levels are useful for understanding each producer’s contribution to overall emissions

loading, while emission rates are useful for assessing how electric power producers compare according to emissions per unit of energy

produced when size is eliminated as a performance factor.

The charts illustrate significant differences in the total emission levels and emission rates of the 100 largest power producers. For example, the

tons of CO2 emissions range from zero to over 104 million tons per year. The NOx emission rates range from zero to 2.3 pounds per megawatt

hour of generation. A power producer’s total emissions are influenced by the amount of generation that the producer owns and by the fuels and

technologies that it uses to generate electricity.




June 2019

SO2

(million ton)

NOx

(million ton)

Mercury (Hg) (ton)

CO2

(billion ton)

100% 1.35 1.09 5.02 1.93

86% 83% 80% 85%

75% 27 45 42 47

50% 10 16 12 16

25% 3 5 3 5

100 largest producers

No. of producers

Perc

ent of in

dustr

y e

mis

sio

ns

Emission Contributions

13

Air pollution emissions from power plants are highly concentrated among a small number of

producers. For example, nearly a quarter of the electric power industry’s SO2 and CO2

emissions are emitted by just three and five top 100 producers, respectively.




June 2019

0

1

2

3

PN

M R

eso

urc

es

Tri-S

tate

Inte

rmou

nta

in P

ow

er

Ag

en

cy

Asso

cia

ted E

lectr

ic C

oop

US

Bure

au o

f R

ecla

ma

tion

Ark

an

sas E

lectr

ic C

oo

pP

innacle

We

st

NE

Pub

lic P

ow

er

Dis

tric

tJE

AO

mah

a P

ub

lic P

ow

er

Dis

tric

tA

lgonq

uin

Po

we

rE

nerg

y C

apita

l P

art

ners

AE

SG

rea

t R

iver

En

erg

yE

l P

aso

Ele

ctr

icF

ort

isB

asin

Ele

ctr

ic P

ow

er

Co

op

FirstE

ne

rgy

DT

E E

nerg

yB

erk

sh

ire

Hath

aw

ay E

nerg

yS

alt R

iver

Pro

ject

Inte

rna

tion

al P

ape

rA

EP

OG

EN

iSou

rce

Gre

at P

lain

s E

nerg

yA

LLE

TE

Westa

rA

mere

nP

uge

t H

old

ings

IDA

CO

RP

PP

LA

llia

nt E

nerg

yA

ustin E

ne

rgy

Xce

lE

nte

rgy

Ten

ne

ssee

Va

lley A

uth

ority

Vis

tra E

ne

rgy

Bu

ckeye

Po

we

rD

uke

Ge

ne

ral E

lectr

icP

ow

erS

ou

th E

nerg

y C

oop

Avis

taE

ast K

entu

cky P

ow

er

Coo

pR

ivers

ton

eN

RG

CP

S E

ne

rgy

Po

rtla

nd

Ge

ne

ral E

lectr

icW

EC

En

erg

y G

roup

Mun

icip

al E

lec. A

uth

. of

GA

Lo

wer

CO

Riv

er

Au

thority

CLE

CO

SC

AN

AD

yne

gy

Arc

Lig

ht

Ca

pita

lC

MS

En

erg

yS

ante

e C

oop

er

So

uth

ern

The

Bla

cksto

ne G

roup

Og

leth

orp

eF

lori

da M

unic

ipa

l P

ow

er

Age

ncy

Se

min

ole

Ele

ctr

ic C

oo

pA

res

Dom

inio

nP

SE

GE

mera

LS

Po

wer

NextE

ra E

nerg

yB

roo

kfield

J-P

ow

er

Exe

lon

Calp

ine

Dow

Che

mic

al

New

York

Po

we

r A

uth

ority

Ava

ng

rid

The

Carl

yle

Gro

up

Occid

enta

lS

tarw

ood

En

erg

yT

en

aska

Oa

ktr

ee C

apita

lIn

ven

erg

yE

xxo

n M

obil

BP

Se

mp

raS

outh

ern

Ca

liforn

ia P

P A

Lo

s A

nge

les C

ity

Pa

nd

a P

ow

er

Fu

nds

Ed

ison I

nte

rna

tiona

lP

G&

ES

acra

mento

Mun

icip

al U

til D

ist

US

Co

rps o

f E

ngin

eers

ED

FE

DP

E.O

NP

UD

No 2

of G

ran

t C

ounty

PU

D N

o 1

of C

he

lan C

oun

tyE

nerg

y N

ort

hw

est

En

el

NC

Pu

blic P

ow

er

Se

att

le C

ity L

ight

0

20

40

60

80

Oil

Natural Gas

Coal

NO

x –

‘00

0 t

on

(fossil

fuel genera

ting f

acili

ties)

NO

x –

lb/M

Wh

(fossil

fuel genera

ting f

acili

ties)

NOx: Total Emissions and Emission Rates

14


Note: 10

companies

report zero

NOx

emissions*

*companies with zero emissions are ordered based on total generation

Sorted from highest to lowest by emission rate




June 2019

0

1

2

3

Duke

AE

PB

erk

sh

ire

Hath

aw

ay E

nerg

yD

yne

gy

So

uth

ern

Vis

tra E

ne

rgy

NR

GF

irstE

ne

rgy

En

terg

yT

en

ne

ssee

Va

lley A

uth

ority

Xce

lD

TE

Energ

yP

PL

Am

ere

nA

sso

cia

ted E

lectr

ic C

oop

AE

SS

alt R

iver

Pro

ject

Pin

nacle

We

st

Ba

sin

Ele

ctr

ic P

ow

er

Co

op

Riv

ers

ton

eP

NM

Reso

urc

es

WE

C E

nerg

y G

roup

NextE

ra E

nerg

yJE

AO

GE

Dom

inio

nT

ri-S

tate

Om

ah

a P

ub

lic P

ow

er

Dis

tric

tG

rea

t P

lain

s E

nerg

yA

rcLig

ht

Ca

pita

lIn

term

ou

nta

in P

ow

er

Ag

en

cy

Ark

an

sas E

lectr

ic C

oo

pW

esta

rA

llia

nt E

nerg

yF

ort

isN

E P

ub

lic P

ow

er

Dis

tric

tN

iSou

rce

Gre

at R

iver

En

erg

yS

CA

NA

CP

S E

ne

rgy

Calp

ine

Ge

ne

ral E

lectr

icC

MS

En

erg

yLo

wer

CO

Riv

er

Au

thority

Alg

onq

uin

Po

we

rA

res

LS

Po

wer

The

Bla

cksto

ne G

roup

Pu

ge

t H

old

ings

Bu

ckeye

Po

we

rO

gle

thorp

eS

ante

e C

oop

er

Po

rtla

nd

Ge

ne

ral E

lectr

icA

LLE

TE

PS

EG

US

Bure

au o

f R

ecla

ma

tion

Em

era

IDA

CO

RP

CLE

CO

Au

stin E

ne

rgy

Ea

st K

entu

cky P

ow

er

Coo

pE

l P

aso

Ele

ctr

icS

em

inole

Ele

ctr

ic C

oo

pP

ow

erS

ou

th E

nerg

y C

oop

Mun

icip

al E

lec. A

uth

. of

GA

Exe

lon

Flo

rida M

unic

ipa

l P

ow

er

Age

ncy

Avis

taIn

tern

ation

al P

ape

rJ-P

ow

er

The

Carl

yle

Gro

up

Occid

enta

lD

ow

Che

mic

al

Pa

nd

a P

ow

er

Fu

nds

Ten

aska

Exxo

n M

obil

Sta

rwo

od

En

erg

yE

nerg

y C

apita

l P

art

ners

Oa

ktr

ee C

apita

lIn

ven

erg

yN

ew

York

Po

we

r A

uth

ority

Lo

s A

nge

les C

ity

So

uth

ern

Ca

liforn

ia P

P A

Ava

ng

rid

PG

&E

Se

mp

raE

dis

on I

nte

rna

tiona

lB

PS

acra

mento

Mun

icip

al U

til D

ist

Bro

okfield

US

Co

rps o

f E

ngin

eers

ED

FE

DP

E.O

NP

UD

No 2

of G

ran

t C

ounty

PU

D N

o 1

of C

he

lan C

oun

tyE

nerg

y N

ort

hw

est

En

el

NC

Pu

blic P

ow

er

Se

att

le C

ity L

ight

0

20

40

60

80

Oil

Natural Gas

Coal

NO

x –

‘00

0 t

on

(fossil

fuel genera

ting f

acili

ties)

