Bøger af National Energy Technology Laboratory

The Department of Energy (DOE) prepared this Environmental Assessment (EA) to assess the potential for impacts to the human and natural environment of its Proposed Action-providing financial assistance to FutureFuel under a cooperative agreement. DOE's objective is to support the development of the EDV industry in an effort to substantially reduce the United States' consumption of petroleum, in addition to stimulating the United States' economy. More specifically, DOE's objective is to accelerate the development and production of various EDV systems by building or increasing domestic manufacturing capacity for advanced automotive batteries, their components, recycling facilities, and EDV components. This work will enable market introduction of various electric vehicle technologies by lowering the cost of battery packs, batteries, and electric propulsion systems for EDVs through high-volume manufacturing. Under the terms of the cooperative agreement, DOE would provide approximately 50 percent of the funding to FutureFuel to partially fund the retrofitting of an existing manufacturing building to a commercial-scale plant to produce intermediate anode material for high-performance Li-ion batteries (referred to as the "Proposed Project" within this EA). An existing FutureFuel manufacturing building (48,000 square feet, 5 stories) would be retrofitted to accommodate the proposed plant. The existing building that would be reconfigured currently includes over half of the major process equipment and pumps required to produce intermediate anode material. The goal would be to increase the product supply from the current 1,000,000 pounds per year at an off-site plant to 10,000,000 pounds per year, which would be sufficient for supplying over 2,000,000 HEVs. Additionally, the project would create approximately 33 permanent jobs. The environmental analysis identified that the most notable changes, although minor, to result from FutureFuel's Proposed Project would occur in the following areas: air quality and greenhouse gas, surface water and groundwater, transportation and traffic, solid and hazardous wastes, and human health and safety. No significant environmental effects were identified in analyzing the potential consequences of these changes.

The transportation sector accounts for a large and growing share of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Worldwide, motor vehicles emit well over 900 million metric tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) each year, accounting for more than 15 percent of global fossil fuel-derived CO2 emissions. In the industrialized world alone, 20-25 percent of GHG emissions come from the transportation sector. The share of transport-related emissions is growing rapidly due to the continued increase in transportation activity. In 1950, there were only 70 million cars, trucks, and buses on the world's roads. By 1994, there were about nine times that number, or 630 million vehicles. Since the early 1970s, the global fleet has been growing at a rate of 16 million vehicles per year. This expansion has been accompanied by a similar growth in fuel consumption. If this kind of linear growth continues, by the year 2025 there will be well over one billion vehicles on the world's roads. In a response to the significant growth in transportation-related GHG emissions, governments and policy makers worldwide are considering methods of addressing this trend. However, due to the particular make-up of the transportation sector, regulating and reducing emissions from this sector poses a significant challenge. Unlike stationary fuel combustion, transportation-related emissions come from dispersed sources. Only a few point-source emitters, such as oil/natural gas wells, refineries, or compressor stations, contribute to emissions related to the transportation sector. The majority of transport-related emissions come from the millions of vehicles traveling the world's roads. As a result, successful GHG mitigation policies must find ways to target all of these small, non-point source emitters, either through regulatory means or through various incentive programs. To increase their effectiveness, policies to control emissions from the transportation sector often utilize indirect means to reduce emissions, such as requiring specific technology improvements or an increase in fuel efficiency. Site-specific project activities can also be undertaken to help decrease GHG emissions, although the use of such measures is less common. These activities include switching to less GHG-intensive vehicle options, such as natural gas vehicles (NGVs). As emissions from transportation activities continue to rise, it will be necessary to promote both types of abatement activities in order to reverse the current emissions path. This Resource Guide focuses on site- and project-specific transportation activities. To date, only a few projects deploying NGV technologies have been developed and implemented with the explicit intent of reducing GHG emissions and participating in international GHG reduction initiatives. Therefore, experience with quantifying, evaluating, and verifying GHG emission reductions from natural gas vehicle projects is almost non-existent. This is a problem as there are many issues unique to the transportation sector, which should be resolved before adequate guidelines can be developed for evaluating transportation-related projects. Issues that will require further analysis and guidance include: 1. Methods for accurately estimating emission reductions for a dispersed number of sources; 2. Procedures for determining project boundaries and relevant GHG emission sources; 3. Options for minimizing transaction costs of validating, monitoring, verifying, and certifying potential emission reductions; and 4. Guidance on using a full fuel-cycle or tailpipe emission analysis to estimate project emissions. The main purpose of this manual is to provide information on quantifying and documenting GHG emission reductions from NGV projects. Moreover, to provide potential project developers with an overview of project opportunities, the manual also includes information on NGV technology cost and availability and discusses the future of the alternative fuel vehicle (AFV) industry as a whole

DOE prepared this Supplemental EA to evaluate the potential environmental consequences of providing financial assistance in a cooperative agreement with General Motors Limited Liability Company (LLC) (General Motors Company or GM). A supplement to the April 2010 EA was necessary due to the proposed building size increasing three fold as well as the addition of a parking lot and widening of a truck dock area. This building size increase is necessary to accommodate more manufacturing equipment and provide office space. If GM received the funding, they would construct a high-volume U.S. manufacturing facility to produce the first U.S.-manufactured electric motor components and assemble electric drive units for hybrid and electric vehicles. This funding would be used for constructing a building of approximately 104,000 square feet, paving an approximately 120,000 square foot parking lot, twenty-foot wide fire road representing approximately 8,000 square feet of pavement or gravel, and widening a truck dock as well as various other supporting infrastructure. DOE's proposed action would provide approximately $105 million in financial assistance in a cost-sharing arrangement to GM. The cost of the proposed project would be approximately $283.9 million. This EA evaluates the environmental resource areas DOE commonly addresses in its EAs and identifies no significant adverse environmental impacts for the proposed project. The proposed project could result in beneficial impacts to the nation's fuel efficiency and the local economy.

