ML14304A699

Federal Register, Vol. 78, No. 126, Power Sector Carbon Pollution Standards, Part 1 of 2

ML14304A699
Person / Time
Site:	Indian Point
Issue date:	07/01/2013
From:	US Executive Office of the President, US National Archives & Records Admin (NARA), Office of Federal Register
To:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML14304A441	List: ML14304A693 ML14304A694 ML14304A696 ML14304A699 ML14304A700 ML14304A701 ML14304A703 ML14304A704 ML14304A748 ML14304A751 ML14304A752
References
F-2012-1028
Download: ML14304A699 (64)

Text

I FEDERAL REGISTER Vol. 78 Monday, No. 126 July 1, 2013 I Part VI The President Memorandum of June 25, 201.3-Power Sector Carbon Pollution Standards Executive Order 13647-Establishing the White House Council on Native American Affairs

39535 Federal Register Presidential Documents Vol. 78, No. 126 Monday, July 1, 2013 Title 3- Memorandum of June 25, 2013 The President Power Sector Carbon Pollution Standards Memorandum for the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency With every passing day, the urgency of addressing climate change intensifies.

I made clear in my State of the Union address that my Administration is committed to reducing carbon pollution that causes climate change, pre-paring our communities for the consequences of climate change, and speeding the transition to more sustainable sources of energy.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has already undertaken such action with regard to carbon pollution from the transportation sector, issuing Clean Air Act standards--limiting the greenhouse gas emissions of new cars and light trucks through 2025 and heavy duty trucks through 2018. The EPA standards were promulgated in conjunction with the Department of Transportation, which, at the same time, established fuel efficiency standards for cars and trucks as part of a harmonized national program. Both agencies engaged constructively with auto manufacturers, labor unions, States, ana other stakeholders, and the resulting standards have received broad support.

These standards will reduce the Nation's carbon pollution and dependence on oil, and also lead to greater innovation, economic growth, and cost savings for American families.

The United States now has the opportunity to address carbon pollution from the power sector, which produces nearly 40 percent of such pollution.

As a country, we can continue our progress in reducing power plant pollu-tion, thereby improving public health and protecting the environment, while supplying the reliable, affordable power needed for economic growth and advancing cleaner energy technologies, such as efficient natural gas, nuclear power, renewables such as wind and solar e-nergy, and clean coal technology.

Investments in these technologies will also strengthen pur economy, as the clean and efficient production and use of electricity will ensure that it remains teliable and affordable for American businesses and families.

By the .authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and in order to reduce power plant carbon pollution, building on actions already underway in States and the power sector, I hereby direct the following:

Section 1. Flexible Carbon Pollution Standards for Power Plants. (a) Carbon Pollution Standards for Future Power Plants. On April 13, 2012, the EPA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking entitled "Standards of Perform-ance for Greenhouse Gas Emissions for New Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units," 77 Fed. Reg. 22392. In light of the information conveyed in more than two million comments on that proposal and ongoing developments in the industry, you have indicated EPA's intention to issue a new proposal. I therefore direct you to issue a new. proposal by no later than September 20, 2013. I further direct you to issue a final rule in a timely fashion after considering all public comments, as appropriate.

(b) Carbon Pollution Regulation for Modified, Reconstructed, and Existing Power Plants. To ensure continued progress in reducing harmful carbon Pollution, I direct you to use your authority under sections 111(b) and 111(d) of the Clean Air Act to issue standards, regulations, or guidelines, as appropriate, that address carbon pollution from modified, reconstructed,

39536 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 126 / Monday, July 1, 2013/ Presidential Documents

• and existing power plants and build on State efforts to move toward a cleaner power sector. In addition, I request that you:

(i) issue proposed carbon pollution standards, regulations, or guidelines, as appropriate, for modified, reconstructed, and existing power plants by no later than June 1, 2014; (ii) issue final standards, regulations,. or guidelines, as 'appropriate, for modified, reconstructed, and existing power plants by no later than June 1, 2015; and (iii) include in the guidelines addressing existing power plants a require-ment that States submit to EPA the implementation plans required under section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act and its implementing regulations by no later than June 30, 2016.

(c) Development of Standards,Regulations, or.Guidelinesfor Power Plants.

In developing standards,, regulations, or guidelines pursuant to subsection (b) of this section, and consistent with Executive Orders 12866 of September 30, 1993, as amended, and 13563 of January 18, 2011, you shall ensure, to the greatest extent possible, that you:

(i) launch this effort through direct engagement with States, as they will play a central role in establishing and implementing standards for existing power plants, and, at the same time, with leaders in the power sector, labor leaders, non-governmental organizations, other experts, tribal offi-cials, other stakeholders, and members of the public, on issues informing the design of the program; (ii) consistent with achieving regulatory objectives and taking into account other relevant environmental regulations and policies that affect the power sector, tailor regulations and guidelines to reduce costs; (iii) develop approaches that allow the use of market-based instruments, performance standards, and other regulatory flexibilities; (iv) ensure that the standards enable continued reliance on a range of energy sources and technologies; (v) ensure that the standards are developed and implemented in a manner consistent with the continued provision of. reliable and affordable electric power for consumers and businesses; and (vi) work with the Department of Energy and other Federal and State agencies to promote the reliable and affordable provision of electric power through the continued development and deployment of cleaner tech-nologies and by increasing energy efficiency, including through stronger appliance efficiency standards and other measures.

Sec. 2. General Provisions. (a) This memorandum shall be implemented consistent with applicable law, including international trade obligations, and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(b) Nothing in this memorandum shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i) the authority granted by law to a department, agency, or the head thereof; or (ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 126 / Monday, July 1, 2013 / Presidential Documents 39537 (c) This memorandum is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

(d) You are hereby authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the FederalRegister.

THE WHITE HOUSE, Washington, June 25, 2013.

[FR Doc. 2013-15941 9 Filed 6-28-13: 11:15 am)

Billing code 6560-50

Federal Register/Vol. 78, No. 126/Monday, July 1, 2013 /Presidential Documents 39539 Presidential Documents Executive Order 13647 of June..26, 2013 Establishing the White House Council on Native American Affairs By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and in order to promote and sustain prosperous and resilient Native American tribal governments, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1. Policy. The United States recognizes a government-to-government relationship, as well as a unique legal and political relationship, with feder-ally recognized -tribes. This relationship is set forth in the Constitution of the United States, treaties, statutes, Executive Orders, administrative rules and regulations, and judicial decisions. Honoring these relationships and respecting the sovereignty of tribal nations is critical to advancing tribal self-determination and prosperity.

As we work together to forge a brighter future for all Americans, we cannot ignore a history of mistreatment, and destructive policies that have hurt tribal communities. The United States seeks to continue restoring and healing relations with Native Americans and to strengthen its partnership with tribal governments, for our more recent history demonstrates that tribal self-deter-mination-the ability of tribal governments to determine how to build and sustain their own communities-is necessary for successful and prospering communities. We. further recognize that restoring tribal lands through appro-priate means helps foster tribal self-determination.

This order establishes a national policy to ensure that the Federal Government engages in a true and lasting government-to-government relationship with federally recognized tribes in a more coordinated and effective manner, including by better carrying out its trust responsibilities. This policy is established as a means of promoting and sustaining prosperous and resilient tribal communities. Greater engagement and.meaningful consultation with tribes is of paramount importance in developing any policies affecting tribal nations.

To honor treaties and recognize tribes' inherent sovereignty and right to self-government under U.S. law, it is the policy of the United States to promote the development of prosperous and resilient tribal communities, including by:

(a) promoting sustainable economic development, particularly energy, transportation, housing, other infrastructure, entrepreneurial, and workforce development to drive future economic growth and security; (b) supporting greater access to, and control over, nutrition and healthcare, including special efforts to confront historic health disparities and chronic diseases; (c) supporting efforts to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of tribal justice systems and protect tribal communities; (d) expanding and improving lifelong educational opportuinities for Amer-ican Indians and Alaska Natives, while respecting demands for greater tribal control over tribal education, consistent with Executive Order 13592 of December 2, 2011 (Improving American Indian and Alaska Native Edu-cational Opportunities and Strengthening Tribal Colleges and Universities);

and

39540 Federal Register/Vol. 78, No. 126/Monday, July 1, 2013/Presidential Documents (e) protecting tribal lands, environments, and natural resources, and pro-moting respect for tribal cultures.

Sec. 2. Establishment. There is established the White House Council on Native American Affairs (Council). The Council- shall improve coordination of Federal programs and the use of resources available to tribal communities.

Sec. 3. Membership. (a) The Secretary of the Interior shall serve as the Chair. of the Council, which shall also include the heads of the following executive departments, agencies, and offices:

(i) the Department of State; (ii) the Department of the Treasury; (iii) the Department of Defense; "

(iv) the Department of Justice; (v) the Department of Agriculture; (vi) the Department of Commerce; (vii) the Department of Labor; (viii) the Department of Health and Human Services; (ix) the Department of Housing and Urban Development; (x) the Department of Transportation; (xi) the Department of Energy; (xii) the Department of Education; (xiii) the Department of Veterans Affairs; (xiv) the Department of Homeland Security;

• (xv) the Social Security Administration; (xvi) the Office of Personnel Management; (xvii) the Office of the United States Trade Representative; (xviii) the Office of Management and Budget; (xix) the Environmental Protection Agency; (xx) the Small Business Administration; (xxi) the Council of Economic Advisers; (xxii) the Office of National Drug Control Policy; (xxiii) the Domestic Policy Council; (xxiv) the National Economic Council; (xxv) the Office of Science and Technology Policy; (xxvi) the Council on Environmental Quality; (xxvii) the White House Office of Public. Engagement and Intergovernmental Affairs; (xxviii) the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation6 (xxix) the Denali Commission; (xxx) the White House Office of Cabinet Affairs; and (xxxi) such other executive departments, agencies, and offices as the Chair may, from time to time, designate.

(b) A member of the Council may designate a senior-level official, who is a full-time officer or employee of the Federal Government, to perform his or her functions.

(c) The Department of the Interior shall provide funding and administrative support for the Council to the extent permitted by law and within existing appropriations.

Federal Register/Vol. 78, No. 126 / Monday, July 1, 2013/Presidential Documents 39541 (d) The Council shall coordinate its policy development through the Do-mestic Policy Council.

(e) The Council shall coordinate its outreach to federally recognized tribes through the White House Office of Public Engagement and Intergovernmental Affairs.

(f) The Council shall meet three times a year, with any additional meetings convened as deemed necessary by the Chair.

The Chair may invite other interested agencies and offices to attend meetings as appropriate.

Sec. 4. Mission and Function of the Council. The Council shall work across executive departments, agencies, and offices to coprdinate development of policy recommendations to support tribal self-governance and improve the quality of life for Native Americans, and shall coordinate the United States Government's engagement with tribal governments and their communities.

The Council shall:

(a) make recommendations to the President, through the Director of the Domestic Policy Council, concerning policy priorities, including improving the effectiveness of Federal investments in Native American communities, where appropriate, to increase the impact of Federal resources and create greater opportunities to help improve the quality of life for Native Americans; (b) coordinate, through the Director of the Office of Public Engagement and Intergovernmental Affairs, Federal engagement with tribal governments and Native American stakeholders regarding issues important to Native Amer-icans, including with tribal consortia, small businesses, education and train-ing institutions including tribal colleges and universities, health-care pro-viders, trade associations, research and grant institutions, law enforcement, State and local governments, and community and non-profit organizations; (c) coordinate a more effective and efficient process for executive depart-ments, agencies, and offices to honor the United States commitment to tribal consultation as set forth in Executive Order 13175 of November -6, 2000 (Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments), and my memorandum of November 5, 2009 (Tribal Consultation); and (d) assist the White House Office of Public Engagement and Intergovern-mental Affairs in -organizing the White House Tribal Nations Conference each year by bringing together leaders invited from all federally recognized Indian tribes and senior officials from the Federal Government to provide for direct government-to-government discussion of the Federal Government's Indian country policy priorities.

Sec, 5. General Provisions. (a) The heads of executive departments, agencies, and offices shall assist and provide information to the Council, consistent with- applicable law,- as may be necessary to carry out the functions of the Council.

(b) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department, agency, or the head thereof; or (ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.'

(c) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(d) For purposes of this order, "federally recognized tribe" means an Indian or AlaskaNative tribe, band, nation, pueblo, village, or community that the Secretary of the Interior acknowledges to exist as an Indian tribe pursuant to the Federally Recognized Indian Tribe List Act of 1994, 25 U.S.C. 479a.

(e) For purposes of this order, "American Indian and Alaska Native" means a member of an Indian tribe, as membership is defined by the tribe.

39542 Federal Register/Vol. 78, No. 126/Monday, July 1, 2013 /Presidential Documents (f) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

THE WHITE HOUSE, June 26, 2013.

[FR Doc. 2013-15942 Filed 6-28-13; 11:15 am]

Billing code 3295-F3 0

Reader Aids Federal Register Vol. 78, No. 126 Monday, July 1, 2013 CUSTOMER SERVICE AND INFORMATION CFR PARTS AFFECTED DURING JULY Federal Register/Code of Federal Regulations General Information, indexes and other finding 202-741-6000 At the end of each month the Office of the Federal Register aids publishes separately a List of CFR Sections Affected (LSA), which Laws 741-6000 lists parts and sections affected by documents published since the revision date of each title.

Presidential Documents Executive orders and proclamations 741-6000 The United States Government Manual 741-6000 Other Services Electronic and on-line services (voice) 741-6020 Privacy Act. Compilation. 741-6064 Public Laws Update Service (numbers, dates, etc.) 741-6043 TTY for the deaf-and-hard-of-hearing 741-6086 ELECTRONIC RESEARCH World Wide Web 4 Full text of the daily Federal Register, CFR and other publications is located at: www.fdsys.gov.

Federal Register information and research tools, including Public Inspection List, indexes, and links to GPO Access are located at:

www.ofr.gov.

E-mail FEDREGTOC-L (Federal Register Table of Contents LISTSERV) is an open e-mail service that provides subscribers with a digital form of the Federal Register Table of Contents. The digital form of the Federal Register Table of Contents includes HTML and PDF links to the full text of each document.

To join or leave, go to http://listserv.access.gpo.gov and select Online mailing list archives, FEDREGTOC-L,Join or leave the list (or change settings); then follow the instructions.

PENS (Public Law Electronic Notification Service) is an e-mail service that notifies subscribers of recently enacted laws.

To subscribe, go to http://listserv.gsa.gov/archives/publaws-l.html and select Join or leave the list (or change settings); then follow the instructions.

FEDREGTOC-L and PENS are mailing lists only. We cannot respond to specific inquiries.

Reference questions. Send questions and comments about the Federal Register system to: fedreg.info@nara.gov

• The Federal Register staff cannot interpret specific documents or regulations.

Reminders. Effective January 1, 2009, the Reminders, including Rules Going Into Effect and Comments Due Next.Week, no longer appear in the Reader Aids section of the Federal Register. This information can be found online at http:-Iwww.regulations.gov.

CFR Checklist. Effective January 1, 2009, the CFR Checklist no longer appears in the Federal Register. This information can be found online at http://bookstore.gpo.gov/.

FEDERAL REGISTER PAGES AND DATE, JULY 39163-39542 ......................... "1 9.

Federal Register / Vol. 78 No. 126 / Monday, July 1, 2013 / Reader Aids iii TABLE OF EFFECTIVE DATES AND TIME PERIODS-JULY 2013 This table is used by the Office of the dates, the day after publication is A new table will be published in the Federal Register to compute certain counted as the first day. first issue of each month.

.dates, such as effective dates and When a date falls on a weekend or comment deadlines, which appear in holiday, the next Federal business day agency documents. In computing these is used. (See I CFR 18.17)

DATE OF FR 15 DAYS AFTER 21 DAYS AFTER 30 DAYS AFTER 35 DAYS AFTER 45 DAYS AFTER 60 DAYS AFTER 90 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION PUBLICATION PUBLICATION PUBLICATION PUBLICATION PUBLICATION PUBLICATION PUBLICATION July 1 Jul 16 Jul 22 Jul 31 Aug 5 Aug 15 Aug 30 Sep 30

• July 2 Jul 17 Jul 23 Aug 1 Aug'6 Aug 16 Sep 3 Sep 30 July 3 Jul 18 Jul 24 Aug 2 Aug 7 Aug 19 Sep 3 Oct 1 July 5 Jul 22 Jul 26 Aug 5 Aug 9 Aug 19 Sep 3 Oct 3 July 8 Jul 23 Jul 29 Aug 7 Aug 12 Aug 22 Sep 6 Oct 7 July 9 Jul 24 Jul 30 Aug 8 Aug 13 Aug 23 Sep 9 Oct 7 July 10 Jul 25 Jul 31 Aug 9 Aug 14 Aug 26 Sep 9 Oct 8

• July 11 Jul 26 Aug 1 Aug 12 Aug 15 Aug 26 Sep 9 Oct 9 July 12 Jul 29 Aug 2 Aug 12 Aug 16 Aug 26 Sep 10 Oct 10 July 15 Jul 30 Aug 5 Aug 14 Aug 19 Aug 29 Sep 13 Oct 15 July 16 Jul 31 Aug 6 Aug 15 Aug 20 Aug 30 Sep 16 Oct 15 July 17 Aug 1 Aug 7 Aug 16 Aug 21 Sep 3 Sep 16 Oct 15 July 18 Aug 2 Aug 8 Aug 19 Aug 22 Sep 3 Sep 16 Oct 16 July 19 Aug 5 Aug 9 Aug 19 Aug 23 Sep 3 Sep 17 Oct 17 July 22 Aug 6 Aug 12 Aug 21 Aug 26 Sep 5 Sep 20 Oct 21 July .23 Aug 7 Aug 13 Aug 22 Aug 27 Sep 6 Sep 23 Oct 21 July 24 Aug 8 Aug 14 Aug 23 Aug 28. Sep 9 Sep 23 Oct 22 July 25 Aug 9 Aug 15 Aug 26 Aug 29 Sep 9 Sep 23 Oct 23 July 26 Aug 12 Aug 16 Aug 26 Aug 30 Sep 9 Sep 24 Oct 24 July 29 Aug 13 Aug 19 Aug 28 Sep 3 Sep 12 Sep 27 Oct 28 July 30 Aug 14 Aug 20 Aug 29 Sep 3 Sep 13 Sep 30 Oct 28 July 31 Aug 15 Aug 21 Aug 30 Sep 4 Sep 16 Sep 30 Oct 29

U.S. Energy Sector Vulnerabilities to Climate Change and Extreme Weather July 2013 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY DOEIPI.0013

C eC C

C C

C C

C On the cover: Trans-Alaska oil pipeline; aerial view of New Jersey refinery; coal barges on Mississippi River in St. Paul, Minnesota; power plant inPrince George's County, Maryland; Grand Coulee Dam inWashington State; corn field near Somers, Iowa; wind turbines inTexas. C Photo credits: iStockphoto C

Acknowledgements

• O This report was drafted by the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Policy and International Affairs (DOE-PI) and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). The coordinating lead author and a principal author was Craig Zamuda of DOE-PI; other principal authors included Bryan Mignone of DOE-PI, and Dan Bilello, KC Hallett, Courtney Lee, Jordan Macknick, Robin Newmark, and Daniel Steinberg of NREL. Vince Tidwell of Sandia National Laboratories, Tom Wilbanks of Oak Ridge National Laboratory, and Matt Antes, Gareth Williams, and C.W. Gillespie of Energetics Incorporated provided analytical support and editing services. Contributions were made from experts throughout the Department, particularly: Carla Frisch, Arnitai Bin-Nun, and Sam Baldwin, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy; Gilbert Bindewald III, Brian Copeland, and Eric Rollison, Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability; Jarad Daniels, Thomas Grahame, and Olaymka Ogunsola, Office of Fossil Energy; Matt Crozat, Office of Nuclear Energy; Diana Bauer, Aaron Bergman, and Robert Marlay, DOE-PI; Robert Vallario and Gary Geernaert, Office of Science; Jennifer MacDonald and Glenn Sonntag, Sustainability Performance Office. Other reviewers at DOE's national laboratories included May Wu and Dan Santini, Argonne National Laboratory; Jayant Sathaye, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory; Thomas Jenkin, NREL; and William Emanuel and Richard Skaggs, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. The effort benefited from interagency input and feedback, particularly from the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy and Council on Environmental Quality, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. This report was enhanced by the input of government, industry, and non-governmental experts who participated in the "Climate Change and Extreme Weather Vulnerability Assessment of the U.S. Energy Sector" workshop hosted by the Atlantic Council on July 24-25, 2012, which was supported by a grant from DOE-PI.