NO

x –

lb/M

Wh

(fossil

fuel genera

ting f

acili

ties)

NOx: Total Emissions and Emission Rates

15


Note: 10

companies

report zero

NOx

emissions*


Sorted from highest to lowest by total emission




June 2019

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

NE

Pub

lic P

ow

er

Dis

tric

tO

mah

a P

ub

lic P

ow

er

Dis

tric

tV

istr

a E

ne

rgy

Am

ere

nA

rkan

sas E

lectr

ic C

oo

pO

GE

DT

E E

nerg

yA

sso

cia

ted E

lectr

ic C

oop

En

erg

y C

apita

l P

art

ners

Ba

sin

Ele

ctr

ic P

ow

er

Co

op

Bu

ckeye

Po

we

rN

RG

AE

PF

irstE

ne

rgy

CP

S E

ne

rgy

CLE

CO

Xce

lT

en

ne

ssee

Va

lley A

uth

ority

Gre

at R

iver

En

erg

yT

he

Bla

cksto

ne G

roup

Arc

Lig

ht

Ca

pita

lA

llia

nt E

nerg

yA

lgonq

uin

Po

we

rA

ES

IDA

CO

RP

Gre

at P

lain

s E

nerg

yD

yne

gy

Be

rksh

ire

Hath

aw

ay E

nerg

yE

nte

rgy

Riv

ers

ton

eE

ast K

entu

cky P

ow

er

Coo

pP

PL

Tri-S

tate

Se

min

ole

Ele

ctr

ic C

oo

pG

ene

ral E

lectr

icA

LLE

TE

Po

rtla

nd

Ge

ne

ral E

lectr

icF

ort

isP

NM

Reso

urc

es

Pu

ge

t H

old

ings

US

Bure

au o

f R

ecla

ma

tion

JE

AD

uke

PS

EG

CM

S E

nerg

yA

vis

taIn

term

ou

nta

in P

ow

er

Ag

en

cy

WE

C E

nerg

y G

roup

Pin

nacle

We

st

NiS

ou

rce

Westa

rS

alt R

iver

Pro

ject

Sa

nte

e C

oop

er

Em

era

Po

werS

ou

th E

nerg

y C

oop

Are

sS

CA

NA

Flo

rida M

unic

ipa

l P

ow

er

Age

ncy

So

uth

ern

Mun

icip

al E

lec. A

uth

. of

GA

Dom

inio

nO

gle

thorp

eLo

wer

CO

Riv

er

Au

thority

Au

stin E

ne

rgy

LS

Po

wer

NextE

ra E

nerg

yE

xe

lon

J-P

ow

er

New

York

Po

we

r A

uth

ority

Dow

Che

mic

al

El P

aso

Ele

ctr

icT

he

Carl

yle

Gro

up

Calp

ine

BP

Bro

okfield

Oa

ktr

ee C

apita

lLo

s A

nge

les C

ity

Ten

aska

Ava

ng

rid

Ed

ison I

nte

rna

tiona

lS

em

pra

Sta

rwo

od

En

erg

yS

outh

ern

Ca

liforn

ia P

P A

PG

&E

Pa

nd

a P

ow

er

Fu

nds

Inven

erg

yE

xxo

n M

obil

Sa

cra

mento

Mun

icip

al U

til D

ist

Occid

enta

lU

S C

orp

s o

f E

ngin

eers

ED

FE

DP

E.O

NP

UD

No 2

of G

ran

t C

ounty

PU

D N

o 1

of C

he

lan C

oun

tyE

nerg

y N

ort

hw

est

Inte

rna

tion

al P

ape

rE

nel

NC

Pu

blic P

ow

er

Se

att

le C

ity L

ight

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Oil

Natural Gas

Coal

SO2: Total Emissions and Emission Rates

16


SO

2–

‘00

0 t

on

(fossil

fuel genera

ting f

acili

ties)

SO

2–

lb/M

Wh

(fossil

fuel genera

ting f

acili

ties)

Note: 11

companies report

zero SO2

emissions*






June 2019

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Vis

tra E

ne

rgy

NR

GA

EP

Dyne

gy

Am

ere

nD

uke

Ten

ne

ssee

Va

lley A

uth

ority

Be

rksh

ire

Hath

aw

ay E

nerg

yD

TE

Energ

yX

ce

lE

nte

rgy

FirstE

ne

rgy

OG

EA

rcLig

ht

Ca

pita

lO

mah

a P

ub

lic P

ow

er

Dis

tric

tA

sso

cia

ted E

lectr

ic C

oop

NE

Pub

lic P

ow

er

Dis

tric

tS

outh

ern

Ba

sin

Ele

ctr

ic P

ow

er

Co

op

PP

LR

ivers

ton

eA

rkan

sas E

lectr

ic C

oo

pA

ES

The

Bla

cksto

ne G

roup

Allia

nt E

nerg

yC

PS

Ene

rgy

Gre

at P

lain

s E

nerg

yB

uckeye

Po

we

rW

EC

En

erg

y G

roup

PS

EG

Gre

at R

iver

En

erg

yD

om

inio

nC

LE

CO

CM

S E

nerg

yG

ene

ral E

lectr

icS

em

inole

Ele

ctr

ic C

oo

pS

alt R

iver

Pro

ject

Tri-S

tate

Em

era

Fort

isJE

AP

innacle

We

st

Po

rtla

nd

Ge

ne

ral E

lectr

icID

AC

OR

PA

lgonq

uin

Po

we

rE

ast K

entu

cky P

ow

er

Coo

pW

esta

rA

res

PN

M R

eso

urc

es

Sa

nte

e C

oop

er

Pu

ge

t H

old

ings

AL

LE

TE

NiS

ou

rce

SC

AN

AIn

term

ou

nta

in P

ow

er

Ag

en

cy

NextE

ra E

nerg

yLS

Po

wer

Og

leth

orp

eU

S B

ure

au o

f R

ecla

ma

tion

Po

werS

ou

th E

nerg

y C

oop

Lo

wer

CO

Riv

er

Au

thority

Avis

taF

lori

da M

unic

ipa

l P

ow

er

Age

ncy

Mun

icip

al E

lec. A

uth

. of

GA

En

erg

y C

apita

l P

art

ners

Exe

lon

Au

stin E

ne

rgy

Calp

ine

J-P

ow

er

Dow

Che

mic

al

Pa

nd

a P

ow

er

Fu

nds

The

Carl

yle

Gro

up

New

York

Po

we

r A

uth

ority

Ten

aska

Oa

ktr

ee C

apita

lS

tarw

ood

En

erg

yLo

s A

nge

les C

ity

Exxo

n M

obil

El P

aso

Ele

ctr

icP

G&

ES

outh

ern

Ca

liforn

ia P

P A

Inven

erg

yE

dis

on I

nte

rna

tiona

lS

em

pra

BP

Ava

ng

rid

Sa

cra

mento

Mun

icip

al U

til D

ist

Occid

enta

lB

roo

kfield

US

Co

rps o

f E

ngin

eers

ED

FE

DP

E.O

NP

UD

No 2

of G

ran

t C

ounty

PU

D N

o 1

of C

he

lan C

oun

tyE

nerg

y N

ort

hw

est

Inte

rna

tion

al P

ape

rE

nel

NC

Pu

blic P

ow

er

Se

att

le C

ity L

ight

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Oil

Natural Gas

Coal

SO2: Total Emissions and Emission Rates

17


SO

2–

‘00

0 t

on

(fossil

fuel genera

ting f

acili

ties)

SO

2–

lb/M

Wh

(fossil

fuel genera

ting f

acili

ties)