This environmental assessment (EA) addresses the potential environmental impacts of a proposed project located at the Morgantown, West Virginia, site of the National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL). The Performance Verification Laboratory (PVL) project was proposed in response to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) Facilities and Equipment Upgrade Lab Call #09-002. NETL will design, construct, and make operational a U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) PVL facility for verifying the energy performance of selected appliances and equipment to facilitate improved enforcement of DOE energy conservation standards and DOE/Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) ENERGY STAR(R) programs. The PVL facility will build upon the capabilities of NETL's existing Appliance Technology Evaluation Center (ATEC). Currently, ATEC is used to help DOE improve its test procedures through experimental investigations (testing and other evaluations) of appliances/equipment. PVL will expand the current ATEC capabilities and add large-scale performance verification testing that will complement DOE's increasing focus on emerging equipment and appliance standards activities. The resulting data from this facility will enhance existing standards and test procedure development at NETL, as well as provide a valuable resource to support compliance and enforcement activities for the Energy Conservation Standards program within DOE. Executive Order 13123, "Greening the Government Through Efficient Energy Management," requires federal agencies to improve their environmental and energy performance and to meet specified environmental performance goals. Constructing an energy efficient "green" building would allow NETL to reduce electricity use and meet environmental performance goals. This EA has been prepared to satisfy requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (42 United States Code 4321 et seq.) and its implementing regulations found in Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Parts 1500-1508 (Council on Environmental Quality) and Title 10, CFR, Part 1021 (Department of Energy). Results of this assessment indicate that the construction activities associated with the proposed project would potentially have minor impacts on permitted discharge areas, groundwater, and greenhouse gases (GHGs). An increase in the number of cars and trucks associated with the construction activities would negatively impact traffic and public facilities and services. Operation of heavy machinery during construction would also have an adverse effect on air quality (i.e., dust and exhaust particulate air emissions) and increase noise and vibration in the immediate vicinity of the work area. These effects would be controlled to the greatest extent possible to minimize their impact. The construction of the PVL facility would positively impact the local area through the creation of 24 jobs. Operation of the PVL facility would result in the creation of approximately 14 permanent jobs at the Morgantown NETL site, most of which would be new hires. Traffic and public facilities and services would be negatively impacted by the increased flow of cars and delivery trucks to the new facility. Because the operation of this facility would support the increased penetration and acceptance of energy-efficient appliances and equipment in the marketplace, the work done at the PVL would ultimately contribute to a reduction in GHG production.

The Department of Energy's (DOE) National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) manages the research and development portfolio of the Vehicle Technologies (VT) Program for the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE). A key objective of the VT program is accelerating the development and production of electric drive vehicle systems in order to substantially reduce the United States' consumption of petroleum. Another of its goals is the development of production-ready batteries, power electronics, and electric machines that can be produced in volume economically so as to increase the use of electric drive vehicles (EDVs). Congress appropriated significant funding for the VT program in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Public Law 111-5 (Recovery Act) in order to stimulate the economy and reduce unemployment in addition to furthering the existing objectives of the VT program. DOE solicited applications for this funding by issuing a competitive Funding Opportunity Announcement (DE-FOA-0000026), Recovery Act - Electric Drive Vehicle Battery and Component Manufacturing Initiative, on March 19, 2009. This project, Lithium Ion (Li-Ion) Battery Manufacturing Project, was one of the 30 DOE selected for funding. DOE's Proposed Action is to provide $299,200,000 in financial assistance in a cost sharing arrangement with the project proponent, Johnson Controls, Inc. (Johnson Controls or JCI) and ENTEK International, LLC (ENTEK). The total cost of the project is estimated at $599,449,514. The overall purpose and need for DOE action pursuant to the VT program and the funding opportunity under the Recovery Act is to accelerate the development and production of various electric drive vehicle systems by building or increasing domestic manufacturing capacity for advanced automotive batteries, their components, recycling facilities, and EDV components, in addition to stimulating the United States' economy. This work will enable market introduction of various electric vehicle technologies by lowering the cost of battery packs, batteries, and electric propulsion systems for EDVs through high-volume manufacturing. DOE intends to further this purpose and satisfy this need by providing financial assistance under cost-sharing arrangements to this and the other 29 projects selected under this funding opportunity announcement. This and the other selected projects are needed to reduce the United States' petroleum consumption by investing in alternative vehicle technologies. Successful commercialization of EDVs would support DOE's Energy Strategic Goal of "protect[ing] our national and economic security by promoting a diverse supply and delivery of reliable, affordable, and environmentally sound energy." This project will also meaningfully assist in the nation's economic recovery by creating manufacturing jobs in the United States in accordance with the objectives of the Recovery Act.

Over the last decade, concern about the issues of global climate change and rising greenhouse gas emissions has grown significantly. This concern has spurred an elaborate series of international meetings and agreements seeking to stabilize atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations. In 1992, at Rio de Janeiro, more than 160 countries, including the United States, signed the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The signatories were in agreement regarding the potential negative effects of climate change under a business as usual future. Under the Convention, the developed countries (referred to as Annex I countries) were assigned primary responsibility for addressing the climate change issue. However, at the first two Conferences of Parties1 called to discuss methods for implementing the Convention, a strong debate ensued regarding what policy instruments should be used to curb global climate change, and what, if any, targets and timetables should be set for achieving emission reductions. Most Annex I nations announced a series of voluntary targets and initiatives for meeting emission reduction goals. By 1996, it had become clear that greenhouse gas emission levels in most Annex I countries were rising despite voluntary efforts to reduce emissions. A consensus for firmer targets and timetables was building. At the Third Conference of Parties, held in Kyoto, Japan in December 1997 a series of firm emission reduction targets were agreed to by the Parties. Developed countries agreed to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by an average of 5.2 percent from 1990 levels by 2008-2012. While the resulting "Kyoto Protocol" was signed in 1997 by the United States and other industrialized countries, it was never ratified by the U.S. Senate, and the Administration recently announced its intention of dropping out of the negotiations surrounding the Protocol. Nonetheless, the general scientific consensus that global warming is a real, significant issue is not in dispute. The Administration is calling into question only the appropriate response to the issue, while explicitly recognizing the need for some response. Regardless of whether this response takes the form of a domestic voluntary program, an international treaty, or something in between these two extremes, it is likely that it will incorporate "market mechanisms" in some form or another. The concept of flexible, market-based mechanisms is an essential element to the Convention and the Kyoto agreement. Market mechanisms are designed to facilitate low-cost solutions to environmental problems. This new concept awards credits for emission reduction activities undertaken beyond a country's borders. In order to estimate emission reductions arising from such market-based emissions reduction projects, the emissions generated by the project itself must be measured and subtracted from some baseline representing what emissions would have been in the absence of the project. The technology matrix, originally proposed by the National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) in the report Developing Emission Baselines for Market-based Mechanisms: A Case Study Approach, is a potential method for estimating the baseline. It consists of a selected list of greenhouse gas abating technologies, along with emission rate benchmarks for each technology. In this document, a technology matrix was developed for ten selected technologies, for the countries of India and Ukraine. The basic technology matrix development approach was the same for all of the stated technologies, and for both countries. For a technology to "qualify" for the selected list of greenhouse gas abating technologies, it must first be subjected to a rigorous test to demonstrate that projects utilizing the technology are "additional" to those that would have been implemented under "business as usual" circumstances.