Disclaimer This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Reference herein to any

• specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof.

C U.S. ENERGY SECTOR VULNERABILITIES TO CLIMATE CHANGE AND EXTREME WEATHER Contents EX ECU T IV E SU M M A RY ..................................................................................................................................................... W8C Vu lnerabilities in the U.S. Energy Sector ................................................................................................................................. i A daptation Responses and Future Opportunities ............................................................................................................. ii IN T R O D U CT IO N ................................................................................................................................................................. 1 Regional Variation in Im pacts ................................................................................................................................................... 4c Com pounding Factors and Interdependencies .................................................................................................................... 5 Thresholds and Tipping Points ................................................................................................................................................. 6 Response Optim ization ................................................................................................................................................................ 6 Report Snapshot .............................................................................................................................................................................. 6 CH APT ER 1: Increasing T emperatu res ..................................................................................................................... 8 Recent Trends and Projections ................................................................................................................................................. 8 Im plications for the Energy Sector ........................................................................................................................................... 9 Oil and Gas Exploration and Production .......................................................................................................................... 9 Therm oelectric Pow er Generation ................................................................................................................................... 10 R enew able Energy R esources ............................................................................................................................................ 11 Electric Grid .............................................................................................................................................................................. 12 C Energy D em and ....................................................................................................................................................................... 13 CHAPTER 2: Decreasing W ater Availability ................................................................................................... 17 Recent Trends and Projections .............................................................................................................................................. 17 Im plications for the Energy Sector ........................................................................................................................................ 18 Oil and Gas Exploration and Production ........................................................................................................................ 18 Fuel Transport ......................................................................................................................................................................... 21 W Therm oelectric Pow er Generation ................................................................................................................................... 22 Renew able Energy R esources ............................................................................................................................................ 25 CHAPTER 3: Increasing Storms, Flooding, and Sea Level Rise ................................................................. 28 Recent Trends and Projections .............................................................................................................................................. 28 C Im plications for the Energy Sector ........................................................................................................................................ 29 Oil and Gas Exploration and Production ........................................................................................................................ 30 Fuel Transport ......................................................................................................................................................................... 32 Therm oelectric Pow er Generation ................................................................................................................................... 33 R enew able Energy R esources ............................................................................................................................................ 34 C Electric Grid .............................................................................................................................................................................. 35 CHAPTER 4: Adaptation Actions and Major Opportunities ....................................................................... 36 Adaptation A ctions Underw ay ................................................................................................................................................ 37 Major Opportunities ................................................................................................................................................................... 42 CO NCLU SIO N ................................................................................................................................................................... 46 C APPENDIX: Climate and Extreme Weather Trends in the United States ............................................ A-1 R EFEREN CES .................................................................................................................................................................. R -1 C

C

• Figures Figure 1. Selected events over the lost decade illustratethe U.S. energy sector's vulnerabilitiesto climatic conditions..................... 1 Figure 2. Climate change implicationsfor the energy sector............................................................................................................ 4 Figure 3. Rate of warming in the United States by region, 1901-2011 ............................................................................................... 8 Figure 4. W ildfire disruptingelectricity transmission............................................................................................................................... 13 Figure 5. Changesin cooling degree days and heatingdegree days in the United States by 2080-2099, under a lower emissions scenario (B ) and a very high em issions scenario (AlIFI) ......................................................................................................................... 14 Figure 6. Distributionof heating and cooling degree days for different climate zones across the United States ............................. 14 Figure 7. Projectedchanges in precipitationby season ........................................................................................................................... 17 Figure 8. U.S. shale oil and shale gas plays.............................................................................................................................................. 20 Figure 9. Oil barge loading at a refinery on the MississippiRiver ....................................................................................................... 21 Figure 10. Barges transportingcoal down the Mississippi River......................................................................................................... 22 Figure 11. Low water level at Martin Lake Steam Electric Station facility in Texas ............................................................................ 22 Figure 12. Locations of thermoelectricpower plants by cooling technology and water source .......................................................... 23 Figure 13. W ater use by fuel and cooling technology .............................................................................................................................. 24 Figure 14. Water stress: Locations of the 100 most vulnerable coal-fired power plants ................................................................... 24 Figure 15. Drought-strickenfarm field ..................................................................................................................................................... 26 Figure 16. Percentagechange in very heavy precipitation,1958-2007............................................................................................. 28 Figure 17. Projected changes in Atlantic hurricanefrequency by category........................................................................................ 29 Figure 18. Billion-dollarweather and climate disasters, 1980-2012 .................................................................................................. 30 Figure 19. Flooded refinery near Beaumont, Texas, in the aftermath of HurricaneIke ...................................................................... 30 Figure20. Damaged offshore platform after HurricaneKatrina ........................................................................................................ 30 Figure21. Hurricanestorm tracks and locationsof coastal energy infrastructure............................................................................. 31 Figure 22. SPR storage locations.............................................................................................................................................................. 32 Figure 23. SPR site and equipment inundatedfollowing a storm surge ............................................................................................. 32 Figure 24. Floodedrailroadalong the Spring River in Arkansas ........................................................................................................ 33 Figure 25. Regions with heavy rainfallevents (1958-2007)and coal shipment routes that cross major rivers ................ 33

'W Figure 26. Power plants in Californiapotentially at riskfrom a 100-yearflood with sea level rise of 4.6 feet (1.4 meters) .............. 34 Figure 27. Flooding of the Ft. Calhoun nuclear power plant in Nebraska,spring 2011 ..................................................................... 34 Figure 28. W eather-relatedgrid disruptions, 2000-2012........................................................................................................................ 35 Figure 29. San Juan generatingstation.................................................................................................................................................... 37 Figure 30. Concentratingsolar power plant in the Mojave Desert .................................................................................................... 38 Figure 31. Illustrative view of projected Gulf Coast energy assets at risk by 2030 ............................................................................ 39 Figure 32. Changes in the levelized cost of electricity associated with retrofittingthermoelectricpower plants to dry cooling or non-potable water, depending on which was the least expensive alternative .......................................................................................... 40 Figure 33. Illustrative technology opportunities to build a more climate-resilientU.S. energy sector .............................................. 43 Figure 34. Projected seasonaldifferences in tem perature..................................................................................................................... A-3 Figure 35. Projected changes in frost-free season ................................................................................................................................. A-4 Figure 36. Observed changes in annualprecipitation in the United States (1991-2011)................................... A-5 Figure 37. Projected changes in precipitationby season ....................................................................................................................... A-6 Figure 38. Projected changes in Atlantic hurricanefrequency by category........................................................................................... A-8 Figure 39. Percentagechange in very heavy precipitation,1958-2007 ................................................................................................ A-9 Figure 40. Trends in flood m agnitude .................................................................................................................................................. A-10

US. ENERGY SECTOR VULNERABILITIES TO CLIMATE CHANGE AND EXTREME WEATHER Tables Table ES-i. Relationship between climate change projections and implicationsfor the energy sector ................................................... iii w c Table 1. Nexus of energy, water, and land system s ................................................................................................................................... 5 Table 2. Report organizationand relationshipbetween climate change projections and implicationsfor the energy sector ........ 7 Table 3. Climate indicatorsthat affect water availability........................................................................................................................ 17 Table 4. Connectionsbetween the U.S. energy sector and water availabilityand quality ............................................................... 19 Table 5. Likelihood scale from the IPCCFourth Assessment Report (AR4) ............................................................................................. A-2 C

C C

C C

C C

c 0

C

U.0*. UIVIM I r_ un.tiivor- mi,&j CA I INCIVI I ~ tVMI~~fM~~MN AIr~V EXECUTIVE

SUMMARY

Since the start of the 20th century, average annual air and water temperatures, which reduce the efficiency temperatures across the contiguous United States have of cooling, increase the likelihood of exceeding water increased approximately 1.5'F (0.8'C) (NOAA 2013b, EPA thermal intake or effluent limits that protect local 2012a). Recent weather conditions are no exception to this ecology, and increase the risk of partial or full trend. July 2012 was the hottest month in the United States shutdowns of generation facilities since record keeping began in 1895, and 2012 was the

• Energy infrastructure located along the coast is at risk warmest year overall, marked by historic high temperatures from sea level rise, increasing intensity of storms, and and droughts, above average wildfires, multiple intense higher storm surge and flooding, potentially disrupting storms that disrupted power to millions, and multiple oil and gas production, refining, and distribution, as well extreme heat waves (NOAA 2013c). More than 60% of the as electricity generation and distribution country experienced drought during the summer of 2012,

• Oil and gas production, including unconventional oil including some areas of exceptional drought (NOAA and gas production (which constitutes an expanding 2

013c, NOAA 201 2 c). These trends, which are expected to share of the nation's energy supply) is vulnerable to continue (NOAA 2013b, IPCC 2012, USGCRP 2009), decreasing water availability given the volumes of water could restrict the supply of secure, sustainable, and required for enhanced oil recovery, hydraulic fracturing, affordable energy critical to the nation's economic growth. and refining At least three major climate trends are relevant to the

" Renewable energy resources, particularly hydropower, energy sector:

bioenergy, and concentrating solar power can be e Increasing air and water temperatures affected by changing precipitation patterns, increasing

• Decreasing water availability in some regions and frequency and intensity of droughts, and increasing seasons temperatures

• Increasing intensity and frequency of storm events, " Electricity transmission and distribution systems carry flooding, and sea level rise less current and operate less efficiently when ambient air This report-part of the Administration's efforts to support temperatures are higher, and they may face increasing national climate change adaptation planning through the risks of physical damage from more intense and frequent Interagency Climate Change Adaptation Task Force and storm events or wildfires Strategic Sustainability Planning process established under

• Fuel transport by rail and barge is susceptible to Executive Order 13514 and to advance the U.S. increased interruption and delay during more frequent Department of Energy's goal of promoting energy periods of drought and flooding that affect water levels security-examines current and potential future impacts of in rivers and ports these climate trends on the U.S. energy sector. It identifies " Onshore oil and gas operations in Arctic Alaska are activities underway to address these challenges and vulnerable to thawing permafrost, which may cause discusses potential opportunities to enhance energy damage to existing infrastructure and restrict seasonal technologies that are more climate-resilient, as well as access, while offshore operations could benefit from a information, stakeholder engagement, and policies and longer sea ice-free season strategies to further enable their deployment. " Increasing temperatures will likely increase electricity demand for cooling and decrease fuel oil and natural gas Vulnerabilities in the U.S. Energy Sector demand for heating Increasing temperatures, decreasing water availability, more intense storm events, and sea level rise will each Some of these effects, such as higher temperatures of independently, and in some cases in combination, affect the ambient water used for cooling, are projected to occur in all ability of the United States to produce and transmit regions. Other effects may vary more by region, and the electricity from fossil, nuclear, and existing and emerging vulnerabilities faced by various stakeholders may differ renewable energy sources. These changes are also projected significantly depending on their specific exposure to the to affect the nation's demand for energy and its ability to condition or event. However, regional variation does not access, produce, and distribute oil and natural gas (ORNL imply regional isolation as energy systems have become 2012a, USGCRP 2009). An assessment of impacts-both increasingly interconnected. Compounding factors may positive and negative-is necessary to inform forward- create additional challenges. For example, combinations of Dlooking efforts to enhance energy security. Significant persistent drought, extreme heat events, and wildfire may findings include: create short-term peaks in demand and diminish system flexibility and supply, which could limit the ability to Thermoelectric power generation facilities are at risk respond to that demand.

from decreasing water availability and increasing ambient

U.S. ENERGY SECT( VULNERABILITIES TO CLIMATE CHAN6E AND EXTREME VVEATHER V~S. ENERGY SECT( VULNERABILITIES TO CI JMATE CHANGE AND EXTREME WEATHER Adaptation Responses and Future Opportunities technologies, and encourage design, operation, and siting Federal, state, and local governments and the private sector are already responding to the threat of climate change.

These efforts include the deployment of energy

• of energy infrastructure in a manner that increases climate resilience Measures that promote integration of energy sector ec technologies that are more climate-resilient, assessment of climate risks into different levels of development vulnerabilities in the energy sector, adaptation planning planning and maximize benefits of adaptation to efforts, and policies that can facilitate these efforts. multiple sectors However, the pace, scale, and scope of combined public Technology and policy development should be and private efforts to improve the climate preparedness and accompanied by better information-data, models, tools, C resilience of the energy sector will need to increase, given and vulnerability assessments-to help decision-makers the challenges identified. Greater resilience will require understand climate risks, the potential for technological or improved technologies, polices, information, and operational solutions, and the relative economic costs of stakeholder engagement. Possible future technology technology and policy strategies. Such improvements could opportunities include: include:

" Water-efficient technologies for fuels production, " Better characterization of the aggregate vulnerabilities of C including conventional oil and natural gas, shale gas, the energy sector to climate change, interdependencies shale oil, and coalbed methane between the energy sector and other sectors that can

" Improved energy efficiency and reduced water intensity lead to cascading impacts, and low probability-high of thermoelectric power generation, including innovative impact climate scenarios with thresholds and tipping cooling technologies, non-traditional water supplies (e.g., points beyond which there are irreversible changes or municipal wastewater or brackish groundwater), and changes of unexpected magnitude C water capture/reuse

• Improved data collection and analysis of the costs and

• Enhanced water efficiency of bioenergy (e.g., modified benefits of adaptation and resilience measures, including agricultural practices and use of alternative water the benefits of preventing critical infrastructure damage sources), use of drought-tolerant crop varieties for or loss, and preventing economic loss due to disruptions bioenergy production, and more water-efficient conversion of biomass into biofuels in energy production and delivery

• Enhanced tools and models that use information about ec

" Improved grid equipment and operations to manage energy sector vulnerabilities and adaptation measures to changing load conditions and increase reliability and evaluate trade-offs between various forms of energy resilience production, between various adaptation measures, and

" Increased resilience of energy infrastructure to wildfires, between climate change adaptation goals and other storms, floods, and sea level rise, including "hardening" relevant national priorities C

of existing facilities and structures (e.g., transmission and Finally, a greater level of engagement between key distribution lines, power plants, oil and gas refineries, stakeholder and user communities could facilitate the and offshore oil and gas platforms) transition to a more climate-resilient energy sector. Current

" Enhanced demand-side management and development efforts are analyzing the effects of global climate change on of energy/water-efficient and energy-smart appliances, the United States and promoting the integration of climate equipment, buildings, and vehicles change adaptation into energy system planning and C

An improved framework of enabling policies could help operations. However, all institutions involved-federal and non-federal-will need to continue to work to better facilitate the development and deployment of climate-facilitate effective planning, development, and resilient energy technologies. Policy choices occur at the communication of these approaches. Future opportunities federal, state, and local levels, and any adjustments to future could include:

policies, existing federal efforts, or new undertakings would need to be evaluated thoroughly with complete

• Outreach initiatives built on existing communication and C consideration of an array of factors, including societal and education programs to improve dissemination of economic costs and benefits, and competing priorities. information regarding risks, vulnerabilities, and Possible future opportunities include: opportunities to build climate-resilient energy systems

• Innovation policies to broaden the suite of advanced

• Effective coordination mechanisms with federal, state technologies and local governments to build capacity and to help

" Enabling national and sub-national policies and deploy the most appropriate approaches regionally and C nationally incentives to overcome existing market barriers, accelerate deployment of more climate-resilient energy ii C

O Engagement of the investment, financial, and insurance strategies will foster action while allowing course communities in climate change risk reduction through corrections over the longer term. Ultimately, climate change the use of financial instruments adaptation and mitigation actions are complementary Quantifying the impacts of climate change on the nation's approaches that can jointly reduce the costs and risks of energy infrastructure is increasingly important to improve climate change and extreme weather. Effective adaptation understanding of the social and economic costs and strategies and the development and deployment of climate-benefits of resilience measures and response strategies. resilient energy technologies will facilitate resilient energy Decisions will continue to be made under uncertainty, systems in the United States and around the globe.

highlighting the need for risk-based assessments. Flexible Table ES-1. Relationship between climate change projections and implications for the energy sector*

" Thawing permafrost inArctic Alaska " Damaged infrastructure and changes to existing operations

" Longer sea ice-free season inArctic Alaska " Limited use of ice-based infrastructure; longer drilling season; new Oil and gas shipping routes exploration and production " Decreasing water availability " Impacts on drilling, production, and refining

• Increasing intensity of storm events, sea level rise,

• Increased risk of physical damage and disruption to offshore and and storm surae coastal facilities

" Increasing air temperatures - rweucuon in piant eniciencies ano avaiiaoie generation capacity Thermoelectric

• Increasing water temperatures

• Reduction in plant efficiencies and available generation capacity; power increased risk of exceeding thermal discharge limits generation

" Decreasing water availability

• Reduction in available generation capacity; impacts on coal, natural (Coal, natural gas, nuclear, gas, and nuclear fuel supply chains geothermal " Increasing intensity of storm events, sea level rise,

• Increased risk of physical damage and disruption to coastal facilities and solar CSP) and storm surge

" Inprocginn inftncifu 2*n1 fromionntu nf flruelinn

- Itilrlatniy dl temrperatures - increaseu imgation aemana ano riSK OTcrop aamage Trom extreme neat events Bioenergy and . Extended growing season - Increased production biofuel production

• Decreasing water availability

• Decreased production S level nse ana increasing intensity and

• ea v Increased risk of crop damage frequency of flooding S Increasing air temperatures " Reduction inpotential generation capacity Solar energy . nwr.,rinn w~f~r 2u~iilhilifi,

" Reduction inCSP potential generation capacity

• increasing air temperatures - increasea eiectncity aemana tor coOling; Energy decreased fuel oil and natural gas demand for heating demand

• Increasing magnitude and frequency - Increased peak electricity demand of extreme heat events

• Where possible, this report attempts to characterize the direction and magnitude of change at the national and regional level, as well as on an annual and seasonal basis. However, given limitations inthe available literature, statements about the direction of change do not necessarily imply judgment about the magnitude of change unless explicitly stated.

INTRODUCTION Sc Our climate is changing. Observed trends include increases optimize response strategies in the near term. However, in air and water temperatures; changes in precipitation, the tools, data, and technologies for longer-term water availability, and the hydrologic cycle; more intense planning-particularly for planning in the context of storm events, droughts, wildfires, and flooding; and rising climate change-are less robust. Changes in climate have C

sea levels. These trends are projected to continue (NOAA the potential to significantly impact U.S. energy security by 2013b, IPCC 2012, USGCRP 2009). forcing the present aging energy system to operate outside of the ranges for which it was designed.