Note: 11

companies report

zero SO2

emissions*






June 2019

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

Ba

sin

Ele

ctr

ic P

ow

er

Co

op

Om

ah

a P

ub

lic P

ow

er

Dis

tric

tT

ri-S

tate

Gre

at R

iver

En

erg

yB

uckeye

Po

we

rE

ast K

entu

cky P

ow

er

Coo

pIn

term

ou

nta

in P

ow

er

Ag

en

cy

PP

LN

iSou

rce

Ark

an

sas E

lectr

ic C

oo

pA

ES

Asso

cia

ted E

lectr

ic C

oop

Fort

isW

EC

En

erg

y G

roup

Se

min

ole

Ele

ctr

ic C

oo

pA

mere

nO

GE

Lo

wer

CO

Riv

er

Au

thority

JE

AW

esta

rA

llia

nt E

nerg

yA

EP

Gre

at P

lain

s E

nerg

yC

LE

CO

DT

E E

nerg

yV

istr

a E

ne

rgy

Dyne

gy

PN

M R

eso

urc

es

CM

S E

nerg

yS

ante

e C

oop

er

Sa

lt R

iver

Pro

ject

The

Bla

cksto

ne G

roup

NR

GA

LLE

TE

Xce

lP

ow

erS

ou

th E

nerg

y C

oop

Arc

Lig

ht

Ca

pita

lP

uge

t H

old

ings

FirstE

ne

rgy

Be

rksh

ire

Hath

aw

ay E

nerg

yA

ustin E

ne

rgy

Em

era

Ge

ne

ral E

lectr

icN

E P

ub

lic P

ow

er

Dis

tric

tS

CA

NA

CP

S E

ne

rgy

LS

Po

wer

So

uth

ern

Flo

rida M

unic

ipa

l P

ow

er

Age

ncy

Po

rtla

nd

Ge

ne

ral E

lectr

icR

ivers

ton

eA

res

Pin

nacle

We

st

Duke

Alg

onq

uin

Po

we

rJ-P

ow

er

The

Carl

yle

Gro

up

Pa

nd

a P

ow

er

Fu

nds

Ten

aska

Og

leth

orp

eD

ow

Che

mic

al

Oa

ktr

ee C

apita

lC

alp

ine

Ten

ne

ssee

Va

lley A

uth

ority

IDA

CO

RP

Occid

enta

lE

xxo

n M

obil

Mun

icip

al E

lec. A

uth

. of

GA

Sta

rwo

od

En

erg

yD

om

inio

nA

vis

taE

nte

rgy

So

uth

ern

Ca

liforn

ia P

P A

Lo

s A

nge

les C

ity

El P

aso

Ele

ctr

icS

acra

mento

Mun

icip

al U

til D

ist

PS

EG

NextE

ra E

nerg

yS

em

pra

BP

Inven

erg

yE

dis

on I

nte

rna

tiona

lE

nerg

y C

apita

l P

art

ners

US

Bure

au o

f R

ecla

ma

tion

Inte

rna

tion

al P

ape

rP

G&

EN

ew

York

Po

we

r A

uth

ority

Ava

ng

rid

Exe

lon

Bro

okfield

NC

Pu

blic P

ow

er

US

Co

rps o

f E

ngin

eers

ED

FE

DP

E.O

NP

UD

No 2

of G

ran

t C

ounty

PU

D N

o 1

of C

he

lan C

oun

tyE

nerg

y N

ort

hw

est

En

el

Se

att

le C

ity L

ight

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Other

Oil

Natural Gas

Coal

CO2: Total Emissions and Emission Rates

18


CO

2–

mil

lio

n t

on

(all

genera

ting f

acili

ties)

CO

2–

lb/M

Wh

(all

genera

ting f

acili

ties)

Note: 9

companies

report zero

CO2

emissions**

*includes wood/biomass, black liquor, MSW, landfill gas, and petroleum coke, among others

**companies with zero emissions are ordered based on total generation


*




June 2019

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

Duke

So

uth

ern

Dyne

gy

AE

PB

erk

sh

ire

Hath

aw

ay E

nerg

yV

istr

a E

ne

rgy

NR

GT

en

ne

ssee

Va

lley A

uth

ority

Xce

lF

irstE

ne

rgy

NextE

ra E

nerg

yC

alp

ine

En

terg

yA

mere

nP

PL

Dom

inio

nD

TE

Energ

yW

EC

En

erg

y G

roup

Arc

Lig

ht

Ca

pita

lR

ivers

ton

eS

alt R

iver

Pro

ject

Ba

sin

Ele

ctr

ic P

ow

er

Co

op

AE

SLS

Po

wer

Westa

rG

rea

t P

lain

s E

nerg

yC

MS

En

erg

yA

llia

nt E

nerg

yO

GE

Asso

cia

ted E

lectr

ic C

oop

Em

era

CP

S E

ne

rgy

Sa

nte

e C

oop

er

Pin

nacle

We

st

SC

AN

AP

SE

GT

he

Bla

cksto

ne G

roup

Lo

wer

CO

Riv

er

Au

thority

Om

ah

a P

ub

lic P

ow

er

Dis

tric

tA

res

Og

leth

orp

eN

iSou

rce

Fort

isE

xe

lon

Tri-S

tate

JE

AP

NM

Reso

urc

es

Bu

ckeye

Po

we

rS

em

inole

Ele

ctr

ic C

oo

pN

E P

ub

lic P

ow

er

Dis

tric

tP

and

a P

ow

er

Fu

nds

Ark

an

sas E

lectr

ic C

oo

pG

ene

ral E

lectr

icG

rea

t R

iver

En

erg

yIn

term

ou

nta

in P

ow

er

Ag

en

cy

CLE

CO

Ea

st K

entu

cky P

ow

er

Coo

pA

LLE

TE

Pu

ge

t H

old

ings

Po

rtla

nd

Ge

ne

ral E

lectr

icT

he

Carl

yle

Gro

up

Au

stin E

ne

rgy

IDA

CO

RP

J-P

ow

er

Po

werS

ou

th E

nerg

y C

oop

Mun

icip

al E

lec. A

uth

. of

GA

Alg

onq

uin

Po

we

rE

xxo

n M

obil

Ten

aska

Dow

Che

mic

al

Occid

enta

lU

S B

ure

au o

f R

ecla

ma

tion

Flo

rida M

unic

ipa

l P

ow

er

Age

ncy

Sta

rwo

od

En

erg

yLo

s A

nge

les C

ity

Oa

ktr

ee C

apita

lP

G&

EE

l P

aso

Ele

ctr

icIn

ven

erg

yA

vis

taS

outh

ern

Ca

liforn

ia P

P A

Ed

ison I

nte

rna

tiona

lS

acra

mento

Mun

icip

al U

til D

ist

New

York

Po

we

r A

uth

ority

Se

mp

raB

PA

va

ng

rid

En

erg

y C

apita

l P

art

ners

Inte

rna

tion

al P

ape

rB

roo

kfield

NC

Pu

blic P

ow

er

US

Co

rps o

f E

ngin

eers

ED

FE

DP

E.O

NP

UD

No 2

of G

ran

t C

ounty

PU

D N

o 1

of C

he

lan C

oun

tyE

nerg

y N

ort

hw

est

En

el

Se

att

le C

ity L

ight

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Other

Oil

Natural Gas

Coal

CO2: Total Emissions and Emission Rates

19


CO

2–

mil

lio

n t

on

(all

genera

ting f

acili

ties)

CO

2–

lb/M

Wh

(all

genera

ting f

acili

ties)

*ordered based on total generation

Note: 9

companies

report zero

CO2

emissions**


*

*includes wood/biomass, black liquor, MSW, landfill gas, and petroleum coke, among others