DOE prepared this EA to evaluate the potential environmental consequences of providing a financial assistance grant under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) to Delphi Automotive Systems, Limited Liability Corporation (LLC) (Delphi). Delphi proposes to construct a laboratory referred to as the "Delphi Kokomo, IN Corporate Technology Center" (Delphi CTC Project) and retrofit a manufacturing facility. The project would advance DOE's Vehicle Technology Program through manufacturing and testing of electric-drive vehicle components as well as assist in the nation's economic recovery by creating manufacturing jobs in the United States. The Delphi CTC Project would involve the construction and operation of a 10,700 square foot (ft2) utilities building containing boilers and heaters and a 70,000 ft2 engineering laboratory, as well as site improvements (roads, parking, buildings, landscaping, and lighting). The engineering laboratory would house equipment for helping to validate the readiness of new products for manufacture in Delphi's Kokomo Morgan Street (KMS) facility. Delphi's KMS facility is an existing 93,000 ft2 leased facility that Delphi would modify and equip for validating and producing advanced automotive electric drive components. DOE's proposed action would provide approximately $89.3 million in financial assistance in a cost sharing arrangement to Delphi. The total cost of the proposed project would be approximately $178.6 million. This EA evaluates the environmental resource areas DOE commonly addresses in its EAs and identifies no significant adverse environmental impacts for the proposed project. The proposed project could result in beneficial impacts to the nation's energy efficiency and the local economy, and the electric vehicle components produced could contribute toward enabling significant reductions of greenhouse gases.

Concern about increasing atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, and the potential impact of these increases on the earth's climate, has grown significantly over the past decade. This concern has led to a series of international meetings and agreements seeking to stabilize atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations. In 1992, at Rio De Janeiro, the Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) was signed by more than 160 countries, including the United States. There was widespread agreement among the signatories on the potential negative effects of climate change under a business-as-usual future. Under the convention, the developed countries (referred to as Annex I countries) were assigned primary responsibility for addressing the climate change issue. However, between 1992 and 1997, Parties to the Convention strongly disagreed over what policy instruments should be used to curb global climate change, and what, if any, targets and timetables should be set for achieving emission reductions. A break in the negotiations occurred in late 1997. At the Third Conference of Parties1 held in Kyoto, Japan in December 1997, a series of firm emission reduction targets were agreed to by the Parties The industrialized countries agreed to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by an average of 5.2 percent from 1990 levels by 2008-2012. The U.S. agreed to limit its emissions to seven percent below 1990 levels. Since then negotiations on implementing these reductions have stalled and the Protocol has not been ratified. However, major progress in allowing the use of market mechanisms to achieve emission reduction goals occurred at Kyoto. Emissions trading and a new concept where entities can acquire credits for emission reduction activities were among the market-based mechanisms under consideration. This report is concerned exclusively with the latter. This report represents a step towards the development of protocols for the estimation of greenhouse gas emission reductions resulting from potential market mechanism projects undertaken in the power sector. It deals specifically with the difficult and complex problem of developing emission baselines for carbon offset projects. Although exchanging credits for emission reduction activities and technologies is a relatively new concept, much has already been written about it. The literature has identified and developed a number of approaches to emission baseline estimation under the market mechanism concept, and the pros and cons of each approach have been assessed and reviewed at some length (see bibliography). However, the literature has to a large extent considered baseline estimation only in the abstract. Different estimation approaches have been compared and contrasted, but, to date, few attempts have been made to apply these approaches. The primary goal of this report is to help advance the discussion of baseline estimation procedures by applying alternative estimation approaches to three hypothetical project case studies. Thus, following an analysis of the three major baseline methodologies under consideration for the market mechanisms, we apply two of these methodologies to hypothetical emission reduction projects.

The United States Department of Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory (DOE NETL) prepared this Environmental Assessment (EA) to analyze the potential environmental impacts of providing funding for the proposed Pope/Douglas Third Combustor Expansion Project in Alexandria, Minnesota. The Proposed Action is for DOE to provide $927,514 of cost-shared funding for this project, or 5% of the overall total project cost of $19,400,000. The proposed project is a Congressionally Directed Project selected by the DOE Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) to advance research and the development and demonstration of energy efficiency or renewable energy technologies or programs. The proposed project would construct and operate a third Municipal Waste Combustor (MWC) to complement the two existing MWCs at the Pope/Douglas Solid Waste Management (PDSWM) waste-to-energy facility. The proposed project would be consistent with DOE's goal to increase the use and amount of renewable energy generation projects. The third MWC would have a nominal capacity of 120 tons of waste per day and would double the facility's overall capacity. Expansion of the facility would enable PDSWM to manage the solid waste of five counties and provide steam to three customers. Excess steam produced at the facility would be used to produce electricity for in-house use or would possibly be sold to the local energy grid. The proposed third MWC unit would be designed and operated similarly to the two existing MWC units, and would be constructed on an already paved surface, immediately south of the existing MWCs. The proposed project would require a construction permit and a Major Amendment to the facility's existing air emissions operating permit. However, no other permits are anticipated to be required. No significant adverse impacts are anticipated to result from implementation of this proposed project.

The Department of Energy (DOE) prepared this Environmental Assessment (EA) to evaluate the potential environmental consequences of providing a financial assistance grant under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act; Public Law 111-5, 123 Stat. 115) to the Thermal Energy Corporation to facilitate installation of a combined heat and power system (CHP), water chillers, and cooling tower at a district power plant that supplies the energy, heating, and cooling needs of the Texas Medical Center campus in Houston, Harris County, Texas. This EA analyzes the potential environmental consequences of DOE's Proposed Action to provide the Recovery Act grant, Thermal Energy Corporation's proposed project of installing and operating a CHP system, and the No-Action Alternative. In this EA, DOE evaluated in detail potential impacts to air quality, sound levels, water resources, health and safety, and socioeconomics. After performing a screening analysis of other environmental resource areas, DOE concluded that impacts to other aspects of the environment would not be likely to occur or would not be detectable. The proposed project would be designed and operated in compliance with federal and Texas air quality regulations, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and have a net beneficial impact on air quality in the region. Operation of the CHP system would cause a small increase in noise outdoors near the adjacent medical facilities. Installation of the CHP system in a floodplain would not adversely impact natural and beneficial floodplain values or increase risks to lives or property. The project would have no or only small impacts to surface water quality and future availability of potable water in the Houston area, and would not cause significant hazards to workers or the public at the Central Plant. Manufacturing and installation of the equipment would result in a minor to moderate, temporary beneficial impact to the economy. Incremental increase in cumulative impacts from the proposed project, relative to impacts from other activities in the surrounding area, would be negligible to small.