Energy production and distribution systems are designed to respond to weather variability such as daily changes in Figure 1 illustrates some of the many ways in which the temperature that affect load or rapid changes in renewable U.S. energy sector has recently been affected by climatic C resource availability that affect supply. These short-term conditions. These types of events may become more fluctuations are managed by designing redundancy into frequent and intense in future decades.

energy systems and using tools to predict, evaluate, and N ew Hampshire Massachusetts 1 \RhooI'Island awJersey C Maryland

• Delaware

- West Virginia C

C C

Figure 1. Selected events over the last decade illustrate the U.S. energy sector's vulnerabilities to climatic conditions C

• • Figure 1. Selected events over the last decade illustrate the U.S. energy sector's vulnerabilities to climatic conditions (continued)

, August 2012: Dominion Resources' Millstone Nuclear Power Station inConnecticut shut down one reactor because the temperature of 1 ** the intake cooling water, withdrawn from the Long Island Sound, was too high and exceeded technical specifications of the reactor. Water temperatures were the warmest since operations began in1970. While no power outages were reported, the two-week shutdown resulted inthe loss of 255,000 megawatt-hours of power, worth several million dollars (USNRC 2012, Wald 2012a).

July 2012: Four coal-fired power plants and four nuclear power plants in Illinois requested permission to exceed their permitted water S

2 temperature discharge levels because the temperature of their cooling water pond is regulated to prevent adverse ecological impacts.

The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency granted special exceptions to the eight power plants, allowing them to discharge water that was hotter than allowed by federal Clean Water Act permits (Eilperin 2012, Wald 2012b).

A September 2011: High temperatures and high electricity demand-related loading tripped a transformer and transmission line near Yuma, 3 Arizona, starting a chain of events that led to shutting down the San Onofre nuclear power plant with power lost to the entire San Diego County distribution system, totaling approximately 2.7 million power customers, with outages as long as 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> (FERC 2012).

Summer 2011: Consecutive days of triple-digit heat and record drought in Texas resulted inthe Electric Reliability Council of Texas 4 declaring power emergencies due to a large number of unplanned power plant outages and at least one power plant reducing its output (Fowler 2011).

Summer 2010: The Hope Creek Nuclear Generating Station inNew Jersey and Exelon's Limerick Generating Station in Pennsylvania 5 had to reduce power because the temperatures of the intake cooling water, withdrawn from the Delaware and the Schuylkill Rivers, respectively, were too high and did not provide sufficient cooling for full power operations (Wald 2012b).

2007, 2010, and 2011: The Tennessee Valley Authority's (TVA) Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant in Athens, Alabama, had to reduce power r,-l output because the temperature of the Tennessee River, the body of water into which the plant discharges, was too high to discharge 6 ".) heated cooling water from the reactor without risking ecological harm to the river. TVA was forced to curtail the power production of its L..Y.J nuclear reactors, in some cases for nearly two months. While no power outages were reported, the cost of replacement power was estimated at $50 million (PNNL 2012).

@ 7 - October 2007: The California Independent System Operator declared an emergency due to wildfire damage to the Southwest Power link 7 transmission system, including more than two dozen transmission lines out of service with damage to 35 miles of wire and nearly 80,000 customers inSan Diego losing power, some for several weeks (PPIC 2008, SDG&E 2007).

8 August 2007: Drought, heat waves, and elevated water temperatures forced Duke Energy to curtail operations at two coal-fired power plants (Riverbend Steam Station and Allen Steam Station), causing scattered power outages (Beshears 2007).

July 2006: One unit at American Electric Power's D.C. Cook Nuclear Plant was shut down because the high summer temperatures raised the air temperature inside the containment building above 120°F (48.9°C), and the temperature of the cooling water from Lake Michigan was too high to intake for cooling. The plant could only be returned to full power after five days, once the heat wave had passed (Krier 2012).

r1,.*9 August 2006: Two units at Exelon's Quad Cities Generating Station in Illinois had to reduce electricity production to less than 60%

10 electricity capacity because the temperature of the Mississippi River was too high to discharge heated cooling water from the reactors (USNRC 2006).

July 2012: Inthe midst of one of the worst droughts inAmerican history, certain companies that extract natural gas and oil via hydraulic 11 12 Q A fracturing faced higher water costs or were denied access to water for 6 weeks or more in several states, including Kansas, Texas, Pennsylvania, and North Dakota (Ellis 2012, Hargreaves 2012, Dittrick 2012).

Summer 2012: Drought and low river water depths disrupted the transportation of commodities, such as petroleum and coal, delivered by barges. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers reported grounding of traffic along the Mississippi River (ASA 2012, EIA 2012f, Cart 2012).

313 Summer 2012: Reduced snowpack inthe mountains of the Sierra Nevada and low precipitation levels reduced California's hydroelectric power generation by 38% compared to the prior summer (CISO 2013).

D

• Fall 2011: Due to extreme drought conditions, the city of Grand Prairie, Texas, became the first municipality to ban the use of city water S14 for hydraulic fracturing. Other local water districts inTexas followed suit by implementing similar restrictions limiting city water use during drought conditions (Lee 2011).

2

U.s. INIJ(GY SLC lUK VULN-.KABILI I LS 10U LIMA I L UHAN(L ANU tA_I.tMt WIA IHI" Figure 1. Selected events over the last decade illustrate the U.S. energy sector's vulnerabilities to climatic conditions (continued) 15

=j Summer 2010: Below-normal precipitation and streamflows inthe Columbia River basin resulted ininsufficient hydropower generation to fulfill load obligations for the Bonneville Power Administration. As a result, BPA experienced a net loss of $164 million infiscal year 2010, WC which occurred largely due to low water volumes (BPA 2010).

2010: The Arizona Corporation Commission ruled that Hualapai Valley Solar LLC would have to use dry cooling or treated wastewater 16 rather than groundwater as a condition of its certificate of environmental compatibility for a proposed 340 MW solar power plant inMohave County, Arizona, due to concerns about the effects of the power plant on water availability from the Hualapai Valley aquifer (Adams 2010).

17 September 2010: Water levels inNevada's Lake Mead dropped to levels not seen since 1956, prompting the Bureau of Reclamation to C 17 reduce Hoover Dam's generating capacity by 23%. As water levels continued to drop, dam operators were concerned that reductions in generating capacity would destabilize energy markets inthe Southwest (Quinlan 2010, Walton 2010, Barringer 2010).

18 , 2009: NV Energy abandoned a proposed plan for a 1,500 MW coal-fired power plant (Ely Energy Center) that would have used more than 7.1 million gallons of water per hour, which raised concerns among local residents and environmental groups (BLM 2009, Woodall 2009).

19 2007: Severe drought inthe Southeast caused the Chattahoochee River, which supports more than 10,000 MW of power generation, to 19 drop to one-fifth of its normal flow. Overall, hydroelectric power generation inthe Southeast declined by 45% (Ackerman et al. 2008, Bigg C

• L 2007).

20 EL 2006: Power production of the North Platte Project (a series of hydropower plants along the North Platte River) was reduced by about half EIl as aresult of multi-year drought (Cooley et al. 2011).

IpctsDu to Increaei g Strsloingnea Leve Ris heavy 21 February 2013: Over 660,000 customers lost power across eight states in the Northeast affected by a winter storm bringing snow, winds, and coastal flooding to the region and resulting in significant damage to the electric transmission system (DOE 2013c).

22

• October 2012: Ports and power plants in the Northeast, as well as oil refineries, fuel pipelines, and petroleum terminals, were either damaged or experienced shutdowns as a result of Hurricane Sandy. More than 8 million customers lost power in 21 affected states (DOE 2012a).

August 2012: Oil production in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico declined and coastal refineries shut down in anticipation of Hurricane Isaac.

23 Although the closures were precautionary, offshore oil output was reduced by more than 13 million barrels over an 18-day period, and offshore Gulf natural gas output was curtailed by 28 billion cubic feet (BSEE 2012a).

. June 2012: Almost three million people and businesses lost power due to the complexes of thunderstorms coupled with strong winds, also 24 known as a derecho, that swept across the Midwest to the Mid-Atlantic coast on June 29, 2012. In addition, damage to water filtration facilities in Maryland caused the imposition of water restrictions (NOAA 2012d, NOAA 2012e).

A Summer 2011: Severe drought and record wildfires in Arizona and New Mexico burned more than one million acres and threatened the 25 U.S. Department of Energy's Los Alamos National Laboratory as well as two high voltage lines transmitting electricity from Arizona to approximately 400,000 customers in New Mexico and Texas (NOAA 2012k, AP 2011 a, AP 2011 b).

26 July 2011: ExxonMobil's Silvertip pipeline, buried beneath the Yellowstone River in Montana, was torn apart by flood-caused debris, I " "*1spilling oil into the river and disrupting crude oil transport in the region. The property damage cost was $135 million (DOT 2012).

June 2011: Missouri River floodwaters surrounded Fort Calhoun Nuclear Power plant in Nebraska. The nuclear reactor had been shut 27 down in April 2011 for scheduled refueling, but the plant remained closed during the summer due to persistent flood waters (USNRC 2011).

May 2011: Nearly 20% of barge terminals along the Ohio River were closed due to flooding, impacting coal and petroleum transport.

28 Flooding along the Ohio and Mississippi rivers also threatened oil refineries and infrastructure from Tennessee to Louisiana (Reuters 2011, EIA 2011 c).

2005: Hurricanes Katrina and Rita inflicted significant damage on the Gulf Coast, destroying 115 offshore platforms and damaging 52 29 1 others, damaging 535 pipeline segments, and causing a near-total shutdown of the Gulfs offshore oil and gas production for several weeks. Nine months after the hurricanes, 22% of oil production and 13% of gas production remained shut-in, equating to the loss of 150 million barrels of oil and 730 billion cubic feet of gas from domestic supplies (BSEE 2012b).

September 2004: Hurricane Jeanne shut down several power plants and damaged power lines, resulting in nearly 2.6 million customers 30 losing electrical service in northeast, central, and southwest Florida. Accompanying hot and humid weather forced voluntary, pre-arranged load control programs for customers to reduce power consumption during peak usage (NEI 2012, DOE 2004).

3 C

Continuing to accurately assess and address both acute and under the auspices of the Global Change Research Act of chronic vulnerabilities in the energy sector will help to 1990. The NCA provides an analysis of the effects of ensure access to reliable electricity and fuels, a cornerstone global change on the natural environment, agriculture, of economic growth and energy security. This report energy production and use, land and water resources, reviews available information about climate trends, transportation, human health and welfare, human social examines how these changes could affect the U.S. energy systems, and biological diversity; analyzes current trends in sector (Figure 2), identifies current response actions, and global change, both human-induced and natural; and considers opportunities for building a more resilient energy projects major trends for the next 25 to 100 years. The sector. The crosscutting nature of the issues discussed second NCA report was released in 2009 (USGCRP 2009).

herein may illuminate opportunities for improvement and The third NCA report is expected to be issued in 2014, for collaboration across government agencies, state and and its energy-related chapters build upon technical input local planning authorities, universities, and the private from DOE's Office of Science (ORNL 2012a, PNNL sector, among others. 2012).3 Although this report focuses on the U.S. energy sector, it is likely that most countries, including those from which the United States imports electricity and fuels, will face similar impacts, which may in turn impact U.S. energy security. This reality reinforces the importance of continued research, development, demonstration, and deployment of energy technologies that both mitigate D climate change (minimize the magnitude of climate change) and improve adaptation and resilience to climate change. Effective adaptation strategies, including the development and deployment of climate-resilient energy technologies, will facilitate not only a resilient energy system in the United States, but also a more globally resilient energy system to which the United States is inherently linked. Such strategies will also create opportunities in the United States to bring new technologies into the global marketplace.

Regional Variation in Impacts Climate change impacts are projected to vary regionally.

For example, annual precipitation is generally expected to increase across the northern United States but decline in Figure 2. Climate change implications for the energy sector the southern states (NOAA 2013b, USGCRP 2009). Fuels This report is part of a broader Department of Energy production and processing may be most affected in the (DOE) response supporting the Administration initiative Gulf of Mexico and along the coasts, due to an increase in on climate change adaptation planning.' It provides a the intensity of storm events and relative sea level rise.

summary of relevant information from scientific and peer- Vulnerabilities faced by any given stakeholder, whether a reviewed literature, provides illustrative examples from utility, oil or gas developer, project financier, insurer, or government and private sector sources, and incorporates energy consumer, may result from differences in the input from a DOE-supported July 2012 workshop regional energy supply mix (e.g., use of hydropower, solar 2

3) conducted by the Atlantic Council. and wind resources, coal, or nuclear), energy demand (e.g.,

heating and cooling), water availability and uses, and This report also builds upon DOE efforts in support of climate change impacts. However, regional variation does the U.S. National Climate Assessment (NCA), conducted not imply regional isolation. As energy systems have become increasingly interconnected, impacts that occur on Interagency Climate Change Adaptation Task Force, a local or regional level often have broader implications.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/ceq/ For example, climate impacts that affect resource initiatives/adaptation 2 Atlantic Council Workshop agenda and presentations, 3 A draft of the third is NCA available at:

http://www.acus.org/event/climate-change-and-extreme-weather-vulnerabilitv-assessment-us-ener~v-sector http://ncadac.globalchange.gov 4

availability in one region may put pressure on the electric cooling, processing, and the future deployment of carbon grid elsewhere to compensate for those changes. capture and storage (CCS).

National estimates indicate that moving and treating water Compounding Factors and Interdependencies represents nearly 4% of total electricity consumption in the This report characterizes the impact of climate change and United States (EPRI 2002), and when end uses of water extreme weather on the energy system by examining the are considered, approximately 13% of total primary energy following potential climate impacts: increasing consumption in the United States results from water use temperatures, decreasing water availability, increasing (Sanders and Webber 2012). Another example of this frequency and intensity of storms and flooding, and sea interdependency is the increase in the use of water for C level rise. However, these effects will likely not occur agriculture, which can simultaneously impact energy individually, and they may exhibit compounding effects. In demand (e.g., increased energy required to extract and addition, compounding factors and interdependencies transport water for irrigation) and energy production (e.g.,

within and across the energy sector and other sectors must less cooling water available for thermoelectric generation).

be better understood to effectively assess the overall Table 1. Nexus of energy, water, and land systems impacts on the energy system. C For example, higher ambient air temperatures can increase water temperatures, with both contributing to a reduction in electricity supply and increases in electricity demand. In Energy resource extraction addition, as air temperatures increase, transmission systems Water needed Fuel processing carry less current and operate less efficiently. Such for energy Thermal power plant cooling simultaneous effects occurring within an interrelated (rarhnn rnnhira and dnrana I C system can compound vulnerabilities. Due to the complexity of these interactions, this report focuses primarily on how climate change affects individual energy system components (ie., oil and gas exploration, fuel transport, thermoelectric power generation, renewable energy resources, electric grid, and energy demand). Energy needed water extracuon However, understanding the compounding conditions and for water Water transport Watur fmatmant the aggregate vulnerabilities of the energy sector are critical areas for continued research and scientific investigation.

The energy impacts of recent hurricanes, including Sandy, Rita, and Katrina, illustrate this interdependency among C energy system components. For example, electric power outages affecting gas station pumps in the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy limited gasoline available to customers. tnergy resource exuacuon Similar impacts occurred in association with electricity Energy infrastructure, including supply and the operations of oil and gas refineries and dams/reservoirs, mines/wells, power plants, Land needed solar and wind farms, power lines, pipelines, pipeline distribution. Thus, disruptions of services in one for energy C energy sector (electricity supply, transmission, and and refineries Bioenergy cropland distribution) may result in disruptions in one or more other sectors (petroleum production and distribution),

potentially leading to cascading system failures.

In addition to interdependencies across energy sector Source. Adapted from PNNL 2072 components, the issue of interdependency is also relevant C between the energy sector and other sectors. Table 1 Interdependencies also link the energy sector to other illustrates linkages between the energy, water, and land sectors, such as transportation and communications. The systems, which are discussed in a recent technical report transportation sector requires energy for motive power, developed by DOE in support of the National Climate and the energy sector relies on transportation to provide Assessment (PNNL 2012). For example, water pumping, the necessary coal, oil, and natural gas resources to transport, treatment, and conditioning require energy, operate. The communications sector requires electricity to while energy production requires water for extraction, operate, and the energy sector increasingly requires communication systems to monitor and manage the electric grid.

5

Response Optimization Optimal public and private responses to climate variability and climate change will depend on many factors, including the attributes of individual technologies, energy supply mix, nature and duration of the impact, the evaluation of risk associated with potential tipping points or low probability/high consequence events, availability of climate-resilient energy technologies or political acceptance of policies (including land use policies) to reduce the impact, and the costs of various adaptation response strategies.

Although the energy sector is already responding to climate change in some ways-such as assessing vulnerabilities and adaptation planning efforts, and deploying climate-resilient energy technologies-existing barriers may limit more widespread action. These include:

• Limited understanding of vulnerabilities based on their probability and significance

• Lack of robust economic assessments of alternative adaptation options Compounding conditions that create new vulnerabilities

• Absence of a comprehensive suite of affordable may also emerge in coming decades. For example, climate-resilient technologies combinations of persistent drought, extreme heat events,

" Lack of a policy framework or adequate market signals and wildfire may create short-term peaks in demand and for investments in resilience

• diminish system flexibility and supply, which could limit

• Varying purviews, control, and perceptions of risk that the ability to respond to that demand. Compounding factors may be important for climate preparedness from limit the influence of key stakeholders both a local perspective as well as a regional or national Continued investments are required to promote energy perspective focused on overall system resilience. They will security in the face of a changing climate. Physical be critical to both assessing the economic rationale for investment in new technologies and approaches is action and designing specific response strategies. necessary, as is enhanced information, stakeholder engagement, and enabling frameworks. The latter include Thresholds and Tipping Points improved data, models, and vulnerability assessments; When assessing, forecasting, and responding to potential greater outreach and collaboration to facilitate impacts of climate change and extreme weather on the communication and education; and forward-looking energy sector, consideration is needed not only for innovation and deployment policies and strategies, which predictable gradual changes but also for lower probability, may be federal or non-federal.

higher warming scenarios with' potentially more severe impacts. Lower probability, higher impact scenarios may Report Snapshot be characterized by thresholds or points beyond which The first three chapters of this report examine the there are irreversible changes or changes of higher potential impacts of climate change on the U.S. energy magnitudes than expected based on previous experience. sector, focusing on increasing temperatures (Chapter 1),

These "tipping points" are hard to predict and have many decreasing water availability (Chapter 2), and increasing uncertainties due to a number of factors, such as storms, flooding, and sea level rise (Chapter 3). Table 2 insufficient data, models that are not yet able to represent maps specific climate trends to potential energy sector the interactions and interdependencies of multiple stresses, impacts discussed in these chapters. Chapter 4 highlights a and incomplete understanding of physical climate subset of current adaptation activities and identifies mechanisms related to tipping points (USGCRP 2009). opportunities that could enhance the preparedness and resilience of the energy system.