**companies with zero emissions are ordered based on total generation




June 2019

0.00

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

Gre

at R

iver

En

erg

yV

istr

a E

ne

rgy

Ba

sin

Ele

ctr

ic P

ow

er

Co

op

CLE

CO

Gre

at P

lain

s E

nerg

yC

PS

Ene

rgy

OG

EE

nte

rgy

Po

werS

ou

th E

nerg

y C

oop

JE

AA

mere

nP

uge

t H

old

ings

Avis

taLS

Po

wer

Lo

wer

CO

Riv

er

Au

thority

Au

stin E

ne

rgy

Om

ah

a P

ub

lic P

ow

er

Dis

tric

tA

res

IDA

CO

RP

NR

GX

ce

lN

iSou

rce

Riv

ers

ton

eU

S B

ure

au o

f R

ecla

ma

tion

Westa

rP

innacle

We

st

Po

rtla

nd

Ge

ne

ral E

lectr

icA

sso

cia

ted E

lectr

ic C

oop

Ark

an

sas E

lectr

ic C

oo

pN

extE

ra E

nerg

yA

EP

The

Bla

cksto

ne G

roup

FirstE

ne

rgy

Tri-S

tate

Sa

lt R

iver

Pro

ject

So

uth

ern

Em

era

En

erg

y C

apita

l P

art

ners

Og

leth

orp

eM

un

icip

al E

lec. A

uth

. of

GA

Allia

nt E

nerg

yN

E P

ub

lic P

ow

er

Dis

tric

tF

ort

isB

erk

sh

ire

Hath

aw

ay E

nerg

yF

lori

da M

unic

ipa

l P

ow

er

Age

ncy

Dyne

gy

Arc

Lig

ht

Ca

pita

lT

en

ne

ssee

Va

lley A

uth

ority

PP

LD

TE

Energ

yC

MS

En

erg

yW

EC

En

erg

y G

roup

AL

LE

TE

Bu

ckeye

Po

we

rA

ES

Dom

inio

nD

uke

Sa

nte

e C

oop

er

Ge

ne

ral E

lectr

icP

SE

GA

lgonq

uin

Po

we

rP

NM

Reso

urc

es

Ea

st K

entu

cky P

ow

er

Coo

pS

em

inole

Ele

ctr

ic C

oo

pS

CA

NA

Inte

rmou

nta

in P

ow

er

Ag

en

cy

J-P

ow

er

Exe

lon

Calp

ine

US

Co

rps o

f E

ngin

eers

PG

&E

New

York

Po

we

r A

uth

ority

ED

FP

and

a P

ow

er

Fu

nds

Ava

ng

rid

Ed

ison I

nte

rna

tiona

lIn

ven

erg

yE

DP

Bro

okfield

The

Carl

yle

Gro

up

Exxo

n M

obil

Occid

enta

lE

.ON

Lo

s A

nge

les C

ity

Sta

rwo

od

En

erg

yP

UD

No 2

of G

ran

t C

ounty

PU

D N

o 1

of C

he

lan C

oun

tyT

en

aska

Dow

Che

mic

al

El P

aso

Ele

ctr

icE

nerg

y N

ort

hw

est

Inte

rna

tion

al P

ape

rS

em

pra

En

el

NC

Pu

blic P

ow

er

Sa

cra

mento

Mun

icip

al U

til D

ist

So

uth

ern

Ca

liforn

ia P

P A

Oa

ktr

ee C

apita

lB

PS

eatt

le C

ity L

ight

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

Mercury: Total Emissions and Emission Rates

20


Me

rcu

ry –

po

un

d(c

oal pla

nts

)

Me

rcu

ry –

lb/G

Wh

(coal pla

nts

)

Note: 33 companies report zero coal mercury emissions*



0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

Duke

So

uth

ern

Dyne

gy

AE

PB

erk

sh

ire

Hath

aw

ay E

nerg

yV

istr

a E

ne

rgy

NR

GT

en

ne

ssee

Va

lley A

uth

ority

Xce

lF

irstE

ne

rgy

NextE

ra E

nerg

yC

alp

ine

En

terg

yA

mere

nP

PL

Dom

inio

nD

TE

Energ

yW

EC

En

erg

y G

roup

Arc

Lig

ht

Ca

pita

lR

ivers

ton

eS

alt R

iver

Pro

ject

Ba

sin

Ele

ctr

ic P

ow

er

Co

op

AE

SLS

Po

wer

Westa

rG

rea

t P

lain

s E

nerg

yC

MS

En

erg

yA

llia

nt E

nerg

yO

GE

Asso

cia

ted E

lectr

ic C

oop

Em

era

CP

S E

ne

rgy

Sa

nte

e C

oop

er

Pin

nacle

We

st

SC

AN

AP

SE

GT

he

Bla

cksto

ne G

roup

Lo

wer

CO

Riv

er

Au

thority

Om

ah

a P

ub

lic P

ow

er

Dis

tric

tO

gle

thorp

eN

iSou

rce

Fort

isA

res

Exe

lon

Tri-S

tate

JE

AP

NM

Reso

urc

es

Bu

ckeye

Po

we

rS

em

inole

Ele

ctr

ic C

oo

pN

E P

ub

lic P

ow

er

Dis

tric

tP

and

a P

ow

er

Fu

nds

Ark

an

sas E

lectr

ic C

oo

pG

ene

ral E

lectr

icG

rea

t R

iver

En

erg

yIn

term

ou

nta

in P

ow

er

Ag

en

cy

CLE

CO

Ea

st K

entu

cky P

ow

er

Coo

pA

LLE

TE

Pu

ge

t H

old

ings

Po

rtla

nd

Ge

ne

ral E

lectr

icT

he

Carl

yle

Gro

up

Au

stin E

ne

rgy

IDA

CO

RP

Orl

an

do U

tilities C

om

mJ-P

ow

er

Po

werS

ou

th E

nerg

y C

oop

Mun

icip

al E

lec. A

uth

. of

GA

Exxo

n M

obil

Ten

aska

Dow

Che

mic

al

Occid

enta

lU

S B

ure

au o

f R

ecla

ma

tion

Flo

rida M

unic

ipa

l P

ow

er

Age

ncy

Sta

rwo

od

En

erg

yLo

s A

nge

les C

ity

Oa

ktr

ee C

apita

lP

G&

EE

l P

aso

Ele

ctr

icIn

ven

erg

yA

vis

taS

outh

ern

Ca

liforn

ia P

P A

Ed

ison I

nte

rna

tiona

lS

acra

mento

Mun

icip

al U

til D

ist

New

York

Po

we

r A

uth

ority

Se

mp

raB

PA

va

ng

rid

En

erg

y C

apita

l P

art

ners

Inte

rna

tion

al P

ape

rB

roo

kfield

NC

Pu

blic P

ow

er

US

Co

rps o

f E

ngin

eers

ED

FE

DP

E.O

NP

UD

No 2

of G

ran

t C

ounty

PU

D N

o 1

of C

he

lan C

oun

tyE

nerg

y N

ort

hw

est

En

el

Se

att

le C

ity L

ight

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Other

Oil

Natural Gas

Coal




June 2019

0.00

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

Vis

tra E

ne

rgy

AE

PB

asin

Ele

ctr

ic P

ow

er

Co

op

So

uth

ern

NR

GG

rea

t R

iver

En

erg

yD

uke

Dyne

gy

Be

rksh

ire

Hath

aw

ay E

nerg

yA

mere

nF

irstE

ne

rgy

Xce

lG

rea

t P

lain

s E

nerg

yT

en

ne

ssee

Va

lley A

uth

ority

PP

LD

TE

Energ

yE

nte

rgy

WE

C E

nerg

y G

roup

OG

EC

PS

Ene

rgy

Westa

rR

ivers

ton

eS

alt R

iver

Pro

ject

Arc

Lig

ht

Ca

pita

lA

sso

cia

ted E

lectr

ic C

oop

Om

ah

a P

ub

lic P

ow

er

Dis

tric

tA

llia

nt E

nerg

yA

ES

Lo

wer

CO

Riv

er

Au

thority

Dom

inio

nP

innacle

We

st

Tri-S

tate

NiS

ou

rce

The

Bla

cksto

ne G

roup

Ark

an

sas E

lectr

ic C

oo

pC

MS

En

erg

yN

E P

ub

lic P

ow

er

Dis

tric

tJE

AF

ort

isB

uckeye

Po

we

rP

uge

t H

old

ings

Sa

nte

e C

oop

er

Em

era

Au

stin E

ne

rgy

LS

Po

wer

Og

leth

orp

eID

AC

OR

PA

LLE

TE

CLE

CO

NextE

ra E

nerg

yA

res

PN

M R

eso

urc

es

Po

rtla

nd

Ge

ne

ral E

lectr

icU

S B

ure

au o

f R

ecla

ma

tion

Po

werS

ou

th E

nerg

y C

oop

Ge

ne

ral E

lectr

icE

ast K

entu

cky P

ow

er

Coo

pP

SE

GM

un

icip

al E

lec. A

uth

. of

GA

SC

AN

AS

em

inole

Ele

ctr

ic C

oo

pA

vis

taA

lgonq

uin

Po

we

rF

lori

da M

unic

ipa

l P

ow

er

Age

ncy

Inte

rmou

nta

in P

ow

er

Ag

en

cy

En

erg

y C

apita

l P

art

ners

J-P

ow

er

Exe

lon

Calp

ine

US

Co

rps o

f E

ngin

eers

PG

&E

New

York

Po

we

r A

uth

ority

ED

FP

and

a P

ow

er

Fu

nds

Ava

ng

rid

Ed

ison I

nte

rna

tiona

lIn

ven

erg

yE

DP

Bro

okfield

The

Carl

yle

Gro

up

Exxo

n M

obil

Occid

enta

lE

.ON

Lo

s A

nge

les C

ity

Sta

rwo

od

En

erg

yP

UD

No 2

of G

ran

t C

ounty

PU

D N

o 1

of C

he

lan C

oun

tyT

en

aska

Dow

Che

mic

al

El P

aso

Ele

ctr

icE

nerg

y N

ort

hw

est

Inte

rna

tion

al P

ape

rS

em

pra

En

el

NC

Pu

blic P

ow

er

Sa

cra

mento

Mun

icip

al U

til D

ist

So

uth

ern

Ca

liforn

ia P

P A

Oa

ktr

ee C

apita

lB

PS

eatt

le C

ity L

ight

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

Mercury: Total Emissions and Emission Rates

21


Me

rcu

ry –

po

un

d(c

oal pla

nts

)