Stabilization of atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases, of which CO2 is the most important, "....at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system..."1 is a widely accepted policy goal. When concerted actions start to be taken to achieve this goal, fossil generating stations, as large point sources of CO2, may be required to make disproportionately large emission reductions because doing so will be cost effective. At present natural gas combined cycle (NGCC) is the technology of choice for providing new electric generating capacity in the U.S. for reasons that include environmental performance, thermal efficiency, high availability compared to renewables, and relatively low capital cost. Relatively low specific carbon emissions (kg C or kg CO2/kWh) compared to coal generators is another attraction of NGCC. Yet NGCC cannot be the only response of the electric power industry to the challenge of global warming even if affordable supplies of natural gas were assured into the indefinite future. Climate modelers estimate that upwards of 60% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from current levels will be needed to stabilize atmospheric composition. That is a greater reduction than could be achieved even if all coal -fired units were replaced with state-of-art NGCC. This paper invites serious consideration of fossil fueled electricity generation technologies that capture nominally 90% of CO2 emissions and use the CO2 to conduct enhanced oil recovery. Carbon sequestration of this kind represents a fundamentally different approach to reducing carbon emissions that has potential not less than traditional approaches such as improvement of thermal efficiency of generation, improvement of end use efficiency, and use of renewables. There is no immediate prospect for commercial deployment of fossil generation with CO2 capture and sequestration, however, because with no value assigned to reducing carbon emissions, such processes are more expensive than conventional fossil generation. One approach to overcoming this problem is to investigate use of a carbon tax or carbon emission cap. This study takes a different approach. It considers how the economics of natural gas- and coal-based generation with carbon capture would fare if a market for the collected CO2 is assured for practice of EOR. Coal-based IGCC with CO2 capture and sequestration would yield only one fifth the specific carbon emissions (kg C or kg CO2 /kWh) as would state-of-art NGCC. California appears to be a good venue for consideration of IGCC+S: there is need for additional generating capacity and an unserved market for CO2 that could be used to conduct enhanced oil recovery. In this paper, a probabilistic analysis is conducted to determine Required Selling Price of Electricity (RSPOE) and expected rate of return on common stock equity for three fossil generating technologies: NGCC, NGCC+S (NGCC with capture and sequestration), and IGCC+S. Variables treated probabilistically are the costs of natural gas and coal fuels, and the values of electricity and CO2 products. Predictions of prices prepared by the Energy Information Agency are used together with measures of price variability based on historic price fluctuations. Installation of new generating plant is assumed to occur in 2010 and operate for a 20 year book life to 2030. It is shown that when CO2 can be sold at historically realized prices for use in enhanced oil recovery (EOR), IGCC+S is expected to be profitable with no subsidy for avoidance of CO2 emissions. Expected profitability of NGCC is greater than that of IGCC+S, but so is the uncertainty of RSPOE and expected rate of return on common stock equity, due principally to uncertainty of natural gas price. NGCC+S exhibits both a higher RSPOE and higher uncertainty of RSPOE than either of the other technologies.

The Department of Energy's (DOE) National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) manages the research and development portfolio of the Vehicle Technologies (VT) Program for the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE). A key objective of the VT program is accelerating the development and production of electric drive vehicle systems in order to substantially reduce the United States' consumption of petroleum. Another of its goals is the development of production-ready batteries, power electronics, and electric machines that can be produced in volume economically so as to increase the use of electric drive vehicles (EDVs). Congress appropriated significant funding for the VT program in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Public Law 111-5 (Recovery Act) in order to stimulate the economy and reduce unemployment in addition to furthering the existing objectives of the VT program. DOE solicited applications for this funding by issuing a competitive Funding Opportunity Announcement (DE-FOA-0000026), Recovery Act - Electric Drive Vehicle Battery and Component Manufacturing Initiative, on March 19, 2009. This project, Power Ring Manufacturing Scale-up, was one of the 30 DOE selected for funding. DOE's Proposed Action is to provide $9,090,000 in financial assistance in a cost sharing arrangement with the project proponent, SBE, Inc. (SBE). The total cost of the project is estimated at $18,186,387. The overall purpose and need for DOE action pursuant to the VT program and the funding opportunity under the Recovery Act is to accelerate the development and production of various electric drive vehicle systems by building or increasing domestic manufacturing capacity for advanced automotive batteries, their components, recycling facilities, and EDV components, in addition to stimulating the United States' economy. This work will enable market introduction of various electric vehicle technologies by lowering the cost of battery packs, batteries, and electric propulsion systems for EDVs through high-volume manufacturing. DOE intends to further this purpose and satisfy this need by providing financial assistance under cost-sharing arrangements to this and the other 29 projects selected under this funding opportunity announcement. This and the other selected projects are needed to reduce the United States' petroleum consumption by investing in alternative vehicle technologies. Successful commercialization of EDVs would support DOE's Energy Strategic Goal of "protect[ing] our national and economic security by promoting a diverse supply and delivery of reliable, affordable, and environmentally sound energy." This project will also meaningfully assist in the nation's economic recovery by creating manufacturing jobs in the United States in accordance with the objectives of the Recovery Act.

The DOE National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) prepared this Environmental Assessment (EA) to analyze the potential environmental impacts of providing funding to Norwich Public Utilities (NPU) for its proposed Norwich Cogeneration Initiative in Norwich, New London County, Connecticut. DOE's proposed action is to provide a financial assistance grant of about $718,000. The total project cost would be about $1.47 million, with NPU providing the balance of the funding. The proposed funding is based on a Congressional earmark. DOE's Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy believes this project will advance research and development and demonstrate energy efficiency technology. NPU would construct and operate a high-efficiency natural-gas-fired reciprocating engine cogeneration facility on property leased from and adjoining Atlantic City Linen Supply New England (ACLS). ACLS operates an industrial laundry service at this location. The proposed project would install a natural-gas-fired reciprocating engine to generate 540 kilowatts of electricity and use the thermal energy, in the form of a closed-loop hot water heat exchanger, to produce hot water for ACLS's operations. The electricity generated by the unit would be transmitted to NPU's distribution system and offset electricity purchases, potentially reducing costs to all customers.