6

Table 2. Report organization and relationship between climate change projections and implications for the energy sector*

" Thawing permafrost inArctic Alaska " Damaged infrastructure and changes to existing 1 ec operations Oil and gas " Longer sea ice-free season inArctic Alaska " Limited use of ice-based infrastructure; longer drilling 1

exploration and season; new shipping mutes production " Decreasing water availability " Impacts on drilling, production, and refining 2

• Increasing intensity of storm events, sea level

• Increased risk of physical damage and disruption to C 3

rise, and storm sumre offshore and coastal facilities

" Increasing air temperatures a Reduction in plant efficiencies and available C generation capacity

" Increasing water temperatures s Reduction in plant efficiencies and available Thermoelectric generation capacity; increased risk of exceeding 1 power generation thermal discharge limits (Coal, natural gas, a Decreasing water availability " Reduction inavailable generation capacity; impacts 2

nuclear, geothermal on coal, natural gas, and nuclear fuel supply chains C and solar CSP) " Increasing intensity of storm events, sea level " Increased risk of physical damage and disruption to rise, and storm surge 3 coastal generation facilities

" Increasing intensity and frequency of flooding " Increased risk of physical damage and disruption to inland qeneration facilities 3

" Increasing air temperatures a Increased irrigation demand and risk of crop damage 1 from extreme heat events (C Bioenergy and

• Extended growing season wIncreased production I biofuel production " Decreasingi water availability

• Decreased production 2

• Sea level rise and increasing intensity and a Increased risk of crop damage 3

frequency of flooding

" Increasing air temperatures n Reduction inpotential generation capacity 1 C2 Solar energy " arlmraqinn w2tAr 2vwilhilitv m RAd&htinn in rRP nntAntinl nAnpratinn (nnntrItv C

" Increasing air temperatures

• Increased electricity demand for cooling; decreased fuel oil and natural gas demand for 1 Energy demand heating

" Increasing magnitude and frequency of mIncreased peak electricity demand It extreme heat events

• Where possible, this report attempts to characterize the direction and magnitude of change at the national and regional level, as well as on an annual and ec seasonal basis. However, given limitations inthe available literature, statements about the direction of change do not necessarily imply judgment about the magnitude of change unless explicitly stated.

7 C

CHAPTER 1: Increasing Temperatures Recent Trends and Projections Higher average temperatures have been accompanied by the following impacts:

Average temperatures across the United States have increased during the past 100 years, and the rate of " Heat waves (a period of several days to weeks of warming has increased over the past several decades abnormally hot weather, often with high humidity)

(NOAA 2013b, WMO 2013, EPA 2 01 2 a, USGCRP 2009). have generally become more frequent and intense Nearly the entire United States has experienced increased across the United States in the decades since 1960 average temperatures, with the extent of warming varying (NOAA 2013b, EPA 2010a, USGCRP 2009, CCSP by region, as illustrated by Figure 3 (NOAA 2013b, EPA 2008b). High humidity and very high nighttime 2012a, USGCRP 2009). The warmest year since record temperatures have characterized recent heat waves keeping began in 1895 for the contiguous United States (USGCRP 2009, CCSP 2008b).

was 2012, and the hottest month for the nation was July

• Wildfire season has increased by nearly 80 days in the 2012 (NOAA 2013c). The average annual temperature for past three decades (NIFC 2012). The average duration 2012 was 55.3'F (12.9°C), which was 3.2°F (1.7°C) above of large fires has almost quadrupled, from 7.5 days to Sthe 20th century average (NOAA 2013c). 37 days (IPCC 2007a), and the size of wildfires has also increased (NOAA 2013c, USGCRP 2009).

• Permafrost has thawed, and Alaskan Arctic sea ice cover has decreased (WMO 2013, NASA 2012, USGCRP 2009). In September 2012, Arctic sea ice cover reached its lowest seasonal minimum extent in the satellite record (ie., since 1979), reinforcing the long-term trend (NOAA 2013c, NASA 2012).

• The growing season has increased by about two weeks since the beginning of the 20th century (EPA 2012a).

These trends are projected to continue. In the period 2021-2050, average annual temperatures across the United States are projected to increase by approximately 2.5°F (1.4°C) in a lower emissions scenario (BM), and by 2.9°F (1.6°C) in a higher emissions scenario (A2), when compared to the climate of 1971-1999 (NOAA 2013b). By 2070-2099, temperatures are projected to increase by btm uttuquwMur. dung. (Fpwaniw)~ 4.8°F (2.7°C) under a lower emissions scenario (B1) and by 8°F (4.4°C) under a higher emissions scenario (A2) in the

. *3 -2 -1 0 1 ' i 3 4i United States (NOAA 2013b), and conditions currently GrayhftarW:.C.1 tbg.i¶ characterized as heat waves may become dominant Figure 3. Rate of warming in the United States by region, summer conditions (Duffy and Tebaldi 2012). There are 1901-2011 seasonal differences in projected warming trends; greater Source: EPA 2072a warming is projected in the summer and fall than in the winter and spring for most of the United States (NOAA 2013b, USGCRP 2009).

8

Warmer temperatures are also expected to contribute to to approximately 22% of the world's undiscovered oil and the following climate trends (see Appendix for additional details):

" Increase in frequency and intensity of heat waves gas resources (Harsem et al. 2011, USGS 2008). Both onshore and offshore exploration and production have been, and are projected to continue to be, affected by 1W (NOAA 2013b, Duffy and Tebaldi 2012) increasing temperatures, as permafrost thaws and sea ice

• Increased frequency, intensity, and total acreage continues to melt (Burkett 2011, SPE 2010).

affected by wildfires in some parts of the United Thawing permafrostcould damage oil andgas infrastructureandforce States, particularly Alaska and parts of the West changes to existing operations in Arctic Alaska. As permafrost (USGCRP 2009, Spracklen et al. 2009) thaws, the tundra loses its weight-bearing capabilities. C

" Decreased average extent of sea ice in the Arctic by Risks to onshore fossil fuel develo ment could include the about 15% for every 2*F (1.1°C) of warming (EPA loss of access roads 2012b), with the possible disappearance of summer built on permafrost, sea ice by the end of the century (Stroeve et al 2012, loss of the opportunity Kay et al. 2011, Wang and Overland 2009, IPCC to establish new roads, 2007d) problems due to frost C

" Longer growing season throughout the United States heave and settlement (NOAA 2013b, USGCRP 2009) of pipelines set on pilings or buried in Implications for the Energy Sector permafrost, and reduced load-bearing Increasing temperatures can affect key aspects of the energy supply chain. Higher temperatures that thaw capacity of buildings C and structures permafrost can disrupt onshore oil and gas operations in (Burkett 2011, ADEC Arctic Alaska. Higher temperatures also create a longer sea 2010). The trans-Alaska oil pipeline was constructed with ice-free season in the Arctic, which can limit ice-based thousands of thermosyphons, or pipes that remove heat infrastructure but allows a longer season for drilling.

from permafrost, which may now be having problems Increases in ambient air and water temperatures across the caused by increasing temperatures (Larsen et al. 2008). In United States reduce thermal efficiencies of electricity addition, drilling wastes are typically disposed of using in-generation from nuclear, coal, natural gas, concentrating ground sumps that rely on the permafrost to prevent solar power (CSP), bioenergy, and geothermal facilities, subsurface movement of the wastes into the surrounding which can reduce available capacity and increase fuel environment; thawing permafrost could require consumption by power plants. Higher temperatures reduce modifications to this practice or the adoption of alternative the current carrying capacity and decrease the transmission efficiency of electricity lines. Finally, electricity demand for waste disposal methods. To protect the tundra, the Alaska C Department of Natural Resources limits the amount of cooling increases when temperatures are higher, while travel on the tundra, and over the past 30 years, the demand for heating decreases.

number of days when travel is permitted has dropped from Oil and Gas Exploration and Production more than 200 to 100, thereby reducing by half the number of days that oil and gas exploration and extraction Oil and gas in Arctic equipment can be used (ADEC 2010, USGCRP 2009, C Alaska are important ADNR 2004).

sources of energy and are particularly Decreasingsea ice could crate other chalkngesfor offshore oil andgas vulnerable to climate development in Arctic Alaska. The extent and thickness of change because Arctic sea ice has decreased by an average of 2.7% per temperatures in the decade, and by more than 7% per decade in the summer, Arctic are increasing according to satellite data going back to 1978 (IPCC C twice as fast as the 2007a). Reduced sea ice coverage could trigger new global average (IPCC environmental regulations and protections for Arctic 2007b). The region mammals, which may limit development opportunities contains an estimated (Burkett 2011). Reduced sea ice coverage limits ice-based 90 billion barrels of infrastructure and transportation (Burkett 2011, SPE 2010). Sea ice melting can also result in more icebergs, C oil, 1,669 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, and 44 billion barrels of natural gas liquids, which amount which may pose a risk to oil and gas operations in the Arctic because increased sea ice movement could interrupt 0 9

C

U.;. I-ItNtNUT-*,*-, IUI' VULPIIIKAILIiI Ito I U ULIMA I IMUNANUt ANIJ tA I KtMt VVtA'I M1 drilling and damage rigs and vessels (Harsem et al. 2011). the generation process. Increases in ambient air Climate change may increase the frequency of polar storms temperatures and cooling water temperatures will increase in the years to come, further disrupting drilling, steam condensate temperatures and turbine backpressure, production, and transportation (Harsem et al. 2011). reducing power generation efficiency (NETL 2 010c).

Decreasing sea ice could generate benefits for offshore oil and gas The magnitude of the impact from increasing air and water evploration and production in Arctic Alaska. A longer sea ice- temperatures on specific power plants will vary based on a free season creates a longer exploration, production, and number of plant- and site-specific factors. For example, drilling season and may increase the rate at which new oil the power output of natural gas-fired combustion turbines and gas fields are discovered (Burkett 2011, Harsem et al. (often used for peaking) is estimated to decrease by 2011, ADEC 2010). Warmer temperatures could open new approximately 0.6%--0.7% for a 1.8°F (1C) increase in air shipping routes through the Northwest and Northeast temperature (Davcock et al. 2004). For combined cycle Passages and expand the spatial extent of Arctic power plants, output can decrease by approximately 0. 3 %-

exploration (Burkett 2011, SPE 2010), a particularly 0.5% for 1.8°F (10 C) increase in air temperature noteworthy opportunity if the Alaskan and Canadian (Maulbetsch and DiFilippo 2006). Plant output losses for coastal shelf becomes permanently ice-free (Burkett 2011). combined cycle plants with dry cooling may be more The Arctic Climate Impact Assessment estimated that a sensitive to warmer air temperatures, with reductions in reduction in Arctic sea ice could result in 90-100 navigable plant output of approximately 0.7% for a 1.8°F (I1C) days per year by 2080, compared to the current 20-30 days increase in air temperature. For nuclear power plants, per year, which would expand resource accessibility from output losses are estimated to be approximately 0.5% for a sea routes (AMAP 2004). 1.8'F (1VC) increase in air temperature (Linnerud et al.

The combination of risks posed by warming and the 2011, Durmayaz and Sogut 2006).

opportunities gained through increased access to offshore While these studies project relatively small changes in resources makes it unclear whether oil and gas percentage terms, when extended over the nation they development in Arctic Alaska will be improved or could have significant impacts on net electricity supplies, if hindered as temperatures rise. such losses in available capacity are not compensated by

'O Thermoelectric Power Generation reduced demand or greater supplies elsewhere in the system when they are needed (CCSP 2007a).

Increases in ambient air and water temperatures are When projected increases in air and water temperatures projected to reduce the thermal efficiencies of associated with climate change are combined with changes thermoelectric power plants. Reduced thermal efficiencies to water availability (discussed in Chapter 2), electric can result in reduced power output and additional fuel generation capacity during the summer months may be consumption. Because almost 9 0% of the electricity significantly reduced. For example, the average summer generated in the United States comes from thermoelectric capacity at thermoelectric power plants by mid-century power (EIA 2012a, EIA 2012b), such decreases in power (2031-2060) is projected to decrease by between 4.4% and output or increases in fuel consumption will hinder system 16%, depending on climate scenario, water availability, and flexibility or increase costs across the United States. cooling system type, as compared to the end of the 20th Increasing air and water temperatures reduce the efliciengy of century (van Vliet et al. 2012).

thermoelectricpower generation and could reduce availablegeneration Increasing water temperaturespose other risks to thermoelectricpower capacity. Natural gas, coal, nuclear, CSP, bioenergy, and plants and could reduce available generation capacity. Increasing geothermal power plants are all affected by elevated air water temperatures put power plants at risk of exceeding temperatures. Warmer air and heat waves can increase thermal discharge limits established to protect aquatic ambient cooling water temperatures, which affects ecosystems and incurring financial penalties or forcing generation efficiency regardless of fuel source (NETL temporary curtailments (PNNL 2012). For example, 2010c). For thermoelectric power plants, heat is used to during the heat waves that hit the Southeast in 2007, 2010, produce high-pressure steam, which is expanded over a and 2011, the temperature of the Tennessee River turbine to produce electricity. The driving force for the exceeded 90'F (32.2'C); these increased water process is the phase change of the steam to a liquid temperatures forced curtailments at once-through cooling following the turbine, from which arises the demand for facilities along the river, such as the Browns Ferry Nuclear cooling water. A vacuum is created in the condensation Plant, where cooling water discharge would have exceeded I process that draws the steam over the turbine. This low the thermal limit (PNNL 2012). During the 2007 heat

• pressure is critical to the thermodynamic efficiency of the wave, Duke Energy was forced to curtail operations at two process. Increased backpressure will lower the efficiency of coal-fired power plants (Beshears 2007). In 2012, several 10

U.S. ENERGY SECTOR VULNERABILITIES TO C:LIMATE CHANGE AND EXTREME WEA I HER power plants across the country temporarily shut down or Hydropower obtained special exemptions from their operating permits Increasing temperatures could affect the operation of hydropower to exceed thermal discharge limits (see Figure 1).

faclities and decrease available generation capaciy in some regions.

Even if an individual power plant could safely continue to Increasing temperatures will increase evaporative water discharge its cooling water, the cumulative effect of losses and consumptive water use in upstream watersheds, multiple plants discharging high-temperature waters into a decreasing water availability for hydropower and the receiving body with already elevated temperatures may operational flexibility of hydropower projects (CCSP result in violation of environmental regulations. For 2007a). Increasing air and water temperatures may example, multiple plants in the Ohio River Basin share the intensify stratification of some reservoirs behind dams and C same water body. As this watershed becomes warmer, the deplete dissolved oxygen both in the reservoirs and cumulative impact of the energy system as a whole will downstream, which may degrade habitat for fish and other likely need to be considered, not just the impact of an wildlife. Such water quality changes can affect growth, individual plant (ORNL 2012a). reproduction, migration, and survival of aquatic fauna and may cause changes in community structure and In addition to the regulatory limits on thermal discharges biodiversity (McCullough et al. 2009, Jager et al. 1999). C from once-through cooling for power plants, several other This may impel regulatory limits on hydropower flow factors influence the vulnerability of these power plants to releases to mitigate adverse ecological effects of water higher water temperatures. These factors include the quality fluctuations (Bevelhimer et al. 1997, FERC 1996).

location of the water intake (depth and distance from These limits can reduce the peak generation capacity of shore), the location of the outlet, the fluid velocities of the hydropower facilities and diminish the ability of inlet and outlet, screening mechanisms, measures to reduce hydropower facilities to respond quickly to electric system bio-fouling on heat-exchanger surfaces, turbulence and demands.

pressure changes within the heat exchangers, and natural temperature distributions within the water column. For Bioenergy and Biofuel Production C

example, Unit 2 at the Millstone Nuclear Power Station A longer growing season could increase bioenergi production, while was shut down in August 2012 after temperatures in Long increasing temperatures could decrease bioenerg&production in some Island Sound exceeded the maximum temperature at regions. Warmer temperatures lead to a longer growing which the nuclear power plant is permitted to extract season and could lead to gained acreage for multiple crops cooling water (Wald 2012a). However, Unit 3, which pulls @W using land that otherwise could not be cultivated water from deeper and cooler waters in the sound, effectively. However, the overall effect of warmer continued to operate (Eaton 2012). temperatures on bioenergy production will vary by location, crop type, soil conditions, and producers' Renewable Energy Resources adaptive responses to the warmer temperatures (such as C In recent years, renewable electricity generation capacity in modifying their crop mix). For some crops and locations, the United States has increased considerably. Despite the increasing temperatures will increase evapotranspiration relatively small share of non-hydroelectric renewable (ET) rates, thereby increasing water demand; if increased sources in the current electricity generation portfolio water demand is not met by increased irrigation (or (approximately 4%, NREL 2012), about 30 states, precipitation), the increased ET rates could reduce average including those with large energy markets such as yields. Extreme heat could damage crops, and extended California, have established renewable portfolio standards periods of drought could destroy entire yields. Such and other policies that will encourage higher penetration of shortfalls may lead to increased price volatility in these technologies in the future.4 Wind capacity increased associated commodities. A recent study found that impacts from 2.6 gigawatts (GW) in 2000 to approximately 60 GW from climate change could increase corn price volatility by in 2012, while solar capacity has also begun to grow rapidly a factor of more than four over the next three decades (FERC 2013). The potential impact of climate change will (Diffenbaugh et al. 2012). Warmer temperatures and vary across renewable energy technologies and regions. drought can also stress forests and make stands vulnerable to mortality from pest infestations such as the pine beetle, which can reduce bioenergy production and increase fire risk (USGCRP 2009).

4 Renewable energy contributed about 1 0% of total U.S.

electricity generation in 2010: 6.4% from hydropower, 2.4% C from wind energy, 0. 7 % from biopower, 0.4% from geothermal energy, and 0.05% from solar energy (NREL 2012).

11 11C

Wind Energy al. 2004). In most of the United States, this study projects a Changes in diurnaland seasonal windpatterns could influence future trend toward decreased seasonal-mean daily global wind power resource potentialas sitgnficanty as changes in average radiation in the range of 0% to 20% by mid-century (Pan annual wind speeds. Projections of wind patterns vary by et al. 2004). One study in Europe estimated that a 2%

region, emissions scenario, and climate model. As a result, decline in solar radiation paired with a 6.7'F (3.7'C) there is not yet consensus as to how a changing climate increase in average ambient temperature could decrease will ultimately affect wind resources in the United States. solar panel power output by 6% (Fidje and Martinsen From an energy generation perspective, changes to wind 2006). Understanding how cloud cover changes, including speed and direction are important at a range of temporal the types of clouds, will be important for understanding scales, from annual averages to changes in diurnal patterns. future solar resource potential. For example, increases in Average annual wind speeds in the United States could high thin cirrus clouds that are highly transparent to solar decrease by 1%-3% (Breslow and Sailor 2002) by mid- radiation will not have the same impact as lower clouds, century, and by as much as 3%/o-14% at times in the such as stratocumulus clouds that are not as transparent Northwest according to a 2008 study (Sailor et al. 2008).5 and will result in less solar energy reaching the earth's However, a more recent evaluation of several regional surface (NASA 2013b).

climate models suggests that changes in U.S. wind resources through the middle of this century will not Electric Grid exceed changes associated with historic variability (Pryor The U.S. electric grid is a large and complex system that and Barthelinie 2011). consists of more than 9,200 electric generating units with more than 1,000 GW of generating capacity connected to Solar Energy more than 300,000 miles of transmission lines (DOE Increasing temperatures could reduce potential generation capaciy of 2008a). Increasing temperatures are expected to increase solar PV. Annual and seasonal photovoltaic (PV) output transmission losses, reduce current carrying capacity, could be affected by increases in ambient air temperature; increase stresses on the distribution system (ORNL 2012b, changes in cloud cover; and changes in haze, humidity, and CEC 2012, USGCRP 2009), and decrease substation dust (Omubo-Pepple et al. 2009, Chow et al. 2007). efficiency and lifespan (CEC 2012).