Me

rcu

ry –

lb/G

Wh

(coal pla

nts

)

Note: 33 companies report zero coal mercury emissions*


Sorted from highest to lowest by pounds

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

Duke

So

uth

ern

Dyne

gy

AE

PB

erk

sh

ire

Hath

aw

ay E

nerg

yV

istr

a E

ne

rgy

NR

GT

en

ne

ssee

Va

lley A

uth

ority

Xce

lF

irstE

ne

rgy

NextE

ra E

nerg

yC

alp

ine

En

terg

yA

mere

nP

PL

Dom

inio

nD

TE

Energ

yW

EC

En

erg

y G

roup

Arc

Lig

ht

Ca

pita

lR

ivers

ton

eS

alt R

iver

Pro

ject

Ba

sin

Ele

ctr

ic P

ow

er

Co

op

AE

SLS

Po

wer

Westa

rG

rea

t P

lain

s E

nerg

yC

MS

En

erg

yA

llia

nt E

nerg

yO

GE

Asso

cia

ted E

lectr

ic C

oop

Em

era

CP

S E

ne

rgy

Sa

nte

e C

oop

er

Pin

nacle

We

st

SC

AN

AP

SE

GT

he

Bla

cksto

ne G

roup

Lo

wer

CO

Riv

er

Au

thority

Om

ah

a P

ub

lic P

ow

er

Dis

tric

tO

gle

thorp

eN

iSou

rce

Fort

isA

res

Exe

lon

Tri-S

tate

JE

AP

NM

Reso

urc

es

Bu

ckeye

Po

we

rS

em

inole

Ele

ctr

ic C

oo

pN

E P

ub

lic P

ow

er

Dis

tric

tP

and

a P

ow

er

Fu

nds

Ark

an

sas E

lectr

ic C

oo

pG

ene

ral E

lectr

icG

rea

t R

iver

En

erg

yIn

term

ou

nta

in P

ow

er

Ag

en

cy

CLE

CO

Ea

st K

entu

cky P

ow

er

Coo

pA

LLE

TE

Pu

ge

t H

old

ings

Po

rtla

nd

Ge

ne

ral E

lectr

icT

he

Carl

yle

Gro

up

Au

stin E

ne

rgy

IDA

CO

RP

Orl

an

do U

tilities C

om

mJ-P

ow

er

Po

werS

ou

th E

nerg

y C

oop

Mun

icip

al E

lec. A

uth

. of

GA

Exxo

n M

obil

Ten

aska

Dow

Che

mic

al

Occid

enta

lU

S B

ure

au o

f R

ecla

ma

tion

Flo

rida M

unic

ipa

l P

ow

er

Age

ncy

Sta

rwo

od

En

erg

yLo

s A

nge

les C

ity

Oa

ktr

ee C

apita

lP

G&

EE

l P

aso

Ele

ctr

icIn

ven

erg

yA

vis

taS

outh

ern

Ca

liforn

ia P

P A

Ed

ison I

nte

rna

tiona

lS

acra

mento

Mun

icip

al U

til D

ist

New

York

Po

we

r A

uth

ority

Se

mp

raB

PA

va

ng

rid

En

erg

y C

apita

l P

art

ners

Inte

rna

tion

al P

ape

rB

roo

kfield

NC

Pu

blic P

ow

er

US

Co

rps o

f E

ngin

eers

ED

FE

DP

E.O

NP

UD

No 2

of G

ran

t C

ounty

PU

D N

o 1

of C

he

lan C

oun

tyE

nerg

y N

ort

hw

est

En

el

Se

att

le C

ity L

ight

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Other

Oil

Natural Gas

Coal




June 2019

107

456

461

596

641

796

945

979

1,034

1,043

1,233

1,238

1,300

1,376

1,425

1,520

1,557

1,563

1,619

1,696

0 400 800 1,200 1,600 2,000

Exelon (2)

NextEra Energy (4)

PSEG (17)

Entergy (6)

Dominion (9)

Calpine (12)

Duke (1)

Riverstone (18)

Southern (3)

LS Power (23)

Berkshire Hathaway Energy (8)

FirstEnergy (15)

ArcLight Capital (22)

Xcel (16)

NRG (11)

Dynegy (7)

Vistra Energy (13)

DTE Energy (21)

AEP (10)

Ameren (20)

Rankings by CO2 Emission Rate(Top 20 Privately/Investor Owned Power Producers)

22

All Sources – CO2 Emission Rate(lb/MWh)

Ranking based on

2017 total generation

Note: “Privately/investor owned” power producers include investor owned, privately held, and foreign owned corporations. This chart does not show public power

producers (federal power authorities, state power authorities, municipalities, power districts) or cooperatives.




June 2019

Section III

Emissions Trends Analysis

23




June 2019

2000 20182000 2018

0

50

100

150

200

250

2000 2018

Annual Trends: U.S. Electric Sector

24

The electric power sector has made significant progress in terms of reducing its NOx and SO2 emissions. From 2000

through 2018, NOx and SO2 emissions decreased 80 and 89 percent, respectively. From 2000 to 2018, CO2 emissions

decreased 21 percent while GDP grew 41 percent. Over the same period, generation from renewables doubled.5

Electric Sector Emissions2

(Indexed; 2000 = 100)

*Includes hydroelectric, wind, solar, biomass, geothermal, and other renewable sources.

**GDP in chained 2012 dollars.

Generation Fuel Mix3

(Indexed; 2000 = 100)

Macroeconomic Indicators4

(Indexed; 2000 = 100)

CO2

SO2

NOx

1120

79

Natural Gas

Renewable*

Coal

244

200

58

Total Generation

GDP**

110

141

107Nuclear




June 2019

Existing Capacity

25

U.S. Electric Generating Capacity by In Service Year: 1940 – 2017(Nameplate Capacity; MW)

Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration. EIA-860 Annual Electric Generator Report. September 13, 2018.

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

194

0

194

2

194

4

194

6

194

8

195

0

195

2

195

4

195

6

195

8

196

0

196

2

196

4

196

6

196

8

197

0

197

2

197

4

197

6

197

8

198

0

198

2

198

4

198

6

198

8

199

0

199

2

199

4

199

6

199

8

200

0

200

2

200

4

200

6

200

8

201

0

201

2

201

4

201

6

Renewable/Other

Hydro

Nuclear

Oil

Gas

Coal




June 2019

Average Capacity Factors

Capacity factors measure the extent to which a power plant is utilized over the course of time. The technical definition is the ratio of the electrical energy

produced by a generating unit to the electrical energy that could have been produced assuming continuous full power operation.

Coal plant utilization has declined in recent years; the average annual capacity factor of coal plants in the U.S. dropped from 73 percent in 2008 to 54 percent in

2018, while over the same time period, natural gas combined-cycle capacity factors rose from 40 to 58 percent.

Nuclear plants have high utilization rates, consistently running at above 90 percent average capacity factor. Hydropower capacity factors are lower, but have

also remained relatively constant over the past decade.

Wind capacity factors have increased from 32 percent in 2008 to 37 percent in 2018, largely due to improvements in wind turbine technology. Since EIA began

publishing data for utility-scale solar projects in 2014, annual capacity factors have remained steady at around 26 percent.

26

Annual Capacity Factors for Select Fuels and Technologies

Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration. Electric Power Monthly, Tables 6.7A and 6.7B. March 2019.