U. S. Department of Energy (DOE) prepared this draft Environmental Assessment (EA) to evaluate the potential environmental consequences of providing financial assistance in a cooperative agreement with Big Sky Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership (BSCSP). If DOE decides to provide funding, in accordance with the terms of the cooperative agreement, BSCSP plans to test the injection of 1 million metric tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) over a four year project injection period into the Duperow formation in Kevin Dome. BSCSP would drill up to five production wells, one injection well, and four wells for monitoring. The project would also involve construction of a compressor station, five miles of roads, and six to ten miles of stainless steel pipeline, as well as various monitoring activities. Two activities, a three dimensional, nine-component seismic survey and some air and water baseline sampling, were allowed to proceed before this document was completed under an interim action request. However, the seismic survey work ceased after the seismic crews caused inadvertent adverse effects to cultural resources, and inclement weather caused postponement of the environmental monitoring. Under the terms of the financial assistance agreement, BSCSP has also initiated some desktop studies and administrative work that would have no effect on the environment (BSCSP, 2012a). DOE's proposed action evaluated in this draft EA is to provide approximately $63.8 million in financial assistance in a cost-sharing arrangement to BSCSP. The total cost of the proposed project would be approximately $81.4 million. This EA evaluates the environmental resource areas DOE commonly addresses in its EAs and identifies no significant adverse environmental impacts for the proposed project after mitigation.

Gasification is a technology that has been widely used in commercial applications for more than 50 years in the production of fuels and chemicals. Current trends in the chemical manufacturing and petroleum refinery industries indicate that use of gasification facilities to produce synthesis gas ("syngas") will continue to increase. Attractive features of the technology include: 1) the ability to produce a consistent, high-quality syngas product that can be used for energy production or as a building block for other chemical manufacturing processes; and 2) the ability to accommodate a wide variety of gaseous, liquid, and solid feedstocks. Conventional fuels such as coal and oil, as well as low- or negative-value materials and wastes such as petroleum coke, heavy refinery residuals, secondary oil-bearing refinery materials, municipal sewage sludge, hydrocarbon contaminated soils, and chlorinated hydrocarbon byproducts have all been used successfully in gasification operations. Gasification of these materials has many potential benefits when compared with conventional options such combustion or disposal by incineration. Recently, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced that the Agency is considering an exclusion from the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) for listed secondary oil-bearing refinery materials when processed in a gasification system, an exclusion analogous to the one granted for insertion of RCRA listed refinery wastes into the coking process at refineries. In addition, representatives of the gasification industry have asked EPA to consider a broader exclusion that would include gasification of any carbonaceous material, including hazardous wastes from other industrial sectors (e.g., chemical manufacturing) in modern, high-temperature slagging gasifiers. The purpose of this report is to provide an independent, third-party description of waste gasification and to present information that clearly defines the differences between the modern gasification and incineration technologies. The primary focus of this document is the currently proposed exemption for gasification of secondary oil-bearing materials in refineries. The objectives of this report are to: Compare and contrast the process unit operations and chemical reaction mechanisms of gasification and incineration; Cite environmental and regulatory concerns currently applicable to hazardous waste incineration processes and relate them to gasification processes; and Provide a summary of existing process stream characterization data for gasification including information on the data quality, sampling/analytical method applicability, and method development needs.

DOE prepared this Environmental Assessment (EA) to assess the potential for impacts to the human and natural environment of its Proposed Action-providing financial assistance to Pyrotek under a cooperative agreement. DOE's objective is to support the development of the EDV industry in an effort to substantially reduce the United States' consumption of petroleum, in addition to stimulating the United States' economy. More specifically, DOE's objective is to accelerate the development and production of various EDV systems by building or increasing domestic manufacturing capacity for advanced automotive batteries, their components, recycling facilities, and EDV components. This work will enable market introduction of various electric vehicle technologies by lowering the cost of battery packs, batteries, and electric propulsion systems for EDVs through high-volume manufacturing. Under the terms of the cooperative agreement, DOE would provide approximately 50 percent of the funding for Pyrotek to construct an industrial building; installation of electrically heated furnaces and other production equipment such as conveyors, collectors, screens, and cooling towers required to accomplish the proposed expansion of the graphitization process on the Metaullics Systems' Sanborn facility in Sanborn, New York. The expansion would result in an increase in anode material production capacity to meet higher projected demands, decrease processing costs to provide lower priced material to customers, and meet the objectives of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, by creating and preserving jobs. The project would create approximately 50 new jobs and retain approximately 55 existing facility jobs. The environmental analysis identified that the most notable changes, although minor, to result from Pyrotek's Proposed Project would occur in the following areas: air quality, noise, geology and soils, surface water, vegetation and wildlife, solid and hazardous waste, and transportation and traffic. No significant environmental effects were identified in analyzing the potential consequences of these changes.

PPL Renewable Energy, LLC and the Lancaster County Solid Waste Management Authority propose to construct and operate a 2 turbine wind energy project at the Frey Farm Landfill (FFLF) in Manor Township in Pennsylvania's Lancaster County to provide up to 3.2 megawatts of electricity principally to the adjacent Turkey Hill Dairy. Pennsylvania proposes to provide the project a $1.5 million grant, which would come from a formula grant Pennsylvania received from DOE pursuant to the Department's State Energy Program. This EA analyzes the potential environmental impacts of the proposed construction and operation of the FFLF wind energy project and the alternative of not implementing this project.

The Department of Energy's (DOE) National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) manages the research and development portfolio of the Vehicle Technologies (VT) Program for the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE). A key objective of the VT program is accelerating the development and production of electric drive vehicle systems in order to substantially reduce the United States' consumption of petroleum. Another of its goals is the development of production-ready batteries, power electronics, and electric machines that can be produced in volume economically so as to increase the use of electric drive vehicles (EDVs). Congress appropriated significant funding for the VT program in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Public Law 111-5 (Recovery Act) in order to stimulate the economy and reduce unemployment in addition to furthering the existing objectives of the VT program. DOE solicited applications for this funding by issuing a competitive Funding Opportunity Announcement (DE-FOA-0000026), Recovery Act - Electric Drive Vehicle Battery and Component Manufacturing Initiative, on March 19, 2009. This project, U.S. Electric Drive Manufacturing Center - Global Rear-Wheel Drive (RWD) Electric Validation Center, was one of the 30 DOE selected for funding. DOE's Proposed Action is to provide $105,387,000 in financial assistance in a cost sharing arrangement with the project proponent, General Motors LLC (General Motors or GM). The total cost of the project is estimated at $245,900,733. The overall purpose and need for DOE action pursuant to the VT program and the funding opportunity under the Recovery Act is to accelerate the development and production of various electric drive vehicle systems by building or increasing domestic manufacturing capacity for advanced automotive batteries, their components, recycling facilities, and EDV components, in addition to stimulating the United States' economy. This work will enable market introduction of various electric vehicle technologies by lowering the cost of battery packs, batteries, and electric propulsion systems for EDVs through high-volume manufacturing. DOE intends to further this purpose and satisfy this need by providing financial assistance under cost-sharing arrangements to this and the other 29 projects selected under this funding opportunity announcement. This and the other selected projects are needed to reduce the United States' petroleum consumption by investing in alternative vehicle technologies. Successful commercialization of EDVs would support DOE's Energy Strategic Goal of "protect[ing] our national and economic security by promoting a diverse supply and delivery of reliable, affordable, and environmentally sound energy." This project will also meaningfully assist in the nation's economic recovery by creating manufacturing jobs in the United States in accordance with the objectives of the Recovery Act.