SHowever, limited information has been published on the potential impacts of higher temperatures on solar Increasing temperatures reduce transmission gystem efficiency and resources in the United States. could reduce available transmission capacity. Approximately 7%

of power is lost in transmission and distribution (EIA Increasing temperatures decrease the efficiency of PV 2012j), and these losses increase as temperatures increase.

systems. The extent to which PV efficiencies are affected In addition, as temperatures increase, the current carrying by temperature depends on the semiconducting material capacity of electricity lines decreases. For example, one used. Crystalline silicon PV cells are more susceptible to study of the California power grid projected that during heat-related efficiency losses (Omubo-Pepple et al. 2009, the hot periods of August in 2100, under a higher Chow et al. 2007) compared to newer technologies such as emissions scenario, a 9-F (5-C) increase in air temperature thin film PVs, which do not rely on crystalline silicon to could decrease transmission line capacity by 7%-8%

produce electricity (Huld et al. 2010). The conversion (Sathaye et al. 2013). The same study projects that 9°F efficiency of a crystalline silicon PV cell decreases by about (5'C) warming in 2100 could cause substation capacity to 0.08% per 1.8°F (1'C) increase in air temperature when fall by 29/6-4% (Sathaye et al. 2013). However, these the ambient air temperature is above 77'F (25°C) capacity losses could be reduced by modifying future (Radziemska 2003). operating practices and system designs. The effects of high Studies of the potential change in irradiance are not temperatures may be exacerbated when wind speeds are low or nighttime temperatures are high, preventing consistent in either direction. Although the magnitude of the change could be as high as 15% or 20% at very high transmission lines from cooling. This is a particular latitudes, the change would be smaller in most regions concern because nighttime temperatures have been (Bartok 2010, Cutforth and Judiesch 2007, Pan et al. 2004). increasing at a faster rate than daytime temperatures, and One study suggests that solar potential will generally they are projected to continue to increase (CCSP 2008b).

decrease, with the most notable decreases being in the System transmission losses during a heat wave could be western United States in the fall, winter, and spring (Pan et significant and contribute to electric power interruptions and power outages. During a 2006 heat wave, electric 5 Wind power is proportional to the cube of wind speed, so it power transformers failed in Missouri and New York, is important to distinguish quantitative estimates of changes causing interruptions of the electric power supply in wind speed from changes in wind power. (USGCRP 2009). In addition, more than 2,000 distribution 12

line transformers in California failed during a July 2006 heat wave, causing loss of power to approximately 1.3 million customers (PPIC 2008).

Increasing temperatures can also cause sag of overhead ec transmission lines due to thermal expansion. A relatively small increase in thermal expansion can produce a significant increase in sag. This initial sag increases with line temperature because the conducting material of which C

the line is made expands as line temperature increases, effectively lengthening the line (Gupta et a. 2012). This can pose many risks, including fire and safety hazards, and increased chance of power outages due to lines contacting trees or the ground. Replacing or retrofitting transmission lines can be expensive and may include reducing the distance between transmission towers or increasing tower C

heights (Gupta et al. 2012, Oluwajobi et al. 2012).

More frequent and severe wildfires increase the risk of physical damage to ekctridty transmission infrastructure and could decrease Energy Demand available transmission capadty. Increasing temperatures and drought could exacerbate the risk of wildfire, which poses As temperatures increase, energy demand for heating is projected to decrease, while energy demand for cooling is C a risk to electricity transmission (Figure 4). Wildfires can cause physical damage to wooden transmission line poles, projected to increase (ORNL 2012a, USGCRP 2009, and the associated heat, smoke, and particulate matter can CCSP 2007b). However, the impacts of higher also impact the capacity of a transmission line. temperatures on net delivered energy and primary energy consumption are uncertain (ORNL 2012a, CCSP 2007b).

In addition, as temperatures increase, annual electricity demand for cooling is projected to increase (ORNL 2012a, USGCRP 2009, CCSP 2007b).

Increasing temperatures will ike/y increase electricity demand for cookng and decrease fuel oil and naturalgas demand for heating.

Many factors can affect energy demand, including temperature and other weather conditions, population, C economic conditions, energy prices, consumer behavior, conservation programs, and the characteristics of energy-using equipment (USGCRP 2009). While the effects of rising temperatures on overall energy demand are difficult to estimate, it is expected that where cooling (largely from Figure 4. Wildfire disrupting electricity transmission electricity) accounts for the largest share of energy use in Source: NPS 2013 C residential, commercial, and industrial buildings, such as in Soot can accumulate on the insulators that attach southern states, increases in cooling will exceed declines in transmission lines to towers, causing leakage currents, and heating (from a combination of natural gas, fuel oil, and ionized air in the smoke could act as a conductor, causing electricity), with net energy use in buildings in such regions arcing between lines (CEC 2012). Either of these can cause expected to increase (ORNL 2012a). In contrast, for an outage. In addition, fire retardant used in firefighting northern states, where energy demand for heating currently dominates, there could be a net reduction in C

can foul transmission lines (CEC 2012). The probability of exposure to wildfires for some lines in California is energy demand (ORNL 2012a). However, climate-induced projected to increase by 40% by the end of the century switching from heating to cooling may contribute to (CEC 2012). increased primary energy demand even if site energy demand declines, since primary energy demand includes losses in generation, transmission, and distribution that are greater for cooling (ORNL 2012a).

13 C-

C*VDeg Deyp 4000 * *ae IcrW 3000-New York Chicago Dallas Los Angeles Figure 5. Changes in cooling degree days and heating degree days in the United States by 2080-2099, under a lower emissions scenario (81) and a very high emissions scenario (AlFI)

See appendix for scenario descriptions.

Source. USGCRP 2009 Energy demand is often estimated as a function of heating consequently increased final and primary demand, all else degree days (HDDs) and cooling degree days (CDDs).6 being equal (CCSP 2007b, Sailor and Pavlova 2003).

HDDs and CDDs measure the sum of the daily variation However, increases in the energy efficiency of air of temperature below or above a reference temperature. conditioning can reduce the extent to which increased Projected changes in CDDs and HDDs under different demand for cooling services translates into increases in 4By emissions scenarios are shown for some cities in Figure 5.

the end of the century, the number of CDDs for these four cities is projected to increase by approximately 55%,

energy use. Studies suggest that the overall effect of the change in HDDs and CDDs is likely to be a net savings in delivered energy in northern parts of the United States and the number of HDDs is projected to fall by (those with more than 4,000 HDDs per year; see Figure 6 approximately 20% under a lower emissions scenario (B1) for the distribution of heating and cooling degree days (USGCRP 2009). For a northern city such as Chicago, the across the United States) and a net increase in delivered reduction in HDDs is projected to exceed the increase in energy in southern parts of the United States (USGCRP CDDs, whereas for a southern city such as Dallas, the 2009, CCSP 2007b).

increase in CDDs is projected to exceed the reduction in HDDs.

Changes in HDDs and CDDs change the demand for heating and cooling services, respectively. For example, many regions of the United States have market saturation of air conditioning in excess of 90%, yet there remain a large number of regions where moderate increases in temperature could further increase market penetration of air conditioning (Sailor and Pavlova, 2003). Such increases in market penetration of air conditioning and greater use of existing air conditioning (e.g., longer air conditioning

-' season and increased use during warmer nights) will both contribute to increased demand for energy services and con"* zmiss 6 "Degree-days" are climate metrics that can be used to project the energy demand required for space heating and cooling as M ZO. 2 %Isis VWl2 ,, CO d 5,W-7. 00O.

outdoor temperatures depart from a range of comfortable - Zon,, IsIs,. Sun 2*a.

00 COD d 4.0o0-5,40 M0e.

iZcne 4 sbe IM I 2.00CO bn O 4,000HOD.

GDDWWi temperatures. HDD and CDD are defined as the time- mzO 5 I 2. CM Cr wu MWW d tmW4.00 HOD.

integrated difference over a year between the mean daily temperature and a reference temperature (65°F [18TC] is Figure 6. Distribution of heating and cooling degree days for typically used as the reference temperature in the United different climate zones across the United States States). Source: EIA 2013a 14

After considering the effects on energy demand for consumption is projected to increase 1%/o--9% (Sailor and heating and cooling separately, few studies have attempted Pavlova 2003). Another study projects that continued to project the change in net final energy. One recent study warming will increase U.S. electricity demand for air ec projects a net national increase by the end of the century conditioning by 30% in 2030 (Isaac and Vuuren 2009) and of 11% in residential energy demand under a higher by nearly 100% by the end of the century (Isaac and emissions (A1Fi) scenario and 4.5°F (2.50 C) of warming Vuuren 2009). To put this in perspective, in 2011, EIA (Desch&nes and Greenstone 2011). However, it is difficult estimates that approximately 16% of total residential and to accurately assess net change in national final energy commercial electricity use was for cooling (EIA 2011 d).

demand due to the variety of methodologies used and Increases in electricity demand will vary regionally and different assumptions made about climate scenarios, seasonally. Several studies examine changes in residential market responsiveness to a given amount of climate electricity demand at the state or local level and report a change, technology characteristics and improvements, range of projected increases (Hayhoe et al. 2010, CIG population growth, and other factors (CCSP 2007b).

2009, CEC 2009, CIER 2007). In addition to regional Even in situations where net final energy demand variations, studies have also examined seasonal variations decreases or remains largely unchanged, primary energy on electricity demand. For example, in the Pacific C demand may increase with warmer temperatures because Northwest, the projected change in electricity demand is electricity generation, transmission, and distribution are greater in the summer than the winter. A 3'F (1.6'C) subject to significant energy losses, so increases in primary increase in summer temperatures is projected to increase energy for cooling may exceed decreases in primary energy average monthly load by 1,000 MW, whereas a 2*F (1.1C) for heating (CCSP 2007b). One study projects that primary increase in winter temperatures is projected to decrease energy use will rise 2% under a scenario in which average monthly load by 600 MW (NPCC 2 010a). For C temperatures rise 2.20 F (1.2°C) (CCSP 2007b, Hadley et al. comparison, the average monthly summer and winter loads 2006). for this region were approximately 21,000 MW and 24,000 MW, respectively, in 2007 (NPCC 201 Ob, NPCC 2010c).

Changes in net national energy expenditures also depend on how competing effects from heating and cooling add Lastly, population growth is also expected to increase total together. On average, energy used for cooling (largely from energy demand, exacerbating the impacts on electricity electricity) is more expensive to the final consumer than demand attributed to increasing temperatures alone. For energy used for heating (from a combination of natural example, excluding impacts of a warming climate and gas, fuel oil, and electricity) (DOE 2012d). A 2008 study considering an annual population growth rate of 0.9%, the projects an annual increase in net energy expenditures for EIA projects that U.S. electricity demand will increase by residential heating and cooling of about 10% by the end of 22% between 2010 and 2035 (EIA 2012c).

this century for 4.5*F (2.5°C) of warming, and significantly higher net energy expenditures under a higher warming C scenario (Mansur et al 2008).

C Increasing magnitude,frequengy, and durationof extreme heat events C Finally, electricity demand is projected to increase since will result in higberpeak electriity demand in maTay regons. Higher demand for cooling is primarily supplied by electricity, summer temperatures will increase electricity use, causing while demand for heating is supplied by a variety of energy higher summer peak loads (USGCRP 2009). A 2008 study sources, including natural gas, heating oil, and electricity indicates that peak electricity demand in California is (ORNL 2012a, USGCRP 2009, CCSP 2007b). In a expected to increase linearly for temperatures above 82*F scenario in which CDDs increase 20%, the electricity (28QC) at a rate of approximately 700 MW per I F (0.6'C) demand for residential air conditioning is projected to (Miller et al 2008). However, some reports indicate that increase 20%-60%/0, whereas total residential electricity 15 C

. increases (Pryor and Barthelmie 2010, Sailor 2001).

average demand increases non-linearly as temperature Projected increases in peak electricity demand vary depending on the models and emissions scenarios used. In California, for example, although projections vary, there are dear trends across several studies that show increased peak electricity demand of less than 5% in the near term (prior to mid-century) and dose to 20% by the end of the 0¢* century (Sathaye et al. 2013, CEC 2012, Miller et al. 2008, In general, the increased frequency of days with extreme CCCC 2006). Without considering population growth, heat is not the only factor contributing to peak demand.

peak demand in California is projected to increase above Increased population levels and economic growth will lead the baseline period (1961-1990) by 1% to more than 4% to increased electricity demand and could further increase by 2034 depending on the climate model and warming the need for generation capacity (Miller et al. 2008). In scenario (CCCC 2006). By mid-century, peak demand is contrast, technology advances such as improvements in air 0 projected to increase by 2.8%-7.7% under a lower conditioning efficiency could help reduce the projected emissions scenario (BI) and by 3.4%-10.0% under higher increases in electricity demand.

emissions scenarios (A2 and AlFI) (Miller et al. 2008, In addition, because air conditioning use is greatest during CCCC 2006). the same periods of extremely high temperatures that can Evaluation of the future effects of extreme high lead to transmission losses and reduced thermal temperatures on electricity demand in California, assuming efficiencies at electric generation facilities, increased no growth in generation capacity or population, reveals a cooling demand may increase the occurrence of peak loads potential for electricity deficits of as high as 17% during coinciding with periods when generation efficiencies are lowest. Average peak capacity losses in California are extreme heat events (Miller et aL 2008). The number of days of extreme high temperatures 7 in California is projected to be 1.7/6-2.7% under a lower emissions scenario (B1) and 2.00/6-4.6% under a higher emissions

'1990.

projected to double by 2035-2064 as compared to 1961-By the end of the century, the number of days of extreme high temperatures is projected to increase an scenario (A2) by the end of the century (Sathaye et aL 2013). Other studies suggest that, as a result of increasing temperatures, peak demand could increase by 10%-21%

average of 4 times (Bi), 5.5 times (A2), and 6.5 times (AMFi), depending on the emissions scenario (Miller et al. (Sathaye et al. 2013, CEC 2012, CCCC 2006) and up to 2008). In addition, all scenario combinations indicate an 25% when generation losses from higher temperatures are increase in region-wide extreme temperature conditions of included (Sathaye et al 2013, CEC 2012).

a severity associated with electricity shortages under the current configuration of the electric power system and patterns of demand (Miller et. al 2008).

. 7 Days than hotter in the summer 90% whose of summer daily days maximum in the temperature is period 1961-1990 16

CHAPTER 2: Decreasing Water Availability C

seasonally, which is most relevant for understanding Recent Trends and Projections regional water availability and competing needs (Figure 7). C Increasing global temperatures and shifting precipitation In particular, the largest declines in precipitation are patterns are causing regional and seasonal changes to the expected during the summer months (NOAA 2013b, water cycle (NOAA 2013b, WMO 2013, IPCC 2012, IPCC 2007a).

USGCRP 2009). Since 1901, total annual precipitation in the contiguous United States has increased at a rate of about 5.9% per century (EPA 2012a), although some C regions, such as the Southeast, Southwest, and Rocky Mountain states, have experienced a decrease in precipitation. Across the country, changing precipitation patterns are affecting water availability (Table 3).

Table 3. Climate indicators that affect water availability FALL PemPam chang .*ttw C

rrupouon or Ialhle*at, i1oWsiacros, trlu hioh elevations across the r-I0 10 -6 0 5 10 1I .10 precipitation Decreasing Figure 7. Projected changes in precipitation by season Projected percent change inseasonal precipitation for 2041-2070 compared to 1971-2000, under an A2 emissions scenario.

Peak streamflow uccurnng western ana Nortneast unneo Source: NOAA 2073b C The fraction of precipitation falling as rain has increased over the last 50 years in many parts of the United States (USGCRP 2009). In western states, the amount of winter precipitation and fraction of that precipitation falling as uuration, frequency, and rain rather than snow affects total snowpack-a natural Increasing Southern United States reservoir and therefore an important component of the intensity of C droughts water cycle. From 1950 to 2000, snow water equivalent Note: See Figure 36 for illustration of these geographic regions. declined for most of the western states, with losses at some measurement sites exceeding 75% (EPA 2010a).

Source: Adapted from NOAA 2013b, USGCRP 2009 Snowmelt has occurred earlier in the season, resulting in Overall, more annual precipitation is projected for the peak runoff occurring up to 20 days earlier in the western northern United States, while less precipitation is projected states and up to 14 days earlier in the northeastern states C for the southern United States (NOAA 2013b, IPCC (USGCRP 2009).

2007a). However, precipitation is expected to vary 17 C

0. LII1 Q. -II

.O In the future, more precipitation is expected to fall as rain rather mountainthan regions snow, particularly (USGCRP in2009).

the northern states and As a result, and because of warmer temperatures affecting snowpack, Implications for the Energy Sector Decreasing water availability directly impacts nearly all aspects of energy supply: how electricity is produced; runoff is projected to begin earlier in the spring, where future capacity may be sited; the cost of producing particularly in the West and the Northeast (USGCRP electricity; the types of generation or cooling technologies 2009). Streamflows are generally expected to decrease in that are cost-effective; and the costs and methods for the summer for most regions. Annual streamflows are extracting, producing, and delivering fuels. Limited water likely to increase in the Northeast and Midwest and available for cooling at thermoelectric facilities can affect decrease in the Southwest (USGCRP 2009, IPCC 2 007a). power plant utilization. Increased evaporation rates or changes in snowpack may affect the volume and timing of Drought conditions-extended periods between water available for hydropower. Decreased water precipitation events that can be exacerbated by high availability can affect bioenergy production. In regions evaporation rates and below-average snowpack-have where water is already scarce, competition for water become more common and widespread over the past 40 between energy production and other uses will also years in the Southwest, southern Great Plains, and increase. Future conditions will stress energy production Southeast (USGCRP 2009, CCSP 2008b). At its peak in infrastructure in all regions-particularly those with the July, the drought of 2012 covered more than 60% of the most water-intensive generation portfolios. Table 4 nation, with the Mountain West, Great Plains, and summarizes the connections between components of the Midwest experiencing the most intense drought energy system and water quantity and quality.

conditions. In the Southwest and Southeast, longer periods of time between rainfall events will likely increase the total Oil and Gas Exploration and Production area affected by droughts (USGCRP 2009, CCSP 2 008a).

In the Midwest, evaporation rates are projected to increase, The effects of climate change and water availability on the as is the duration between rainfall events. Overall, the oil and gas sector include a combination of potential direct frequency, intensity, and duration of droughts are likely to and indirect impacts. Water is required in many different increase, and water levels are likely to decrease (USGCRP stages of the oil and gas value chain, from exploration to D)O 2009, CCSP 2008a). Thus, the combination of more processing to transport, and the volume of water used in intense droughts and reduced summertime precipitation these activities varies, with the largest volume used in the and streamflows may substantially impact water availability refining process. Among exploration and production during the summer in some regions. processes, the largest volume of water is used as a supplemental fluid in the enhanced recovery of petroleum Groundwater depletion is occurring across the United resources. Water is required to a lesser extent for other States, including in the High Plains (the location of the activities, including drilling and completion of oil or gas Ogallala aquifer) and in the California Central Valley wells; workover of an oil or gas well; creation of (USGS 2013a). Future impacts on groundwater resources underground hydrocarbon storage caverns through will result from a combination of changes in precipitation solution mining of salt formations; as gas plant cooling and patterns, increases in evaporation rates, increases in boiler water; as hydrostatic test water for pipelines and droughts, and increasing competition for water among tanks; as rig wash water; and as coolant for internal various sectors (e.g., energy, agriculture, industry, and combustion engines for rigs, compressors, and other residential). These impacts are expected to continue to equipment.

decrease groundwater availability, particularly in the central and western regions, as heavily utilized aquifers experience Water is not only used in conventional oil and gas reduced recharge rates (IPCC 2007a). The Appendix exploration and production, but significant volumes of contains additional information about projected climate- impaired water are produced in the process. This produced driven changes in the hydrologic cycle for the United water is the largest volume by-product associated with oil States. and gas exploration and production (ANL 2009b). The total volume of produced water in 2007 was estimated to be 21 billion barrels, or 2.4 billion gallons per day (ANL 2009b, API 2000). More than 98% of this produced water is injected underground: Approximately 5 9 % is injected into producing formations to enhance production and about 40% is injected into non-producing formations for disposal (ANL 2009b).