*Combined Cycle

Nuclear Coal Natural Gas* Hydro Wind

32%37%

2008 2018

91% 93%

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

2008 2018

73%

54%

2008 2018

40%

58%

2008 2018

37%43%

2008 2018

26% 26%

2008 2018

Solar PV**

**Utility-Scale, data first

available in 2014




June 2019

Mercury and Air Toxics Standards Impacts

27

2014Pre-MATS

2017MATS

in effect

Emissions

Increase16% of facilities

Emissions

Decrease84% of facilities

Annual Mercury Emissions by Coal Facility(pounds)

• In 2012, EPA finalized the Mercury and Air Toxics

Standards (MATS), regulating emissions of mercury

and other hazardous air pollutants from coal- and oil-

fired electric generating units. The standards went

into effect on April 16, 2015, although many coal units

obtained a one-year extension to the initial compliance

date.

• Coal mercury emissions from the top 100 power

producers in 2017 range from less than 1 pound to

1,315 pounds, and coal mercury emission rates range

from 0.0002 pound per gigawatt hour (a gigawatt hour

is 1,000 megawatt hours) to 0.040 pound per gigawatt

hour.

• Compared to 2014 levels mercury emissions declined

at 84 percent of coal facilities that were in operation as

of December 31, 2017 (see adjacent chart). Across

these facilities, emissions decreased by an average of

69 percent.

600

400

600400




June 2019

Deep Decarbonization

28

In late 2018, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate

Change (IPCC) published a special report evaluating

the goal of maintaining global average temperature

increases to less than 1.5°C above pre-industrial

levels. According to the report, in order to limit

warming to 1.5°C with limited overshoot, net global

CO2 emissions will need to decline by about 45

percent from 2010 levels by 2030 and reach “net zero”

by around 2050. To limit warming to less than 2°C,

CO2 emissions would need to decline 20 percent by

2030 and reach net zero around 2075.

The graphic to the right illustrates the steep reductions

in CO2 (left) and other greenhouse gases (right) that

the IPCC models are necessary to limit global

warming to 1.5°C. The blue lines chart pathways to

meet the goal with little or no overshoot. The gray

areas illustrate pathways that overshoot the target, but

then come back down.

Electric power companies in the U.S. have been

evaluating these “deep decarbonization” pathways to

understand the potential implications for their business

plans and operations. In some cases, companies have

announced commitments and specific strategies to

reduce their carbon emissions in line with these 2°C

and 1.5°C global emissions pathways. *Graphic reprinted from 2018 IPCC Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C

*




June 2019

-500

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

2015 '20 '25 '30 '35 '40 '45 '50

Deep Decarbonization, continued

29

The International Energy Agency’s (IEA) Energy Technology Perspectives 2017, for example, includes two deep decarbonization

pathways that are specific to the U.S. electric sector. The chart below plots IEA’s projections of U.S. electric sector CO2 emissions

for its "2C Scenario" as well as its "Beyond 2C Scenario“. The chart also includes the U.S. Energy Information Administration’s

(EIA) Reference Case forecast (AEO 2019), for context. These scenarios assume that electricity will account for an increasing

share of the nation’s energy use due to the electrification of transportation and other sectors of the economy. Also included are the

average CO2 emission rates for the electric sector from the two abatement scenarios.

Projections of U.S. Electric Sector CO2 Emissions: 2015 – 2050(million metric ton of carbon dioxide)

1

2

3

Reference Case

Business-as-usual forecast

from the U.S. EIA Annual

Energy Outlook 2019*

2°C Scenario (2DS)

Rapid decarbonization scenario

from the IEA’s Energy

Technology Perspectives 2017

Beyond 2°C Scenario (B2DS)

Rapid decarbonization scenario

from the IEA’s Energy

Technology Perspectives 2017

aimed at limiting future

temperature increases to

1.75°C by 2100

1

2

3

All Source CO2 Emission Rates†

pounds per megawatt hour

U.S. electric sector (2017):

957

IEA B2DS and 2DS (2030):

510 to 514

IEA B2DS and 2DS (2050):

-69 to 25

*adjusted to include an estimate of industrial power producers to align with IEA. †All sources include fossil, nuclear, hydroelectric,

and renewable generation.




June 2019

Section IV

State-by-State Emissions Summary

30




June 2019

2,326

2,312

2,274

2,248

2,200

898

893

890

875

852

0 1,000 2,000 3,000

North Dakota

Montana

Wyoming

Kansas

Nebraska

California

Rhode Island

New Jersey

Massachusetts

Idaho

1,989

1,951

1,899

1,784

1,779

230

196

194

152

11

0 1,000 2,000 3,000

Wyoming

West Virginia

Kentucky

Indiana

Missouri

New Hampshire

Washington

Maine

Idaho

Vermont

244.0

112.9

88.2

87.0

84.9

2.7

2.0

1.3

1.1

0.01

0 200 400

Texas

Florida

Indiana

Ohio

Pennsylvania

South Dakota

New Hampshire

Idaho

Maine

Vermont

243%

216%

214%

202%

181%

75%

67%

60%

57%

54%

0 1 2 3

Wyoming

Vermont

West Virginia

North Dakota

Montana

Virginia

Idaho

Delaware

Massachusetts

Maryland

State-by-State CO2 Emissions: U.S. Electric Sector

31

Total CO2 Emissions by State(million ton; top 5 and bottom 5 are shown)

All Generating Sources – CO2 Emission Rate(lb/MWh; top 5 and bottom 5 are shown)

Electricity Exporters/Importers(2017 Net Trade Index; top 5 exporters and importers are shown)

Fossil Generators – CO2 Emission Rate(lb/MWh; top 5 and bottom 5 are shown)

E

X

P

O

R

T

E

R

S

I

M

P

O

R

T

E

R

S

Total in-state supply of electricity as % share of total in-state consumption needs; in-state supply includes international imports