DOE prepared this EA to evaluate the potential environmental consequences of providing a financial assistance grant under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) in a cooperative agreement with Archer Daniels Midland Company (ADM). If ADM received the funding, the company would demonstrate an integrated system of carbon dioxide (CO2) capture in an industrial setting and geologic sequestration in a sandstone reservoir. The CO2 that would be sequestered is currently a by-product of ADM's Decatur fuel-grade ethanol production facility. ADM would capture approximately one million short tons of CO2 per year using dehydration and compression. The compressed CO2 would be piped approximately one mile to an injection well and sequestered in the Mount (Mt.) Simon Sandstone Formation, a saline reservoir. The project team members include ADM, the Illinois State Geological Survey, Schlumberger Carbon Services, and Richland Community College. DOE's proposed action would provide approximately $141.4 million in financial assistance in a cost-sharing arrangement to ADM. The cost of the proposed project would be approximately $207.9 million. This EA evaluates the environmental resource areas DOE commonly addresses in its EAs and identifies no significant adverse environmental impacts for the proposed project. The proposed project could result in beneficial impacts to the nation's energy efficiency and the local economy, and could contribute to a minor reduction of greenhouse gases.

DOE prepared this Environmental Assessment (EA) to assess the potential impacts to the human and natural environment of its Proposed Action - providing financial assistance to Burns & McDonnell Engineering under a cooperative agreement. DOE's objective is to support the development of innovative technologies that when deployed commercially, will enable industry to reduce natural gas requirements for chemical feed stocks and increase opportunity fuels. Under the terms of the cooperative agreement, DOE would provide $1,655,945 for Burns & McDonnell Engineering to facilitate the development and demonstration of a biomass energy center at the Frito-Lay manufacturing plant. It would consist of a fuel storage area, a boiler building, and a pipe rack to connect the center to existing plant utilities. The center would use a traditional stoker fired (saturated steam) boiler, which would burn a combination of dried wood waste, green wood waste, and less than 7% of tire derived fuel. The boiler would have an output of up to 78.3 Million British Thermal Units per hour. The proposed biomass energy center would be integrated into the Frito-Lay manufacturing plant's existing site procedures and operations. The plant's existing air emissions permit would be revised and resubmitted to include the energy center. No other permit changes are anticipated to be needed. Currently undeveloped land (0.137 acres) would be developed to accommodate the energy center.

DOE prepared this Environmental Assessment (EA) to assess the potential for impacts to the human and natural environment of its Proposed Action-providing financial assistance to BASF under a cooperative agreement. DOE's objective is to support the development of the EDV industry in an effort to substantially reduce the United States' consumption of petroleum, in addition to stimulating the United States' economy. More specifically, DOE's objective is to accelerate the development and production of various EDV systems by building or increasing domestic manufacturing capacity for advanced automotive batteries, their components, recycling facilities, and EDV components. This work will enable market introduction of various electric vehicle technologies by lowering the cost of battery packs, batteries, and electric propulsion systems for EDVs through high-volume manufacturing. Under the terms of the cooperative agreement, DOE would provide approximately 50 percent of the funding for BASF to construct a commercial-size manufacturing plant for cathode material. The plant would be constructed on existing BASF property located in Elyria, Ohio, and it would help meet the growing needs of domestic and global lithium-ion battery cell producers. The cathode materials to be produced are based on technology licensed from DOE. The plant can produce enough material to supply a battery manufacturer making from 20,000 to 100,000 plug-in HEV batteries and/or their cells per year or equivalent volumes of other EDV batteries. For purposes of production volume estimation, each plug-in HEV is assumed to capable of delivering at least 5 kilowatt hours of available energy. Additionally, the project would create a number of permanent jobs. The environmental analysis identified that the most notable changes, although minor, to result from BASF's Proposed Project would occur in the following areas, although minor: air quality, noise, and solid and hazardous wastes. No significant environmental effects were identified in analyzing the potential consequences of these changes.

The issue of greenhouse gas emissions has been at the forefront of environmental concerns for the past decade. A number of treaties, agreements, and voluntary programs have been proposed to reduce emissions - some of which have been the subject of intense debate and disagreement. Most notable among these proposals has been the Kyoto Protocol. Signed in 1997 by the United States and other industrialized countries, the Kyoto Protocol is a major international treaty imposing binding emission reduction targets on the developed world. However, the U.S. Senate never ratified Kyoto, and the Administration recently announced its intention of dropping out of the international negotiations surrounding the Protocol. Nonetheless, the general scientific consensus, that global warming is a real, significant issue, is not in dispute. The Administration is calling into question only the appropriate response to this issue, while explicitly recognizing the need for some response. Regardless of whether this response takes the form of a domestic voluntary program, an international treaty, or something in between these two extremes, it is likely that it will incorporate "market mechanisms" in some form or other. Most of the various emission reduction responses that have been proposed over the past few years include such mechanisms. The development and implementation of these mechanisms, designed to facilitate low-cost solutions to environmental problems, is part of a broader trend away from the command-and-control regulations of the past, and towards increased flexibility in meeting regulatory requirements. This new market-based approach has worked its way into greenhouse gas emission reduction programs and proposals, using the guidelines provided by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), and developed into a new concept: credits for emission reduction projects undertaken beyond a country's borders. Perhaps the greatest challenge for this new concept is the development of a protocol, or set of protocols, for estimating the emission reductions associated with projects. There is considerable concern among various groups surrounding the accuracy of the emission reduction estimates upon which credits would be awarded. In addition, others, particularly any potential project developer, want protocols that can be implemented within reasonable costs. Nonetheless, all parties generally recognize the need for accuracy of credits and agree on the need for a standard approach or set of procedures for estimating project-level emission reductions. A number of such approaches have been proposed and the purpose of this report is to evaluate some of the key proposals. Specifically, the report presents a series of hypothetical case study analyses designed to test each proposed approach in the context of potential real world projects. The case studies have been selected to cover a broad range of sectors and project types. The goal is to identify the strengths and weaknesses of each approach, and based on the case study analyses, recommendations for improving and refining the different approaches are developed. Four different approaches are evaluated in this report: The approach officially proposed by the U.S. at the recent (COP-6) negotiations surrounding the Kyoto Protocol; The European Union's "Positive Technology List"; The U.S. National Energy Technology Laboratory's (NETL) technology matrix concept (the "full" technology matrix); A hybrid approach combining elements of the technology matrix with the official U.S. approach (the "hybrid" technology matrix). Each case study project is evaluated using each of the above four approaches. The results for each approach are analyzed, compared and contrasted; these critical analyses in turn reveal the strengths and weaknesses of the different approaches in the context of a variety of different project types.