18

II U.0. CI4IR'I T OU- I UM VULIICM/IDILI I IrO I U UULIIVI/'I C ufl/miir MNLJ CrA I Mr'zIVIC VVr' I n-Ir.

Table 4. Connections between the U.S. energy sector and water availability and quality Oil and gas exploration and Water is needed for drilling, completion, Produced water* can impact surface water and groundwater production fracturing, and enhanced oil and gas quality recovery Oil and gas refining Water is required for refining processes Refining processes can impact surface water quality Oil and gas storage Water is required for slurry mining of Slurry disposal can impact surface water quality and ecology C caverns Oil and gas transport Water is needed for hydrostatic testing of Wastewater can impact surface water quality pipelines C

Barge transport of coal, oil, Adequate river flows are required Spills or accidents of fuels can impact surface water quality and petroleum products Water is needed for steam turbine cooling Thermal and air emissions can impact surface water Thermoelectric generation and scrubbing temperatures, quality, and ecology C

Tailings and drainage can impact surface and groundwater Coal and uranium mining Water is used for mining operations quality Coal slurry pipelines Water is used during slurry transport Used slurry water discharge can impact surface water quality Hydroelectric generation Water stored in reservoirs is needed as Reservoir and outflow water can impact surface water energy source for generation temperatures, quality, and ecology Water is needed for feedstock production Farming runoff can impact surface water quality; refinery and processing wastewater treatment can impact surface water quality Water may be saline or contain contaminants Source. Adapted from DOE 2006 C In addition to produced water from conventional oil and example, coal bed methane-produced water volumes range gas production, significant volumes of produced water from 1,000 gallons per day per well in the San Juan Basin result from coal bed methane (CBM) production (EPA (Colorado/New Mexico) to 17,000 gallons per day per well 2013, EPA 2010b). CBM is recovered from coal seams and in the Powder River Basin (Wyoming/Montana) (USGS requires the removal of groundwater to reduce the 2000). While the quality of produced water varies, with pressure in the coal seam, which allows CBM to flow to appropriate treatment, produced waters from coal beds C the surface through the well. The amount of water could be an important source of water to augment existing produced from most CBM wells is relatively high water supplies and provide system operators with flexible, compared to conventional natural gas wells because coal cost-saving water management options (USGS 2000).

beds contain many fractures and pores that can contain As unconventional oil and gas sources, including coal bed and transmit large volumes of water (USGS 2000). In methane, tight (relatively low porosity and permeability) 2008, approximately 55,500 coal bed methane wells in the C

gas sands, and shale oil and gas increasingly contribute to United States pumped out more than 47 billion gallons of the nation's energy supply, attendant water demands for produced water, and approximately 22 billion gallons of their development and production become increasingly that produced water (or about 45%) were discharged either important. This is especially true where deposits are very directly or indirectly (via a publicly owned treatment works) to surface waters (EPA 2008). The quantity of deep water more in the(CRS ground, 2010).because deeper wells require even produced water varies from basin to basin, within a C particular basin, from coal seam to coal seam, and over the lifetime of a coal bed methane well (EPA 2010b). For 19 C

Shale oil development is active in various parts of the United States, with over 4 trillion barrels of in-place shale oil and an estimated 33 billion barrels of technically recoverable shale oil resources spanning eight states (USGS 2013b, GAO 2012). Development will have implications for water quality and water resource availability, but estimates of the impacts of shale oil development vary widely, at least in part because some of the technologies are still evolving (GAO 2010). A 2010 U.S. Government Accountability Office report estimated that shale oil production requires about 13-26 acre-feet (4.2-8.5 million gallons) of water per day for operations that produce 50,000 barrels (2.1 million gallons) of oil per day (GAO 2010).

Shale gas development is most active in the Barnett, Fayetteville, Antrim, Haynesville, Woodford, and Marcellus shale plays (Figure 8) (ANL 2010). The total volume of water required for drilling and hydraulic fracturing a single well varies, with many factors, such as the depth of the shale formation, determining water needs.

The typical range falls between 4 million gallons per well (MGW) in the Barnett shale and 5.6 MGW in the

. Source:

FigureEIA

8. 207 U.S.leshale oil and shale gas plays 20

U.*D; I'-I*II'-K*T *I'-* IUK V ILI IIr-0 IU ULIIVIM'l C unmviyc mvw U.n. ~IN~t¶UT ~uiur~ V ILl I I U ULIIVIMI ~ UflMI~.7~ MI'ILJ Haynesville and Marcellus shales (EPA 2011). More than Fuel Transport 90% of the total water required is for hydraulic fracturing, Decreased water levels in rivers and ports can cause rather than drilling. For example, the water required for interruptions and delays in barge and other fuel delivery drilling a typical shale gas well ranges from 65,000 gallons transportation routes. Crude oil and petroleum products in the Fayetteville shale to 600,000 gallons in the are transported by rail, barge systems (Figure 9), pipelines, Haynesville shale (EPA 2011, ANL 2010). Hydraulic and tanker trucks. Coal is transported by rail, barge (Figure fracturing fluid volumes, on the other hand, range from 10), truck, and pipeline. Corn-based ethanol, blended with 3.8 MGW in the Barnett shale (which requires 250,000 gasoline, is largely shipped by rail, while bioenergy gallons for drilling) to 4.9 MGW in the Fayetteville shale, 5 C feedstock transport relies on barge, rail, and truck freight.

MGW in the Haynesville shale, and 5.5 MGW in the A complex web of crude oil and petroleum product Marcellus shale (EPA 2011).

pipelines deliver petroleum from domestic oil fields and Decreasing water availability could impact oil and gas production, import terminals to refineries and from refineries to particular# in times of drought. Drought, particularly in water- consumption centers across the United States. The shale stressed regions such as the arid Southwest, can limit the oil revolution in areas such as the Bakken in North Dakota amount of water available for agriculture, drinking and Montana will likely increase barge traffic, with crude C supplies, aquatic ecosystems, fuel extraction, and power oil being transported by barge along the Missouri and generation. In Texas, for example, those needs are Mississippi rivers to refineries in Louisiana.

expected to increase to 22 million acre-feet (7.2 trillion gallons) by 2060, with only 15.3 million acre-feet (5.0 trillion gallons) available (TWDB 2012). Increased evaporation rates will exacerbate water issues during a C drought, decreasing the amount of water available in surface ponds and holding tanks, and could eventually lead to higher total water use (SPE 2010).

Increased hydraulic fracturing in shale gas developments could introduce additional strains on water systems (ANL 2011). Water used in hydraulic fracturing can come from a W

variety of sources, including surface water, groundwater, municipal potable water supplies, and reused water from other water sources (DOE 2009). The water may come from off-site sources via tank trunks or pipeline (DOE 2009). Although flowback and produced water (which Figure 9. Oil barge loading at a refinery on the Mississippi River contain very high levels of total dissolved solids) are C

Source: iStockphoto sometimes reused during hydraulic fracturing operations, Reductions in river levels could impede barge transport of crude oil, in many cases the water is disposed of via injection into petroleum products, and coal, resulting in delivery delays and underground disposal wells or hauled to a municipal or increased costs. In August 2012, the U.S. Army Corps of commercial wastewater treatment facility (DOE 2009). In Engineers reported groundings of traffic along the Pennsylvania, water disposal fees of some water treatment companies ranged from 2.5 to 5.5 cents per gallon (ANL Mississippi River due to low water depths from drought. C This disrupted the transportation of commodities 2010). One company conducting hydraulic fracturing delivered by barges, including coal and petroleum operations in the Marcellus shale formation estimated products. Petroleum exports through New Orleans were annual cost savings of $3.2 million through greater reuse valued at about $1.5 billion per month in 2012 (U.S.

of its water (ANL 2010).

Census Bureau 2013). When river levels decrease, barge Decreasing water availability can also impact oil refining. operators reduce their loads. A tow (chain of barges pulled C Conventional oil refining requires 0.5 to 2.5 gallons of or pushed as a group) on the upper Mississippi, Illinois, water per gallon of gasoline equivalent. Additional water and Ohio rivers typically has 15 barges, each capable of may be consumed if reforming and hydrogenation steps carrying more than 1,000 tons. A one-inch (2.5 cm) drop are required (ANL 2009a, Wu et al. 2009, DOE 2006). In in river level can reduce tow capacity by 255 tons.

terms of total water use, the United States refined Likewise, the typical tow on the lower Mississippi has 30-approximately 0.71 billion gallons per day (BGD) in 2005, 45 barges, resulting in decreased capacity of up to 765 tons C resulting in water consumption for fuel refining of for just a one-inch decrease in river level (NOAA 2012g).

approximately 0.7 to 1.8 BGD (Davis et al. 2008).

21 C

plant freshwater withdrawals are significantly greater than freshwater consumption,9 which has been estimated in the range of 2.8-5.9 billion gallons per day, or 4.7%-5.9% of total consumption levels (Averyt et al. 2011).

Low flow conditions in rivers and low lake levels-due to drought, increased evaporation, or changes in precipitation and runoff patterns-pose an operational risk to thermoelectric facilities using freshwater for cooling (Figures 11 and 12).

Figure 10. Barges transporting coal down the Mississippi River Source: Wiletr 2009 Most of the coal in the United States is mined in three regions: Appalachia, the Midwest, and a group of western states from Montana and North Dakota to New Mexico, including the Powder River Basin. Barges carry approximately 11% of U.S. coal to power plants (EIA 20121). According to the EIA, 63% of coal production is projected to originate from western states by 2030 compared to 54 % in 2011, meaning an even larger share of Figure 11. Low water level at Martin Lake Steam Electric Station facility inTexas coal produced would be transported long distances (EIA Lower water levels inthe cooling pond due to drought required piping 201 2g, EIA 2006). Continued transportation of fossil fuels O by barge would maintain this vulnerability to reduced river cooling water over eight miles from another water source.

Source: Green 2071 levels in the future.

The water use intensity and the impact of decreasing water Thermoelectric Power Generation availability depends on the type of power plant, cooling system employed, geographic location of the plant, and Increasing temperatures and changes in precipitation source of cooling water. For example, water withdrawals patterns will limit water availability in some seasons and per unit of power produced are far lower for closed cycle some regions of the United States, which will have units, but water consumption is higher (Averyt et al. 2011, implications for thermoelectric power generation, NREL 2011). Approximately 90% of the water withdrawn including coal, natural gas, nuclear, CSP, bioenergy, and by thermoelectric power plants is for once-through cooling 8

geothermal facilities. systems, and the remainder is for recirculating cooling Of all the water use sectors (e.g., energy, agriculture, systems (EPRI 2011, USGS 2009).

industry, and residential), thermoelectric power generation Once-through systems take water from nearby sources uses the largest fraction of freshwater in the United States, (e.g., rivers or lakes), circulate it through the condenser estimated at over 200 billion gallons per day, or tubes to absorb heat from the steam, and then return the approximately 40% of all freshwater withdrawals (USGS warmer water to the nearby source. For these systems, 2009). Approximately 90% of thermoelectric power water consumption reflects the induced evaporation from generation in the United States requires water for cooling, the elevated temperature of the receiving water body.

with dry cooling representing a very small percentage of Once-through cooling systems are particularly vulnerable the national total. While freshwater accounts for the to low streamflow conditions due to the large volumes of majority of water used for cooling, seawater has been used water withdrawn: approximately 10,000-60,000 gallons per for cooling thermoelectric power plants in coastal megawatt-hour (MWh), depending on the fuel type.

locations for many decades. Seawater constitutes approximately 30% of the total water withdrawn by the thermoelectric sector (USGS 2004). Thermoelectric power 9 Water withdrawal refers to water that is used and may be

• Additional implications for CSP and bioenergy are discussed returned to the water body. In contrast, water consumption in the Renewable Energy Resources section of this chapter. refers to water that is used and not returned.

22

ec C

C C

Figure 12. Locations of thermoelectric power plants by cooling technology and water source Source Adapted from NETL 2008 In contrast, recirculating cooling systems reuse cooling As illustrated in Figure 13, both water withdrawals (left y-water multiple times rather than immediately discharging it axis) and water consumption (right y-axis) vary by back to the water source. In recirculating systems that use generation technology. Steam-cycle coal-fired power plants cooling towers, some of the water evaporates while the typically use more water than steam-cycle natural gas-fired rest is reused and sent back to the condenser in the power power plants. Combined cycle plants are more water- C plant. Recirculating cooling systems, like once-through efficient because the gas turbine component of the systems, continually withdraw water. While they withdraw combined cycle increases generation without requiring notably smaller quantities of water from the source- cooling water and reduces the overall water use per unit of between 250 and 1,800 gallons/MWh (NREL 2011)-they electricity output (NREL 2011). Nuclear power plants, can also be affected by low flow conditions. Complicating CSP plants, and geothermal plants can withdraw and the process, water lost through evaporation in the cooling consume as much, or more, freshwater as fossil-fueled C

tower must be replaced, resulting in appreciably higher thermoelectric facilities (NREL 2011).

water consumption than for once-through systems. Water Decreasing water availability for cookng at thermoelectrc faciities consumption rates can be 2-3 times higher for could reduce availablegeneration capacidv. Researchers from the recirculating cooling systems than for once-through Electric Power Research Institute used a set of five criteria, systems, ranging from approximately 200 to more than including susceptibility to drought and growth in water 1,000 gallons/MWh. For comparison, once-through demand, to develop a water sustainability risk index. C cooling consumes approximately 100-400 gallons/MWh Approximately 25% of electric generation in the United (NREL 2011). Thus, less water is consumed by once-States (250,000 MW,) is located in counties projected to be through cooling systems, but greater amounts of water are at high or moderate water supply sustainability risk in 2030 withdrawn, resulting in a greater potential for entrainment (EPRI 2011). The study suggests that 28,800 MW of and impingement of aquatic organisms, greater thermal nuclear-powered electricity, 76,900 MW of coal-powered loading of aquatic ecosystems from the cooling water electricity, and 120,881 MW of natural-gas-powered C discharge, and perhaps greater sensitivity to low water electricity will be generated in counties with "at risk" water conditions.

supplies due to growth in water demand, susceptibility to 23 C

once-through cooling pond recirculating dry-cooled r--I It I I

~Nuclear 60,000

• J Coal 50.000 J Biopower U'

40,000 30,000 i Natural gas combined-cycle CSP trough 20,000 I..E

-U

.5 10,000 PV Solar mWind Withdrawals -- median-f Consumption Ranges reflect minimum and maximum water-use values.

Figure 13. Water use by fuel and cooling technology Source: Adapted from Averyt el aL 2071 drought, available precipitation, groundwater use, and states for the period 2031-2060, compared to 1971-2000 water storage limitations (EPRI 2011). (van Vliet et al. 2012). The study projects that the summer The National Energy Technology Laboratory evaluated the average available capacity of power plants with once-potential water-related vulnerabilities of all coal-fired through or combination cooling systems is projected to power plants in the United States and found that nearly decrease by 12%-16% (under B1 and A2 emissions 350 plants (60% of the plants identified in an analysis of scenarios). For recirculating cooling systems, the decrease 580 coal-fired plants) are located in areas subject to water in available capacity during summer is 4.4°/0-5.9%. The study also projects that facilities with once-through cooling

'demand stress (ie., limited water supply and/or competing water from other sectors) (Figure 14, NETL 2010b).

Approximately half of the 350 facilities use once-through will experience capacity reductions of more than 25% an average of 24 days per year, compared to 9 days per year at cooling and half use recirculating cooling; approximately facilities with recirculating cooling. Projections of extreme 70% of the vulnerable facilities use surface water and reductions in capacity--exceeding 90% (i~e., the plant is approximately 80% of the vulnerable facilities with once- shut down or nearly shut down)-are much less common, through cooling use freshwater (NETL 2010b). with an average occurrence of less than one day per year (van Vliet et al. 2012).

The placement or location of the cooling water intake structures for thermoelectric power plants can also influence vulnerability to decreasing water availability.

Cooling-water intake heights will influence the degree to which intake structures are exposed or above water levels.

During times of drought, river, lake, or reservoir water levels may fall near or below the level of the water intakes used for drawing water for cooling, resulting in power production at some power plants being stopped or reduced. In a study of 423 thermoelectric power plants, 43% were identified as having cooling-water intake heights Vulnerable Plant of less than 10 feet (3 meters) below the typical water level of their water source (NETL 2009a).

Figure 14. Water stress: Loc Changes in load growth and other factors could also affect coal-fired power plants water requirements for thermoelectric power generation, Source: NETL 2010b exacerbating the impacts of decreasing water availability.