June 2019

Section V

Fuel Mix of 100 Largest Power Producers in 2017

32




June 2019

Share of Total

Rank Holding CompanyTotal

(million MWh)Coal Gas Oil Nuclear Hydro

Renew able /

Other

1 Duke 221.4 33% 28% 0.2% 33% 1% 4%

2 Exelon 194.7 0% 12% 0.1% 85% 1% 2%

3 Southern 192.5 29% 48% 0.0% 16% 2% 5%

4 NextEra Energy 185.1 2% 47% 0.3% 27% 0% 24%

5 Tennessee Valley Authority 134.1 26% 19% 0.1% 45% 10% 0%

6 Entergy 121.7 9% 40% 0.0% 50% 0% 1%

7 Dynegy 117.3 48% 52% 0.1% 0% 0% 0%

8 Berkshire Hathaw ay Energy 113.3 45% 25% 0.1% 3% 4% 23%

9 Dominion 102.2 15% 37% 0.3% 44% 0% 4%

10 AEP 102.0 70% 10% 0.2% 17% 1% 1%

11 NRG 97.4 46% 35% 0.2% 10% 0% 9%

12 Calpine 94.2 0% 93% 0.1% 0% 0% 7%

13 Vistra Energy 89.2 58% 23% 0.0% 19% 0% 0%

14 US Corps of Engineers 76.5 0% 0% 0.0% 0% 100% 0%

15 FirstEnergy 76.2 55% 0% 0.2% 43% 0% 1%

16 Xcel 71.8 51% 22% 0.0% 19% 2% 5%

17 PSEG 52.3 10% 27% 1.4% 61% 0% 1%

18 Riverstone 50.0 28% 34% 0.2% 37% 0% 0%

19 US Bureau of Reclamation 46.5 7% 0% 0.0% 0% 93% 0%

20 Ameren 41.1 75% 1% 0.0% 20% 4% 0%

21 DTE Energy 40.4 65% 5% 0.1% 22% 0% 8%

22 ArcLight Capital 39.8 43% 43% 0.1% 0% 4% 10%

23 LS Pow er 37.6 11% 86% 0.2% 0% 0% 3%

24 WEC Energy Group 35.5 68% 26% 0.0% 0% 2% 3%

25 PG&E 34.8 0% 16% 0.0% 51% 31% 1%

26 PPL 34.5 85% 14% 0.0% 0% 1% 0%

27 Salt River Project 29.8 50% 31% 0.1% 19% 0% 0%

28 New York Pow er Authority 27.8 0% 13% 0.1% 0% 87% 0%

29 Pinnacle West 26.3 32% 31% 0.0% 36% 0% 2%

30 Oglethorpe 26.2 20% 41% 0.0% 39% 0% 0%

Fuel Mix of 100 Largest Power Producers

33




June 2019

Share of Total



Renew able /

Other

31 EDF 26.0 0% 0% 0.0% 65% 0% 35%

32 CPS Energy 24.0 40% 24% 0.0% 36% 0% 0%

33 Emera 23.7 25% 74% 0.0% 0% 0% 0%

34 AES 23.0 73% 14% 0.3% 0% 0% 13%

35 Ares 22.6 15% 81% 0.4% 0% 0% 3%

36 Westar 22.5 65% 7% 0.1% 22% 0% 6%

37 Great Plains Energy 22.0 75% 1% 0.2% 23% 0% 1%

38 SCANA 22.0 39% 38% 0.1% 21% 1% 1%

39 CMS Energy 21.7 48% 39% 0.2% 0% 2% 11%

40 Panda Pow er Funds 21.5 0% 100% 0.0% 0% 0% 0%

41 Alliant Energy 19.8 61% 27% 0.1% 0% 2% 10%

42 Basin Electric Pow er Coop 19.6 88% 6% 0.1% 0% 0% 5%

43 OGE 18.5 54% 38% 0.1% 0% 0% 7%

44 Santee Cooper 18.0 53% 32% 0.2% 13% 1% 0%

45 Avangrid 17.8 0% 13% 0.1% 0% 2% 85%

46 The Blackstone Group 16.8 46% 54% 0.1% 0% 0% 0%

47 Edison International 15.9 0% 26% 0.2% 32% 34% 8%

48 NE Public Pow er District 15.9 53% 2% 0.0% 44% 1% 1%

49 Associated Electric Coop 15.7 77% 23% 0.0% 0% 0% 0%

50 Invenergy 14.9 0% 37% 0.0% 0% 0% 63%

51 IDACORP 14.9 29% 10% 0.0% 0% 60% 0%

52 General Electric 14.9 36% 46% 0.2% 0% 1% 18%

53 EDP 14.6 0% 0% 0.0% 0% 0% 100%

54 Low er CO River Authority 14.0 57% 42% 0.1% 0% 1% 0%

55 Brookfield 13.8 0% 1% 0.0% 0% 69% 30%

56 Portland General Electric 13.0 26% 48% 0.1% 0% 14% 12%

57 PNM Resources 13.0 62% 11% 0.2% 25% 0% 2%

58 The Carlyle Group 13.0 0% 99% 0.6% 0% 0% 0%

59 Municipal Elec. Auth. of GA 12.3 22% 22% 0.0% 56% 0% 0%

60 JEA 12.2 45% 48% 0.0% 0% 0% 8%


34




June 2019

Share of Total



Renew able /

Other

61 Fortis 11.8 66% 33% 0.1% 0% 0% 1%

62 NiSource 11.5 67% 32% 0.0% 0% 1% 0%

63 Seminole Electric Coop 11.0 70% 30% 0.2% 0% 0% 0%

64 Exxon Mobil 10.8 0% 90% 0.0% 0% 0% 10%

65 Omaha Public Pow er District 10.8 98% 2% 0.0% 0% 0% 0%

66 Puget Holdings 10.7 41% 35% 0.1% 0% 8% 16%

67 CLECO 10.4 17% 56% 0.0% 0% 0% 27%

68 ALLETE 10.3 62% 0% 0.0% 0% 8% 30%

69 Occidental 10.1 0% 99% 0.0% 0% 0% 1%

70 E.ON 9.9 0% 0% 0.0% 0% 0% 100%

71 Los Angeles City 9.8 0% 65% 0.0% 19% 13% 3%

72 Arkansas Electric Coop 9.8 75% 20% 0.1% 0% 5% 0%

73 Starw ood Energy 9.7 0% 73% 0.0% 0% 0% 27%

74 PUD No 2 of Grant County 9.7 0% 0% 0.0% 0% 100% 0%

75 Tri-State 9.6 93% 6% 0.1% 0% 0% 1%

76 Austin Energy 9.4 44% 19% 0.1% 37% 0% 0%

77 Buckeye Pow er 9.4 98% 2% 0.3% 0% 0% 0%

78 J-Pow er 9.4 2% 98% 0.1% 0% 0% 0%

79 PUD No 1 of Chelan County 9.2 0% 0% 0.0% 0% 100% 0%

80 Tenaska 9.0 0% 94% 0.0% 0% 0% 6%

81 Dow Chemical 9.0 0% 94% 0.0% 0% 0% 6%

82 El Paso Electric 9.0 0% 43% 0.0% 57% 0% 0%

83 Algonquin Pow er 8.8 29% 35% 0.1% 0% 0% 36%

84 Great River Energy 8.5 96% 2% 0.1% 0% 0% 2%

85 Energy Northw est 8.4 0% 0% 0.0% 96% 1% 3%

86 Intermountain Pow er Agency 8.4 100% 0% 0.2% 0% 0% 0%

87 International Paper 8.3 0% 22% 0.5% 0% 0% 78%

88 Sempra 7.9 0% 47% 0.0% 0% 0% 53%

89 Enel 7.8 0% 0% 0.0% 0% 9% 91%

90 Avista 7.4 18% 24% 0.0% 0% 54% 4%


35




June 2019

Share of Total



Renew able /

Other

91 NC Public Pow er 7.4 0% 0% 0.0% 100% 0% 0%

92 East Kentucky Pow er Coop 7.4 94% 3% 0.4% 0% 0% 2%

93 Sacramento Municipal Util Dist 7.3 0% 58% 0.0% 0% 34% 8%

94 Energy Capital Partners 7.1 5% 1% 0.5% 0% 0% 93%

95 Southern California P P A 6.8 0% 69% 0.0% 28% 1% 2%

96 Oaktree Capital 6.5 0% 100% 0.2% 0% 0% 0%

97 BP 6.5 0% 34% 0.0% 0% 0% 66%

98 Florida Municipal Pow er Agency 6.4 20% 69% 0.0% 11% 0% 0%

99 Seattle City Light 6.4 0% 0% 0.0% 0% 100% 0%

100 Pow erSouth Energy Coop 6.3 33% 67% 0.2% 0% 0% 0%

Total (top-100 producers) 3,402.4 31% 31% 0.1% 23% 7% 8%

Total (all U.S. producers) 4,036.8 30% 32% 0.3% 20% 7% 10%


36




June 2019

Section VI

Appendix

37




June 2019

Data Sources

The following public data sources were used to develop this report:

EPA AIR MARKETS PROGRAM DATA (AMP): EPA’s Air Markets Program Data account for almost all of the SO2 and NOx emissions, and

about 20 percent of the CO2 emissions analyzed in this report.

EPA TOXIC RELEASE INVENTORY (TRI): The 2017 mercury emissions used in this report are based on TRI reports submitted by facility

managers.

EIA FORMS 923 POWER PLANT DATABASES (2017): EIA Form 923 provides data on the electric generation and heat input by fuel type for

utility and non-utility power plants. The heat input data was used to calculate approximately 80 percent of the CO2 emissions analyzed in this

report.

EIA FORM 860 ANNUAL ELECTRIC GENERATOR REPORT (2017): EIA Form 860 is a generating unit level data source that includes

information about generators at electric power plants, including information about generator ownership.

EPA U.S. INVENTORY OF GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS AND SINKS (2018): EPA’s U.S. Inventory of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and

Sinks report provides in Annex 2 heat contents and carbon content coefficients of various fuel types. This data was used in conjunction with EIA

Form 923 to calculate approximately 20 percent of the CO2 emissions analyzed in this report.

38




June 2019

Methodology

Plant Ownership

This report aims to reflect power plant ownership as of December 31, 2017. Plant ownership data used in this report are primarily based on the EIA-860

database from the year 2017. EIA-860 includes ownership information on generators at electric power plants owned or operated by electric utilities and non-

utilities, which include independent power producers, combined heat and power producers, and other industrial organizations. It is published annually by EIA.

For the largest 100 power producers, plant ownership is further checked against self-reported data from the producer’s 10-K form filed with the SEC, listings on

their website, and other media sources. Ownership of plants is updated based on the most recent data available. Consequently, in a number of instances,

ultimate assignment of plant ownership in this report differs from EIA-860’s reported ownership. This primarily happens when the plant in question falls in one

or more of the categories listed below:

1. It is owned by a limited liability partnership of shareholders of which are among the 100 largest power producers.

2. The owner of the plant as listed in EIA-860 is a subsidiary of a company that is among the 100 largest power producers.