This publication presents a rich and detailed history of the National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) on the 100th anniversary of the founding of its original predecessor organization, the United States Bureau of Mines. This comprehensive account chronicles NETL's organizational history since 1910. To understand our history is to truly understand our organization, and, throughout this journey, A Century of Innovation is an invaluable guide to NETL's mission, vision, priorities, and structure. Our founding organization, the Bureau of Mines, was often a leader in technological advancements that benefitted American industries and consumers. Commencing as a small agency dedicated to making coal mining safer, it developed into a nationwide network of experiment stations supporting petroleum and natural gas production, mining and refining of rare metals, and the conversion of coal into gas and liquid fuels. From energy conservation efforts in the Great Depression, through urgent World War II research into aviation fuels, explosives, and nuclear materials, to its more familiar focus on developing new technologies to secure the Nation's energy future, NETL's path has had many pioneering twists and turns. NETL's efforts and accomplishments have been impressive in their breadth and scope, and our history encompasses a wide range of programs and activities. However, one constant over the years has been the tremendous dedication of the people who have made this organization what it is today. As this book attests, each time a new problem or challenge presented itself, NETL's managers, researchers, and engineers were ready to roll up their sleeves and find a solution. The universal commitment of NETL's people to a cause greater than themselves has been the hallmark of this organization. In 2010, many aspects of NETL would be unrecognizable to its predecessors. But our reputation for innovation has remained consistent. Beginning with the creation of the Pittsburgh Experiment Station in 1910, our evolution has paralleled the transformation of the U.S. energy economy from a system almost entirely dependent on fossil fuels to the current mix of fossil energy, hydropower, nuclear energy, and renewable resources. Our work reflects this mix, as our scientists, engineers, and analysts advance not only coal- and natural gas-based power systems, but also vehicle technologies, fuel cells, hydrogen turbines, water conservation technologies, and the potential of methane hydrates and fossil-biomass blends as new energy feedstocks. Our research activities continue to help assert America's leadership in solving the world's energy and environmental issues. Building on nearly a century of Federal energy research, we are developing and deploying modern technologies, creating jobs, and preparing our Nation's next generation of scientists and engineers.

The Department of Energy (DOE) prepared this Environmental Assessment (EA) to evaluate the potential environmental consequences of providing an American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act; Public Law 111-5, 123 Stat.115) financial assistance grant to Rhode Island LFG Genco, LLC (RI-LFGG) to facilitate expansion of an existing landfill gas collection system and construction and operation of a combined cycle power generation plant at the Central Landfill in Johnston, Rhode Island. DOE's Proposed Action would provide $15 million in financial assistance in a cost-sharing arrangement with the project proponent, RI-LFGG. The total cost of the project is estimated to be about $100 million. The primary objective of RI-LFGG's proposed project is to maximize the productive use of waste landfill gas generated at the Central Landfill in Johnston, Rhode Island. RI-LFGG would expand the existing gas collection system at the landfill and construct a landfill gas recovery and treatment plant and a 42-megawatt landfill gas-to-electric generating power plant. The power generated from the proposed project would be distributed to the local power grid via a new 2,000-foot electric transmission line to connect to the existing grid. This EA evaluates 14 resource areas and identifies no significant adverse environmental impacts for the proposed project. Beneficial impacts to the nation's energy efficiency and local economy could be recognized. The proposed project would generate about 366,000 megawatt-hours per year of electricity. By destroying the methane in the landfill gas, the proposed project would generate carbon dioxide equivalent reductions of greater than 1.4 million tons annually and the avoidance of over 165,000 tons of carbon dioxide per year from not using fossil fuels for generating a similar amount of electricity.

This EA presents information on the potential impacts associated with the distribution of a grant to Conergy for the construction of a solar facility in Philadelphia. This EA was prepared in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.); the National Environmental Policy Act, Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations 40 CFR Parts 1500-1508; and DOE NEPA Implementation Procedures 10 CFR 1021. This EA analyzes the following resource areas: Natural Resources - including water resources, geology, topography and soils, vegetation and wildlife, air quality, and noise; Historic Resources - including visual, and historical resources; Infrastructure - including roadways and traffic, potable water, storm water management, sanitary sewer, energy systems, solid waste, and hazardous material; Socioeconomic Resources - including land use, planning policies, demographics and environmental justice, and human health and safety. DOE's purpose and need is to ensure that SEP funds are used for activities that meet Congress's statutory aims to improve energy efficiency, reduce dependence on imported oil, decrease energy consumption, or promote renewable energy. However, it is not DOE's role to dictate to Pennsylvania how to allocate its funds among these objectives or to prescribe the projects it should pursue. PEDA's purpose and need is to take action to help fulfill its mission to finance clean, advanced energy projects in Pennsylvania, including solar energy projects. Applications are evaluated using criteria including but not limited to technical and financial feasibility of the project, number and quality of jobs created or preserved, and other economic benefits for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Projects must show financial commitment from at least one source other than PEDA and demonstrate a net environmental benefit to Pennsylvania. Conergy's purpose and need is to facilitate green job creation, economic development and growth and improve and drive the solar market place in Pennsylvania.

This report discusses the development of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions estimates for the production of Fischer-Tropsch (FT) derived fuels (in particular, FT diesel), makes comparisons of these estimates to reported literature values for petroleum-derived diesel, and outlines strategies for substantially reducing these emissions. This report is the product of the first phase of a comprehensive assessment being conducted by Energy and Environmental Solutions (E2S), LLC, for the National Energy Technology Center (NETL) to characterize the impact, both short and long term, of FT fuel production on the environment and on human health and well-being. This study involved the development of GHG inventories for a number of conceptual FT process designs. It also included the development of preliminary estimates for criteria pollutant emissions. The next phase of this assessment will address life-cycle improvements for FT fuels by targeting specific process changes aimed at reducing GHG emissions. Preliminary results have identified promising reduction strategies and these estimates have been included in this document. Future research will be focused on expanding the current emissions inventory to include a broader range of multimedia emissions of interest to NETL programs, and on performing economic analyses corresponding to the new low-emission FT process designs developed. The analysis presented in this report is limited to a LCI of airborne emissions produced along the FT fuel product life cycle. It is not a complete inventory of all emissions, though it could be used as a starting point for one, since it lays out a formal methodology for conducting an analysis for FT derived fuels. The impact of various greenhouse gases has been considered in relative terms by converting all GHG emissions to a CO2 equivalency basis. The LCI is based on earlier FT plant designs, and no effort has been made to improve on these conceptual designs.