Cooling water availability could be limited by low flows, Increasing power needs for the growing U.S. population high water temperatures, or botlh A recent study estimated could increase thermoelectric water consumption by as the reduction in available capacity of thermoelectric power much as 27% by 2035 (NETL 2010b). The actual amount plants (nuclear or fossil fuel) in the central and eastern of water consumed will depend upon a number of factors, 24

2 U.6i. ~IJt.tKU 6tU IiUK VULNtK~t5iL1I ItZ I U ULIMF'iA I t UMANJL, INLJ tA I KtiVtvitm Vntm including the increase in electricity demand and the energy Depending on its quality, coal may need to be "washed" e0c technologies and associated water intensities of those with water and chemicals to remove sulfur and impurities technologies. Since water consumption is substantially before it can be burned in a power plant.

higher for nuclear and coal-fired generation than for Nuclear energy provides about 20% of the electricity in the natural gas combined cycle generation (NREL 2011), low United States (EIA 2012a). Over the last decade, U.S.

natural gas prices and increased deployment of natural gas uranium mines have supplied less than 10% of the rather than coal-fired generation could reduce the uranium fuel powering the nuclear fleet, with the rest projected increases in water consumption.

imported (EIA 2012h). However, increases in the price of Cooling technologies will also affect water consumption uranium oxide have sparked renewed interest in uranium C and withdrawals. If older power plants using once-though mining across the United States (Cole 2012, Williams cooling systems are retired and replaced with power plants 2011). Water used to mine uranium has traditionally been using recirculating systems, water consumption will comparable to the estimates for underground and surface increase even though water withdrawal may decrease. coal mining: between one and six gallons per British However, retrofitting or replacing existing thermal thermal unit (BTU) (DOE 2006). Uranium fuel processing generation to use nontraditional water (e.g., brackish requires additional water (45 to 150 gallons per MWh) C groundwater or municipal wastewater) or converting (McMahon and Price 2011).

power plants to dry cooling systems could significantly reduce freshwater use. One study suggests that the use of Renewable Energy Resources nontraditional water or dry cooling in drought-vulnerable The water demand associated with renewable energy watersheds could save 847 million gallons per day (3.2 technologies varies significantly. Water consumption for million cubic meters per day), or about 17% of all thermoelectric power generation based on solar CSP plants C thermoelectric water consumption (Tidwell et al. 2013). or geothermal technologies using once-through or Finally, adoption of carbon capture and storage (CCS) recirculating cooling can be comparable to, or even greater technologies could contribute to increased water than, that of fossil or nuclear thermoelectric power plants.

consumption. CCS requires water to strip CO2 from flue In contrast, relatively little water is consumed in the gas and power to process concentrated liquefied C02 generation of electricity from solar PV or wind (Williams et al. 2011). Carbon capture technologies also technologies.

require auxiliary power, known as parasitic load or power One recent study calculates that if the United States could loss. Estimates of parasitic power loss at a coal-fired power transition to an energy mix with 80% of its electricity plant are approximately 20% of power plant capacity supply coming from renewable sources by 2050 (with (Kobos et al. 2011). Both withdrawal and consumption nearly 50% from wind and solar PV generation) using rates are estimated to be approximately two times higher currently available commercial generation technologies, for coal and natural gas facilities that include carbon CCS C water consumption in the power sector would decrease by than for those without CCS depending upon the approximately 50% (NREL 2012). However, greater use of generation and CCS technologies utilized (NREL 2011, the more water-intensive renewable technologies, such as NETL 2010d). CSP or geothermal, would result in less water saved unless Decreasing water availabiiivy could affect the coal and nuclearfuel those technologies were deployed with an alternative cooling mechanism (e.g., dry cooling or wet-dry hybrid).

suppyl chains. Coal currently accounts for more than 40% of C the electric power generated in the United States and uses Hydropower water for many stages, from extraction to processing and transport. Coal can be mined from deep underground Changing precipitation and decreasing snowpack could decrease caverns, surface pits, or mountaintops. Coal mining available hydropower generation capacty and affect the operation of processes can use significant amounts of water: an facifities in some regions. Climate change may reduce estimated 70-260 million gallons of water per day (EIA hydropower production in some parts of the country (ORNL 2012a). Decreasing water availability, either in C

2006, DOE 2006), or approximately 50-59 gallons of water for every short ton (0.9 metric tonnes) of coal mined reservoirs or in the rivers that feed them, can reduce (USGS 2005). 10 Water is used at several different stages, hydropower potential and/or necessitate a change in including for cooling or lubricating cutting and drilling operating schemes. Projected changes in climate, including equipment, dust suppression, fuel processing, and re- more precipitation falling as rain and less as snow, reduced vegetation when mining and extraction are complete. snowpack, and earlier peak runoff, may decrease annual water storage, produce unplanned spills, decrease annual C 0 One short ton of coal generates about 1,870 kilowatt-hours runoff, and otherwise alter streamflow. Decreases in of electricity (EIA 2012d).

25 25C

streamflow decrease available hydropower generation scenarios and projected that total annual hydropower capacity. production could decrease by 2.0%-3.4% by the 2040s, which is the net effect of an expected increase of 4.79/0-Higher temperatures, less snowpack, and decreasing water 5.0% in the winter and a decrease of 12.1V/6-15.4% in the availability have reduced the Colorado River's flow and left Lake Mead more than 100 feet (30 meters) below fill summer (Hamlet et al. 2010).

storage capacity. In the Colorado River's 100-year Increased annual precipitation and potential hydropower recorded history, 1999-2010 ranked as the second-driest generation is also expected in the northern Great Plains 12-year period, yielding an average of 16% less energy (ORNL 201 2 a). In contrast, in the Southeast and D from hydropower generation compared to full storage Southwest, dry years are expected to increase in frequency capacity generation potential, or the equivalent of a and potentially result in reduced hydropower generation medium-sized power plant. Hoover Dam loses 5-6 MW of (ORNL 2012a, IPCC 2007a). Seasonal trends may be more capacity for every foot (0.3 meter) decline in Lake Mead, relevant than annual trends in impacting hydropower because at lower water levels there is less water pressure generation. Summer is expected to be drier for nearly all to drive the turbines as well as a greater potential for air regions of the United States, with the potential impacts to D bubbles to form and flow through with the water causing hydropower generation supply coinciding with peak the turbines to lose efficiency (DOE 2011c). Studies on electricity demand for cooling (USGCRP 2009).

the effects of streamflow on available hydropower Bioenergy and Biofuel Production generation in the Colorado River Basin suggest that for each 1% decrease in streamflow, power generation Changes in precipitation and runoff may affect bioenergy decreases by 3% (USGCRP 2009). production. Drought and other changes in the hydrologic cycle may diminish feedstock production efficiency for both traditional and second-generation bioenergy (Figure 15). Increasing competition for water, particularly in times when (and locations where) water is scarce, will affect energy and food production alike.

- W Hydropower production in the same snowmelt-dominated regions is projected to increase in the winter and decrease in the summer. For several California rivers, summer hydropower potential is projected to decrease 25%

because runoff is projected to occur two weeks earlier under a climate scenario of 3.6'F (2qC) warming (Mehta et al. 2011).

Results from a model designed to optimize hydropower pricing and estimate subsequent revenue under warmer climatic conditions in California predicted that, even though hydropower prices are projected to increase, annual high-elevation hydropower generation under dry Figure 15. Drought-stricken farm field conditions could decrease by as much as 20% in 2070- Source: Station 2072 2099 compared to 2005-2008. The study also projected revenue would decrease 14%-19% over the same time Decreasin~g water availabifiy could decrase bioenergy production in period, depending on the climate scenario (Gu~gan et al. some regions. Limited water availability due to projected 2012). decreases in summer precipitation for most of the United States could decrease crop yields. However, precipitation is Significant changes in hydropower availability are also projected to 'increase for northern states in the winter and expected in the Pacific Northwest (Hamlet et al. 2010, spring, which could improve yields of certain crops. The IPCC 2007a). The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate risk posed to the energy sector will vary as a function of a Change projects higher annual runoff in this region to number of factors, including the type of bioenergy crop, 2040 with potential increases in hydropower generation, the share of that crop used for energy, temperature, but a possibility of modest decreases in hydropower precipitation, soil type, soil moisture, and availability of generation in the longer term (IPCC 2007a). One recent irrigation water.

study simulated changes in streamflow in the Columbia River hydropower system under a variety of climate 26

U.S. ENERGY SECTOR VULNEABILITIES TO CLIMATE CHANGE AND EXTREME WEATHER Irrigation requirements vary substantially across the United Solar Energy States, even for the same crop. A majority of the irrigation water in the Midwest and East is sourced from groundwater, while surface water is the main source for Decreasin~g water availability .for concentrating solar power plants could decreasepotentialgeneration capacit. Annual and seasonal solar energy production could be affected by decreasing e8C irrigation in the West (USGS 2009). water availability, particularly in arid regions such as the Water use in biorefineries has been significantly reduced as Southwest, which has the greatest solar potential. While a result of energy- and water-efficient designs in new photovoltaic (PV) power generation consumes minimal plants and improved system integration in existing plants, volumes of water (e.g., for mirror washing) and is from 6 gallons of water required to refine one gallon of minimally affected by water availability, concentrating solar C ethanol to 2.7 gallons of water per gallon of ethanol over a power uses steam generation and water cooling and 10-year period (Wu et al. 2011). On average, producing requires significant volumes of water. For example, CSP one gallon of corn ethanol requires17-239 gallons of power plants using recirculating water cooling typically water for irrigation and conversion (WX(u et al. 2011). A consume more water than a natural gas, coal-fired, or typical 100 million gallon per year ethanol plant requires nuclear power plant (NREL 2011, Figure 13). Although approximately one million gallons of water per day (Chiu CSP cooling technologies are generally the same as those C et al. 2009, Wu et al. 2009, NRC 2008). Production of used in traditional thermoelectric facilities, the CSP water cellulosic ethanol from non-irrigated perennial grass footprint is greater due to CSP's lower net steam cycle requires fewer than six gallons of water per gallon of efficiency (CRS 2009). A typical parabolic trough CSP ethanol (Wu et al. 2009). Water requirements for algae plant with recirculating cooling uses more than 800 produced from open ponds could be much greater gal/MWh; the majority of this water is used for cooling, depending on whether the harvest water is recycled and with less than 2% for mirror washing. These values C the location of the facility, based on surface evaporation compare to less than 700 gal/MWh for a nuclear power and pond operation. One study found that 520-3,281 plant, 500 gal/MWh for a supercritical coal-fired power gallons of freshwater is currently required to produce one plant, and 200 gal/MWh for a combined cycle natural gas gallon of biodiesel from microalgae (Yang et al. 2010). plant (NREL 2011). Thus, deployment and operation of However, this freshwater demand can be substantially CSP power plants using recirculating cooling in water-reduced if an alternative water resource is used. stressed regions may be significantly impacted by reduced water availability and require adaptation of alternative cooling technologies such as dry or wet-dry cooling. CSP plants with dry cooling can reduce water usage by more than 95% compared to conventional wet cooling systems (BrightSource 2012).

C C

C eC 27 27C

• 1 CHAPTER 3: Increasing Storms, Flooding, and Sea Level Rise Recent Trends and Projections As atmospheric temperatures increase, so does the water-3 holding capacity of the air--generally by about 7% per 1.8°F (1°C) increase in temperature (Trenberth 2011). As a 16,W result, rainstorms become more intense and a greater fraction of precipitation falls during heavy rainfall events (NOAA 2013b, CCSP 2008b), increasing flooding risk.

The greatest increase in heavy precipitation has been in the Northeast and Midwest (Figure 16).

In the future, more frequent and intense downpours and a greater proportion of total rainfall coming from heavy precipitation events are very likely across the United States

'projections (NOAA 2013b, CCSP 2008a, IPCC 2007a). Recent indicate that globally, the heaviest precipitation events are likely to occur twice as frequently as they do 312%

today by the end of the century (Kharin et al. 2013). In the United States, high-rainfall events which today occur once every twenty years may occur once every four to fifteen Percentage Change in Very Heavy Precipitation m mm m m -

0-10% 10-20% 20-30% 30-40% 40-50% >60%

years by 2100, depending on location. Such events are also expected to become more intense, with 10%-25% more Figure 16. Percentage change in very heavy precipitation, 1958-2 precipitation falling in the heaviest events (USGCRP 2007 The map shows the relative change inthe amount of precipitation 2009). The greatest increases are expected in parts of the falling invery heavy events (defined as the heaviest 1%of all daily Northeast, Midwest, Northwest, and Alaska (Kharin et al.

events).

2013, USGCRP 2009).

Source: USGCRP 2009 Changes in the timing and amount of precipitation amounts of precipitation over short periods can limit the consequently shift the frequency, intensity, and duration of ability of soil to absorb water (USGCRP 2009, CCSP floods (Hirsch and Ryberg 2012). Measurements of stream 2008a).

gauges with at least 85 years of historical records show that In addition to changes in the timing and amount of the greatest increases in peak streamflows have occurred in precipitation, tropical storm activity may also change.

the upper Midwest (specifically, the Red River of the Complexities associated with the atmospheric conditions North), and in the Northeast (especially in eastern that lead to a hurricane complicate prediction of exactly

,) Pennsylvania, New York, and New Jersey) (Hirsch and how climate change will affect the occurrence of Ryberg 2012). However, measurements in the Rocky hurricanes (JPCC 2012, USGCRP 2009). Data from 1851-Mountains and the Southwest have shown significant 2010 do not show any noticeable trends in changes in the declines (Hirsch and Ryberg 2012).

number of major hurricanes (Categories 3, 4, and 5)

Floods are projected to increase in frequency and intensity making landfall in the United States, and the number of land-falling tropical storms and hurricanes in the United in some regions of the United States, although with some

.U uncertainty (USGCRP 2009, CCSP 2008a). In general, States has fluctuated since 1900 (NHC 2012). However, areas that are projected to receive the greatest increases in since the 1970s, the intensity of hurricanes and tropical heavy precipitation are also expected to experience greater storms has increased (IPCC 2012, IPCC 2007d).

flooding, such as the Northeast and Midwest, as large According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 28

Change, the intensity of these storms is likely to increase elevation changes) increased along much of the U.S.

(IPCC 2012), as shown in Figure 17. Others have suggested that while fewer hurricanes may form, those that do form may be stronger (Category 4 or 5) (CCES 2012, coastline between 1958 and 2008, particularly along the Mid-Atlantic and parts of the Gulf Coast, where some stations registered increases of more than 8 inches (20 cm) ec Knutson et al. 2010). (USGCRP 2009).

Future global sea level rise over the rest of this century is projected to increase at a faster rate than over the last

=.

125 century (NOAA 2012f, IPCC 2012). A recent study S75 projected that a rise in global sea level by 2100 (compared C to 1992 average sea levels) of 1-4 feet (0.3-1.2 meters) is plausible (NOAA 2012f). When combined with the uplift

0) or subsidence of land, relative sea level rise will vary by location. For example, assuming a two-foot (0.6 meters) rise in global average sea levels by the end of the century,

-25 relative sea level may rise 2.3 feet (0.7 meters) in New C York City; 2.9 feet (0.9 meters) in Hampton Roads, Virginia; 3.5 feet (1.1 meters) in Galveston, Texas; and

-75 only one foot (0.3 meters) in Neah Bay, Washington Tropical Storm & Cat. 2 &3 Cat. 4 &5 (USGCRP 2009). Relative sea level rise in California could Cat. 1 Hurricane Hurricane Hurricane range from 1.4 to 5.5 feet (0.4-1.7 meters) by the end of Figure 17. Projected changes in Atlantic hurricane frequency by the century (NRC 2012). C category In coastal areas, storm events combined with sea level rise The graph shows model projections of percentage changes in will contribute to greater storm surge impacts, increasing Atlantic hurricane and tropical storm frequencies for different storm over time as both storm intensity and sea level rise increase categories for the period 2081-2100 compared with the period 2001- (Strauss et al. 2012). Sea level rise will exacerbate existing 2020.

vulnerabilities to hurricanes and storm surge because Source. Bender et al. 2070 hurricanes and storms damage wetlands and other natural Winter storms have increased in frequency from 1901- and manmade features that help protect coastal 2000 in the Northeast and upper Midwest, and their tracks infrastructure from sea level rise, flooding, and hurricanes.

have shifted northward (Wang et al. 2012, CCSP 2008b),

while winter storms in the South and southern Midwest Implications for the Energy Sector regions have decreased in frequency during the same period (CCSP 2008b). The shift in winter storm tracks The annual frequency of billion-dollar weather and C northward is expected to continue, although projections of climate-related events and the annual aggregate loss from these events have increased during the last 30 years (Figure the intensity and frequency of winter storms are highly 18). The second-costliest year for weather and climate uncertain (NOAA 2013b, USGCRP 2009). Snowfall along the downwind coasts of the Great Lakes could increase as disasters in the United States was 2012, with estimated warming temperatures enhance lake-effect snow damage of approximately $115 billion (NOAA 2013a).

These events include severe weather and tornados, tropical (USGCRP 2009). Some studies have projected an increase C in the intensity of winter extratropical cyclones (e.g., storms, droughts, and wildfires. The two major drivers of nor'easters), although this is not conclusive (CCSP 2008a). damage costs in 2012 were Hurricane Sandy ($65 billion) and an extended drought ($30 billion). These storm-related Globally, absolute sea level rose at an average rate of 0.07 damages affect many sectors, including the energy sector.

inches (1.8 mm) per year from 1880 to 2011, but from Sea level rise, more intense storms, and flooding can 1993 to 2011 the average sea level rose at a rate of 0.11- disrupt fuel extraction, storage, refining and delivery, as 0.13 inches (2.8-3.3 mm) per year (EPA 2012a). The rate C

well as electricity production and delivery.

of global sea level rise over the last twenty years is double the rate observed over the last century (Church and White 2011). Sea level rise results from increased melting of glaciers and ice sheets and the thermal expansion of ocean water as ocean temperatures increase. Relative sea level rise (global sea level rise in combination with local land C

29 C

200 the Northeast, including eight nuclear power units in the Number of events exceeding $S billion region (DOE 2013a). More than 8 million customers in 21

- using 2013 Consumer Price Index (CPI)

ISO 14 adjustment 180 states lost power as a result of the hurricane (DOE 2012a),

12 Co stof dameusing 2013 CPla 4ustrnenl and fuel pumps at gas stations were not working due to power outages and lack of back-up generation. Hurricane 10 140 120 8

I Sandy also forced the shutdown of petroleum and natural gas refineries, pipelines, and petroleum terminals, including 0

no0 dd two oil refineries with total capacity of more than 300,000

£ barrels per day. Four additional oil refineries with a 6 so cumulative capacity of 862,000 barrels per day were forced z

to reduce their output (DOE 2012a). The Colonial 4

40 Pipeline, which brings refined products from the Gulf of 2 Mexico, was not fully operational as a consequence of a 20 power outage even though the infrastructure was not D ° 0 damaged (EIA 2012m, McGurty 2012).

Figure 18. Billion-dollar weather and climate disasters, 1980-2012 Data source: NOAA 2013a Heavy rainfall and flood events in the Midwest and Northeast threaten inland facilities and infrastructure and may impede the transportation of coal to power plants.

More intense hurricanes pose a particular risk to ports and energy infrastructure in coastal regions (Figures 19, 20, and 21). In 2005 alone, direct costs to the energy industry due to hurricanes amounted to $15 billion (CCSP 2007b).

Figure ZO. Damaged offshore platform after Hurricane Katrina Source: CCSP 2007a Oil and Gas Explorationand Production The Gulf Coast region exemplifies the high-volume, high-value, complex system of resources, infrastructure, and transportation networks required to convert raw materials such as natural gas and crude oil into fuels. With nearly 4,000 active oil and gas platforms, more than 30 refineries, and 25,000 miles of pipeline, the Gulf region's oil and gas industry produces approximately 50% of U.S. crude oil Figure 19. Flooded refinery near Beaumont, Texas, in the and natural gas and contains nearly half of the total U.S.

aftermath of Hurricane Ike refining capacity (NOAA 2012a, EIA 2012k).

Source: PBS 2008 In 2012, storm surge and high winds from Hurricane Sandy downed power lines, flooded substations and underground distribution systems, and damaged or temporarily shut down ports and several power plants in 30

Figure 21. Hurricane storm tracks and locations of coastal energy infrastructure The map depicts storm tracks of hurricanes and tropical storms from 1980-2012 that have caused more than $1 billion indamage. The costliest storms are often those that intersect areas with dense coastal energy infrastructure.

Data sources: NOAA 2013a, NOAA 2013d, NOAA 2012h, EIA 2073b C

31 C

In addition, the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR), Increasing intensity of storm events, sea level rise, and the world's largest supply of emergency crude oil (DOE storm surge could impact oil storage facilities and 2012c), is stored in large underground salt caverns along operations. In 2008, the Gulf Coast region was impacted the Gulf Coast (Figure 22). Approximately 700 million by two major hurricanes in quick succession, Hurricane barrels of crude oil are stored in the SPR's four storage Gustav on September 1 and Hurricane Ike on September sites, providing an available supply of crude oil in the event 13. These hurricanes resulted in significant storm damage, of an emergency. flooding, and power outages that crippled Gulf Coast refineries and pipeline distribution systems, creating temporary shortages of refined products in many East rloqý Coast markets. Although some SPR sites sustained significant damage (Figure 23), the SPR was able to conduct an emergency test exchange of 5.4 million barrels of crude in response to requests for emergency supplies Hacicberry Strategic Petroleum Reserves from several refiners. However, it took approximately $22 million and weeks to restore SPR sites to their pre-storm levels of mission capability (DOE 2008b).