3. It was sold or bought during the year 2017. Because form 10-K for a particular year is usually filed by the producer in the first quarter of the

following year, this report assumes that ownership as reported in form 10-K is more accurate.

Publicly available data do not provide a straightforward means to accurately track lease arrangements and power purchase agreements. Therefore, in order to

apply a standardized methodology to all companies, this report allocates generation and any associated emissions according to reported asset ownership as of

December 31, 2017.

Identifying “who owns what” in the dynamic electricity generation industry is probably the single most difficult and complex part of this report. In addition to the

categories listed above, shares of power plants are regularly traded and producers merge, reorganize, or cease operations altogether. While considerable

effort was expended in ensuring the accuracy of ownership information reflected in this report, there may be inadvertent errors in the assignment of ownership

for some plants where public information was either not current or could not be verified.

Generation Data and Cogeneration Facilities

Plant generation data used in this report come from EIA Form 923.

Cogeneration facilities produce both electricity and steam or some other form of useful energy. Because electricity is only a partial output of these plants, their

reported emissions data generally overstate the emissions associated with electricity generation. Generation and emissions data included in this report for

cogeneration facilities have been adjusted to reflect only their electricity generation. For all such cogeneration facilities emissions data were calculated on the

basis of heat input of fuel associated with electricity generation only. Consequently, for all such facilities EIA Form 923, which report a plant’s total heat input as

well as that which is associated with electricity production only, was used to calculate their emissions.

39




June 2019

Methodology (continued)

NOx and SO2 Emissions

The EPA AMP database collects and reports SO2 and NOx emissions data for nearly all major power plants in the U.S. Emissions information reported in the

AMP database is collected from continuous emission monitoring (CEM) systems. SO2 and NOx emissions data reported to the AMP account for all of the SO2

and NOx emissions assigned to the 100 largest power producers in this report.

The AMP database collects and reports SO2 and NOx emissions data by fuel type at the boiler level. This report consolidates this data at the generating unit

and plant levels. In the case of jointly owned plants, because joint ownership is determined by producer’s share of installed capacity, assignment of SO2 and

NOx emissions to the producers on this basis implicitly assumes that emission rates are uniform across the different units. This may cause producers to be

assigned emission figures that are slightly higher or lower than their actual shares.

The appointment of NOx emissions between coal and natural gas at boilers that can burn both fuels may in certain instances sl ightly overstate coal’s share of

the emissions. This situation is likely to arise when a dual-fuel boiler that is classified as “coal-fired” within AMP burns natural gas to produce electricity in

substantial amounts. In most years there would be very little economic reason to make this switch in a boiler that is not part of a combined cycle setup.

Continued low natural gas prices in 2017 led to a small number of boilers switching to natural gas for most or a large part of their electricity output. Because

AMP datasets do not make this distinction, apportioning emissions based on the fuel-type of the boiler would increase coal’s share of emissions.

SO2 and CO2 emissions are mostly not affected by this issue. Natural gas emits virtually no SO2. CO2 emissions can be calculated from the heat input data

reported in EIA Form 923, which allows for the correct apportionment of emissions between coal and natural gas.

CO2 Emissions

A majority of CO2 emissions used in this report were calculated using heat input data from EIA form 923 and carbon content coefficients of various fuel types

provided by EPA. The table on the following slide shows the carbon coefficients used in this procedure. Non-emitting fuel types, whose carbon coefficients are

zero, are not shown in the table. CO2 emissions reported through the EPA AMP account for a small share of the CO2 emissions used in this report.

The datasets report heat input and emissions data by fuel type at either the prime mover or boiler level. This report consolidates that data at the generating unit

and plant levels. In the case of jointly owned plants, because joint ownership is determined by producer’s share of installed capacity, assignment of CO2

emissions to the producers on this basis implicitly assumes that emission rates are uniform across the different units. This may cause producers to be assigned

emission figures that are slightly higher or lower than their actual shares.

Mercury Emissions

Mercury emissions data for coal power plants presented in this report were obtained from EPA’s Toxic Release Inventory (TRI). Mercury emissions reported to

the TRI are based on emission factors, mass balance calculations, or data monitoring. The TRI contains facility-level information on the use and environmental

release of chemicals classified as toxic under the Clean Air Act. The TRI contains information on all toxic releases from a facility; mercury emissions in this

report are based on air releases only. Because coal plants are the primary source of mercury emissions within the electric industry, the mercury emissions and

emission rates presented in this report reflect the emissions associated with each producer’s fleet of coal plants only.

40




June 2019

Carbon Content Coefficients by Fuel Type

From Annex 2 of EPA GHG Inventory 2018

41

Fuel TypeCarbon Content Coefficients

(Tg Carbon/Qbtu)

Coal

Anthracite Coal 28.28

Bituminous Coal 25.44

Sub-bituminous Coal 26.50

Lignite Coal 26.65

Waste/Other Coal

(includes anthracite culm, bituminous gob, fine coal, lignite waste, waste coal)26.05

Coal-based Synfuel, including briquettes, pellets, or extrusions, which are formed by

binding materials or processes that recycle materials25.34

Coal-based Synthetic Gas 18.55

Oil

Distillate Fuel Oil

(Diesel, No. 1, No. 2, and No. 4 Fuel Oils)20.17

Jet Fuel 19.70

Kerosene 19.96

Residual Fuel Oil (No. 5, No. 6 Fuel Oils, and Bunker C Fuel Oil) 20.48

Waste/Other Oil

(including Crude Oil, Liquid Butane, Liquid Propane, Oil Waste, Re-Refined Motor Oil,

Sludge Oil, Tar Oil, or other petroleum-based liquid wastes)

20.55

Petroleum Coke 27.85

Gas

Natural Gas 14.46

Blast Furnace Gas 18.55

Other Gas 18.55

Gaseous Propane 14.46




June 2019

Quality Assurance

This report examines the air pollutant emissions of the 100 largest electricity generating companies in the United States based on 2017 electricity generation,

emissions, and ownership data. The report relies on publicly-available information reported by the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), state environmental agencies, company websites, and media articles.

Emission data may include revisions to 2017 data that companies were in the process of submitting or have already submitted to EPA at the time of publication

of this report.

This report relies almost entirely on publicly available information. Data sets published by EIA and EPA are the primary source of the generation and emissions

data used in this report. The organizations that fund this report believe maintaining public access to this information is essential to tracking the industry’s

performance and making accurate and informed analyses and policy decisions.

42




June 2019

Endnotes

1. Private entities include investor-owned and privately held utilities and non-utility power producers (e.g., independent power producers). Cooperative electric

utilities are owned by their members (i.e., the consumers they serve). Publicly-owned electric utilities are nonprofit government entities that are organized at

either the local or State level. There are also several Federal electric utilities in the United States, such as the Tennessee Valley Authority.

Power plant ownership in this report is divided into three categories: privately/investor owned (investor-owned corporations, privately held corporations, foreign-

owned corporations), public power (federal power authorities, state power authorities, municipalities, power districts), and cooperative.

2. Electric Sector Emissions data from EPA AMP database available at http://ampd.epa.gov/ampd/

3. Generation data from EIA Monthly Energy Review Table 7.2a Electricity Generation Total for All Sectors available at

https://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/#electricity

4. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) data from the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis available at https://www.bea.gov/national/index.htm#gdp

5. The sources used in the Annual Trends figure have already made national-level 2018 data available, allowing the trends section to extend through 2018.

Detailed 2018 data used for the company-specific analysis of the top 100 electricity producers was not yet available at the time of report publication.

43


http://ampd.epa.gov/ampd/

https://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/#electricity

https://www.bea.gov/national/index.htm#gdp



June 2019

100 North Tryon Street

Charlotte, NC 28255

www.bankofamerica.com

99 Chauncy Street

6th Floor

Boston, MA 02111

www.ceres.org

639 Loyola Avenue

New Orleans, LA 70113

www.entergy.com

10 South Dearborn Street

52nd Floor

Chicago, IL 60680

www.exeloncorp.com

40 West 20th Street

New York, NY 10011

www.nrdc.org

Benchmarking Air EmissionsOf the 100 Largest Electric Power Producers in the United States


benchmarking air emissions - courthouse news service › wp-content › uploads › ...benchmarking...

Documents