DOE prepared this EA to evaluate the potential environmental consequences of providing a financial assistance grant under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 in a cooperative agreement with the Beacon Power Corporation (Beacon Power) as part of the Smart Grid Demonstrations Program. This EA evaluates two similar proposed projects in two locations: Site 1 evaluates installation of a utility-scale 20-megawatt flywheel energy storage and frequency regulation plant in Chicago Heights, Illinois, to provide frequency regulation services to PJM Interconnection, the electrical grid operator. The cost of the proposed project at the Illinois location would be about $48.1 million. Site 2 evaluates installation of the same system in Hazle Township, Pennsylvania. The cost of the proposed project at the Pennsylvania location would be about $53 million. DOE could choose to provide a grant for either location. DOE's Proposed Action would provide approximately $24 million in financial assistance in a cost-sharing arrangement to Beacon Power. In addition, for the proposed project in Pennsylvania (Site 2), Beacon Power could receive a $5 million grant from Pennsylvania's Redevelopment Capital Assistance Program. This EA evaluates the environmental resource areas DOE commonly addresses in its EAs and identifies no significant adverse environmental impacts for the proposed project. The proposed projects could result in beneficial impacts to the nation's energy efficiency and the local economy, and could contribute to a minor reduction of greenhouse gases.

The Department of Energy (DOE) prepared this Environmental Assessment (EA) to evaluate the potential environmental consequences of providing a financial assistance grant under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act) (Recovery Act; Public Law 111-5, 123 Stat. 115) to Battelle Memorial Institute to facilitate the installation of 540 additional solar panels, 10 solar concentrating modules, and 8 small wind energy systems at the City of Ellensburg's Renewable Energy Park located in Ellensburg, Kittitas County, Washington. This EA analyzes the potential environmental impacts of DOE's proposed action of providing the Recovery Act funding and of the No-Action Alternative. In this EA, DOE evaluated impacts to air quality, noise, aesthetics and visual resources, soils and geology, water resources, biological resources, and cultural resources. After performing a screening analysis of other environmental resource areas, DOE concluded that impacts to some aspects of the environment would not be likely to occur or would be negligible. The proposed project would be designed in compliance with federal and state air quality regulations, would reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and would have a net beneficial impact on air quality in the region. Operation of the concentrating solar modules and eight small wind systems would cause a negligible increase in noise outdoors near the adjacent interstate and Recreation Park. The aesthetics of the City of Ellensburg's Renewable Energy Park would change with the addition of ten 18-foot diameter solar concentrating modules and eight wind towers ranging from 40 to 100 feet in height; however, these changes would be in compliance with the City and County proposed regulations for wind turbines. Adverse impacts to visual resources would be minimal. There would be no adverse impacts to the 100-year floodplain profiles associated with Reecer Creek, and no increase in risk to lives or property in the area from the project. Developing 3 acres for further construction of the Renewable Energy Park would not adversely impact any plant or animal species because the project site is small and isolated from larger tracks of undisturbed land, and because plant and animal species found there are common and widespread in the region. The risk of collisions between the wind turbines and migratory birds and bats is not likely due to the configuration of the turbines (parallel to bird movements toward the wetlands and grouped configuration), the relatively short height of the turbines, and placement in previously disturbed habitat. In support of this EA, a cultural resources inventory was conducted for the area of potential effect (project site). No archaeological resources were identified, and DOE determined that no historic properties would be affected by Battelle's project. In summary, expanding the Renewable Energy Park with additional solar panels, solar concentrating modules, and small wind turbines would not likely result in significant adverse environmental impacts, particularly considering the other existing surrounding uses.

The Department of Energy (DOE) prepared this Environmental Assessment (EA) to evaluate the potential environmental consequences of providing a financial assistance grant under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 to Texas A&M University (Texas A&M) for installation of a combined heat and power (CHP) system at its campus in College Station, Texas. DOE's proposed action is to provide $10 million in financial assistance in a cost-sharing arrangement with the project proponent, Texas A&M. The cost of the proposed project would be about $70.3 million. Texas A&M's proposed project is to install and operate a high-efficiency CHP system that would produce steam for heating and cooling as well as generate electricity. This EA evaluates commonly addressed environmental resource areas and identifies no significant adverse environmental impacts for the proposed project. The proposed project would upgrade the Central Utility Plant and campus electrical distribution system to serve Texas A&M expansion. The proposed CHP system would result in substantial energy savings, reduce carbon dioxide emissions, and reduce the amount of electricity Texas A&M would purchase from carbon-producing plants such coal-fired power generators.

The DOE prepared this Environmental Assessment (EA) to assess the potential for impacts to the human and natural environment of its Proposed Action-providing financial assistance to Toda under a cooperative agreement. DOE's objective is to support the development of the EDV industry in an effort to substantially reduce the United States' consumption of petroleum, in addition to stimulating the United States' economy. More specifically, DOE's objective is to accelerate the development and production of various EDV systems by building or increasing domestic manufacturing capacity for advanced automotive batteries, their components, recycling facilities, and EDV components. This work will enable market introduction of various electric vehicle technologies by lowering the cost of battery packs, batteries, and electric propulsion systems for EDVs through high-volume manufacturing. Under the terms of the cooperative agreement, DOE would provide approximately 50 percent of the funding for Toda to construct a manufacturing plant to produce oxide materials for cathodes for lithium-ion batteries. The plant would be located within the Fort Custer Industrial Park in Battle Creek, Michigan. The project would help meet the growing needs of domestic and global lithium-ion battery cell producers. The total production volume at this facility would be sufficient to supply batteries for around 450,000 HEVs or 125,000 plug-in HEVs. Additionally, the project would create approximately 50 permanent jobs. The environmental analysis identified that the most notable changes to result from the Toda's Proposed Project would occur in the following areas: land use, air quality and greenhouse, noise, geology and soils, surface water and groundwater, vegetation and wildlife, solid and hazardous wastes, utilities and energy use, transportation and traffic, and human health and safety. No significant environmental effects were identified in analyzing the potential consequences of these changes.