Figure 22. SPR storage locations Data source: EIA 2012k Increasingintensity ofstorm events, sea level rise, and storm surgeput coastal and offshore oil andgas faciles at increased risk of damage or disruption. In 2005, Hurricanes Katrina and Rita shut down or damaged hundreds of oil drilling and production platforms and offshore drilling units. The two storms damaged approximately 457 offshore oil and gas pipelines S(Burkett 2011) and significantly damaged onshore oil refining, gas processing, and pipeline facilities, which impacted oil and gas production for months. Disruptions in production decrease revenues for energy companies and can raise prices for customers. As energy sector development in the Gulf Coast has proceeded over the last Figure 23. SPR site and equipment inundated following a storm 50 years, including the deployment of deepwater rigs surge Source: DOE 2011b costing more than half a billion dollars, the potential for significant damage from storm events in the region has Fuel Transport increased.

More frequent heavy rainfall events will increase flood risk In addition to causing physical damage to energy across the United States, particularly in the Northeast and infrastructure, an increase in the intensity of storms can Midwest. Increased frequency and intensity of flooding 2 interfere with operations and decrease fuel supplies. will affect water levels in rivers and ports and could wash Storm-related disruptions to extraction, processing, out rail lines. Flooding events could also cause refining, and generation also cause losses for downstream interruptions and delays in fuel and petrochemical businesses and industries. feedstock deliveries.

Increasing intensity andfrequengy offlooding increases the risk to rail and barge transport of crude oil, petroleum products, and coal Intense storms and flooding can impede barge travel and wash out rail lines, which in many regions follow riverbeds (Figures 24 and 25) (USGCRP 2009). Flooding of rail lines has already been a problem both in the Appalachian region and along the Mississippi River. In 2011, severe flooding throughout the Powder River Basin disrupted trains.

Rerouting of trains due to flooding can cost millions of dollars and delay coal deliveries (DOE 2007). As heavy precipitation events become more frequent and the risk of 32

The amount of crude oil and petroleum products transported by U.S. railways during the first half of 2012 increased by 38% from the same period in 2011 (EIA 2012e). Although the majority of oil is transported by S

pipeline, railroads play an increasingly important role in transporting U.S. crude oil to refineries. This is especially true for North Dakota's Bakken formation, which has limited pipeline infrastructure. The formation has more than tripled oil production in the last three years to C become the second-largest oil producer in the United States.

Approximately 71% of the nation's coal is transported by rail lines, with the remainder transported by barge, truck, and pipeline (USDA 2010). The United States produces and transports more than one billion short tons of coal C every year. While coal is produced in 25 states, the Powder Figure 24. Flooded railroad along the Spring River in Arkansas River Basin, largely in Wyoming, accounted for 468 million Source: NOAA 2008 tons of production in 2010, or 43% of U.S. coal flooding increases, so will the risk of disruptions to coal production (EIA 2011 a).

deliveries. Delivery disruptions could, in turn, interrupt electricity generation at some power plants. C F

C C

C Coal Shipment Rail Routes that Cross Major Rivers Regions with Ireased Heavy Rainfall (Perntincaem in Vy heney prcqitation)-

- Coal Shipment Rail Routes Coal Shipment Barge Routes = 9% 20% =67% ~

Major Rivers -3 15% -31%12 C

Figure 25. Regions with heavy rainfall events (1958-2007) and coal shipment routes that cross major rivers Source. DOE 2007 33 C

Thermoelectric Power Generation (Kopytko and Perkins 2011). The study also evaluated facility risk to future sea level rise and storms under a high Numerous thermoelectric power plants line the coasts of warming scenario. By the end of the century, while the the United States (EIA 2012i, NETL 2009b)." Of those Calvert Cliffs facility is projected to experience the plants, approximately 10% are nuclear reactors, 15% are "potential for flooding" during a Category 3 hurricane, coal-fired plants, and 75% are oil or natural gas-fired Turkey Point is projected to be inundated by even a plants. Many inland thermoelectric power plants are Category 2 storm.

located in low-lying areas or flood plains.

The Atlantic Coast from Hampton Roads, Virginia, and Increasing intensity of storm events, sea level rise, and storm surge further north, and the Gulf Coast are considered to be poses a risk to coastal thermoelectric fadclies. Specific particularly vulnerable to sea level rise because the land is vulnerabilities to hurricanes and flooding vary from site to relatively flat and, in some places, subsiding (USGCRP site. For example, a 2011 study evaluated the flood risk 2009). An increase in relative sea level of 24 inches (61 cm) from coastal storms and hurricanes for the Calvert Cliffs has the potential to affect more than 60% of the port Nuclear facility (Maryland) and the Turkey Point Nuclear facilities on the Gulf Coast, and an increase of 48 inches facility (Florida). Under current conditions, storm surge (122 cm) would affect nearly 75% of port facilities (CCSP would range from 2 feet (0.6 meters) for a Nor'easter to 12 2008c). In addition, assuming higher range projections for feet (3.7 meters) for a Category 3 hurricane, causing no sea level rise combined with future 100-year floods in flooding at Calvert Cliffs but "considerable flooding" at California, up to 25 thermoelectric power plants could be Turkey Point (which, according to the study, would be flooded by the end of the century, as well as scores of inundated during hurricanes stronger than Category 3) electricity substations and natural gas storage facilities (Figure 26, CEC 2012).

r A~Z5 -m-.

(54W) PUd Increasing intensity andfrequenff offlooding poses a risk to inland S0-10 Ct/GAS thermoelectricfailites. The intake structures, buildings, and

• 15 0 LMC*SLLGAS

$I I~SO 4S other infrastructure at thermoelectric generation facilities

• S11-M3 25-W0 U1 Pfdcdomh4 A

that draw cooling water from rivers are vulnerable to f I DI oC AW GoW v*th 14m So L" Rio flooding and, in some cases, storm surge. For example, in June 2011, the Missouri River floodwaters surrounded the Fort Calhoun nuclear power plant in Nebraska (Figure 27).

The plant remained closed during the summer for several reasons, while floodwaters surrounded the plant for months.

Figure 27. Flooding of the Ft. Calhoun nuclear power plant in Nebraska, spring 2011 Source: NPA 2071 Figure 26. Power plants in California potentially at risk from a 100-year flood with sea level rise of 4.6 feet (1.4 meters)

Source: CEC2012 n The use of ocean water for cooling indicates proximity to the coast and is used here as an indicator of "coastal" power plants.

34

Renewable Energy Resources Electric Grid Increasing intensity and frequeny of flooding could impact the Increasing intensity of storm events increases the risk of damage to operation of hydropowerfacilties in some regions. Flooding has the electric transmission and distribution lnes. Since 2000, there has potential to increase river flows and hydropower been a steady increase in the number of storm-related grid generation (Mehta et al. 2011). If excess river flow remains disruptions in the United States (Figure 28, DOE 2013b).

within the dam's reservoir capacity, additional water These disruptions can result in high costs for utilities and storage can be used for generation. However, in extreme consumers, including repair costs for damaged equipment cases, floods can prove destructive to dams. The large such as transmission and distribution systems and societal sediment and debris loads carried by floodwaters can block costs of work interruptions, lost productivity, and loss of C

dam spillways, and powerful masses of water can damage consumables (CEIC 2006). Strong winds associated with important structural components (Hauenstein 2005). severe storms, including tropical storms and hurricanes, Variations in flood intensity make it more difficult to can be particularly damaging to energy infrastructure and manage the supply of water for power generation. result in major outages. In addition, heavy snowfall and Sea level rise and increasing intensiy andfrequengy offlooding could snowstorms, which have increased in frequency in the Northeast and upper Midwest, and decreased in frequency C inhibit bioenergyproductionin some regions. In 2008, major corn-producing states in the upper Midwest experienced in the South and southern Midwest (USGCRP 2009), can extreme flooding due to heavy rainfalls over an extended also damage and disrupt electricity transmission and period of weeks. This flooding affected early-season distribution.

planting operations (Stone et al 2008). In coastal agricultural regions, sea level rise and associated saltwater intrusion and storm surge flooding can harm crops C

through diminished soil aeration, salinization, and direct damage (Rosenzweig and Tubiello 2007).

@W 160 -

E Undefined/other weather 140 -*Wildfires

• Extreme heat events

, Hurricanes, tropical storms C C 120 S Winter storms

• Thunderstorms, high winds, tornados 100 C

80 C

60 E 40 z

20 C 0

Figure 28. Weather-related grid disruptions, 2000-2012 C

Data source: DOE 2013b 0

35 C

CHAPTER 4: Adaptation Actions and Major Opportunities Climate change and extreme weather threaten the vulnerabilities, given the lack of a standardized and sustainable, affordable, and reliable supply of energy across accepted methodology, which is compounded by gaps in the United States and around the globe. The exact information about the probability and timing of specific character, severity, and timing of impacts will depend not climate impacts and their implications to the energy sector.

only on changes in climate and extreme weather events, Prioritization efforts could occur at the federal, state, and but also on the energy sector's exposure to risks and ability local level and within both the public and private sector.

to adapt in a timely manner. Economic growth, population Such efforts could focus on prioritization using various growth, and other factors may exacerbate this exposure criteria (see text box "Prioritization of Vulnerabilities").

and the challenges associated with adaptation.

The U.S. energy sector is already responding to the threat of climate change, but a number of barriers prevent more widespread action. These include a limited understanding of near- and long-term vulnerabilities; a lack of robust economic assessments of alternative adaptation options; limited alternative climate-resilient energy technologies; lack of a policy framework with adequate market signals for investments in resilience; and varying purviews, control, and perceptions of risk by key stakeholders that limit their influence.

Given that energy infrastructure investments made today will likely be in place for many decades, it is important that energy stakeholders have enough information to make sound technical and economic decisions. Continuing to identify potential impacts to the existing and future U.S.

energy infrastructure is essential, as is improving In addressing vulnerabilities to climate change and extreme understanding of the technical and economic potential of weather, the energy sector will need to consider alternative technologies and possible limits of those uncertainty as part of a risk management approach. As options. Innovative research and development efforts decisions will be made with incomplete information, involving both private and public stakeholders and ensuring longer-term system reliability requires flexible supporting policy frameworks could address existing strategies that allow course corrections. Climate resilience market barriers and enable the development and measures may also have significant co-benefits that deployment of the next generation of climate-resilient provide near-termn justification for up-front investment energy technologies. (e.g., cost savings through reduced fuel or water intensity).

Each of the vulnerabilities identified in this report warrants Adaptation activities already underway illustrate consideration, but a process of prioritization (which will opportunities for building a more resilient U.S. energy include analysis of the probabilities of impacts and the sector. Actions to improve resilience need not be delayed costs and benefits of alternative mitigation strategies) will because of uncertainty in the timing and extent of climate

• be necessary to help decision-makers allocate limited change impacts, since many adaptation activities are resources toward actions that optimize outcomes. This beneficial and cost-effective regardless of how climate report does not attempt to prioritize the various identified impacts are realized. Focusing on these activities can help 36

prioritize actions in the face of uncertainty. In addition, advanced technological solutions that mitigate greenhouse gas emissions are essential. Ultimately, adaptation and *0 mitigation can be complementary approaches that jointly reduce the costs and risks of climate change and extreme weather.

This chapter identifies opportunities for advancement of climate preparedness and resilience in the energy sector and potential areas of further work. Responding to the C threats from climate change is the responsibility of all stakeholders, including both public and private sector actors. Any adjustments to future policies, existing federal efforts, or new undertakings would need to be evaluated thoroughly with complete consideration of an array of factors, including societal and economic costs and benefits, C and consideration of competing priorities.

Adaptation Actions Underway Climate change adaptation requires improved understanding and commitment by individuals, businesses, " The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers built a floodwall to governments, and others. Efforts to improve the capacity protect Texas City, Texas, and several nearby oil C to predict, prepare for, and avoid adverse impacts must refineries from floods (DOE 2010).

span multiple economic sectors and levels of government.

• Petroleum companies are pre-positioning portable These efforts include the deployment of energy generators to provide electricity to critical facilities technologies that are more climate-resilient, assessment of during outages (DOE 2010).

vulnerabilities in the energy sector, adaptation planning Thermoelectric Power Generation efforts, and policies that can facilitate these efforts. A significant number of actions underway may have been

• Cooling towers added in 2007 to the 1,250 MW Plant undertaken for reasons other than creation of a more Yates in Newnan, Georgia, reduced water withdrawals climate-resilient energy sector and may have co-benefits in by 96% (Tetra Tech 2008).

addition to increasing preparedness to climate change and " The San Juan Generating Station in Waterflow, New extreme weather (Lackstrom et al. 2012, CEQ 2012, Mexico, demonstrated innovative cooling towers fitted Preston et al. 2011, USGCRP 2009). These benefits with condensing technology, which significantly C include energy and national security, economic growth and reduced the release of water vapor (Figure 29). This job creation, emergency management and preparedness, system has the potential to condense as much as 20%

public health, agricultural productivity, and ecosystem of cooling water that would normally be lost from the conservation, among others. The motivation and system through evaporation. If applied to all power mechanisms to address energy sector vulnerabilities may plants with cooling towers in the United States, the vary across the nation and should be recognized in framing potential water savings could exceed 1.5 billion gallons C effective adaptation strategies. per day (NETL 2010c).

Illustrative Current Activities: Climate-Resilient Energy Technologies and Practices Progress is being made to deploy energy technologies that C

will be less vulnerable to climate change and extreme weather. The following examples illustrate technologies and practices that are more climate-resilient and that are commercially available today.

Oil and Gas Exploration and Production Figure 29. San Juan generating station The cooling tower on the left inthe image above has been fitted with

• Some energy companies are beginning to reuse innovative condensing technology, significantly reducing the release hydraulic fracturing fluids to reduce freshwater of water vapor.

requirements (Faeth 2012). Source: NETL 2010c 37 C

0 Dry-cooling systems have been installed in several areas with good wind resources (DOE 20120. From natural gas-fired combined cycle power plants in the 2008-2012, wind power represented 35% of all new United States, including a natural gas-fired 540 MWe installed U.S. generation capacity.

power plant in Boulder City, Nevada, and a 240 MWe Energy Demand combined cycle plant in Crockett, California (CEC 2006). Use of dry-cooling technology rather than Energy efficiency upgrades can help offset the energy recirculating cooling systems dramatically reduces use impacts of additional market penetration of air water requirements, minimizing vulnerabilities to conditioning and greater cooling degree days (CDDs) reduced water availability. (ORNL 2012a). For example, in California energy savings from utilities' energy efficiency programs and Renewable Energy Resources from the state's building and appliance standards are A CSP project currently under construction in estimated to have mitigated the need for 12,000 MW California's Mojave Desert (Figure 30) will be the of generating capacity, equivalent to a minimum of 24 largest CSP plant in the world and will use dry cooling new, large-scale (500 MW) power plants since 1975 technology. It is scheduled to begin delivering 370 (CEC 2005).

MW of electricity to consumers in California in

• As temperatures increase, changes in urban planning September 2013. The plant uses more than 173,000 and design may reduce or slow increases in electricity heliostats to focus sunlight on three towers, where the demand for cooling. In New York City, for example, concentrating solar power turns water into steam to efforts to reduce electricity use that have already been drive conventional steam generators. Rather than implemented include tree planting and green roofs, using cooling water in a desert environment, the plant reducing peak electricity use in some neighborhoods will employ a dry-cooling system that converts the by 2%-3% (AMS 2009). A 2010 study reported that steam back into water in a closed-loop cycle. This replacing conventional roofs (with a solar reflectance approach will allow the plant to reduce water usage by of about 0.2) with cool white roofs (with a solar more than 95% compared to conventional wet-cooling reflectance of 0.55) would lead to average nationwide systems (BrightSource 2012).

savings of $0.356 per square meter (m2 ); savings would be much greater in Arizona ($1.14/m2) and less in West Virginia ($0.126/m2) (Levinson and Akbari 2010). The projected annual energy cost savings of retrofitting 80% of the roof area of conditioned commercial buildings nationwide is $735 million per year (Levinson and Akbari 2010).

• The development and deployment of energy- and water-efficient residential appliances and commercial equipment is resulting in significant reductions in both energy and water demand, and contributing to a more climate-resilient energy system. The Energy Policy and Figure 30. Concentrating solar power plant in the Mojave Desert Conservation Act requires DOE to establish energy Source: BrightSource 2073 conservation standards for consumer products and commercial and industrial equipment as well as water Solar PV and wind energy have experienced cost conservation standards for residential and commercial reductions, encouraging greater market deployment of products. The development and adoption of efficient these more climate-resilient technologies. Solar PV technologies that meet or exceed these energy modules have declined in cost at an average of 5%- efficiency standards, adopted from 1987 through 2010 7% per year since 1998 (DOE 2012e), and consume a for residential appliances and equipment, have resulted fraction of the water of thermoelectric technologies in cumulative estimated savings of approximately (including CSP) per unit of electricity generated. The 26 quadrillion BTU over this period, which is about trends in costs, along with policies and programs that 25% of total energy use in 2010 (Meyers et al. 2011).

support solar installation, have partially contributed to DOE estimates adoption of water conservation a 53% average annual increase in new installations standards and energy conservation standards resulted from 2006-2011 in the United States (DOE 2012e). in annual water savings of 1.5 trillion gallons in 2010, Wind power has decreased from over $0.55/kWh in and projects a cumulative water savings of more than 1980 (2012 dollars) to under $0.06/kWh in 2012 in 51 trillion gallons by 2040 (Meyers et al. 2011).

average annual loss from climate change and extreme weather of $8 billion in 2030. The study found that key "no regrets" options for adaptation have low investment needs, high potential to reduce expected ec losses, and additional strong co-benefits such as wetlands restoration. The most attractive investments would cost approximately $50 billion over the next 20 years, and could lead to approximately $135 billion in averted losses over the measures' lifetime. The C Illustrative CurrentActivities: Information and Assessment study also concluded that supporting and enforcing a In assessing the vulnerability of the energy sector to range of actions to reduce the risks that individuals climate change and extreme weather, only a few recent bear (e.g., through building codes and development efforts have taken a comprehensive sector- or region-wide decisions) and to unlock barriers to increasing industry approach. A few examples are: resilience would be important elements of a coordinated response. C 0 Gulf Coast vulnerability assessment: Entergy Corporation and America's Wetland Foundation 0 Assessment of the potential for zero freshwater collaborated on the development of a framework that withdrawals from thermoelectric generation: The helped to inform economically sensible approaches to National Renewable Energy Laboratory and Sandia address risks and to build a resilient Gulf Coast National Laboratories have conducted an innovative "coarse" scoping-level analysis of the costs and (Entergy 2010). The study covers a wide region, including Texas, Louisiana, and coastal counties in benefits of moving U.S. thermal electric generation C Mississippi and Alabama, and is comprehensive across away from the use of freshwater. Strategies include key economic sectors, including fuel supply, electricity retrofitting or replacing existing thermal generation to generation, and residential and commercial demand the use of nontraditional water (brackish groundwater sectors (Figure 31). The study projects that by 2030 or municipal wastewater) or converting power plants there will be nearly $1 trillion in energy assets at to dry-cooling systems (Tidwell et al. 2013). This potential risk from rising sea levels and more intense analysis suggests that the majority of plants most hurricanes. Based on an analysis of hazards, assets, and vulnerable to drought could be retrofitted for less than vulnerabilities, the Gulf Coast energy sector faces an $4/MWh, or for less than a 10% increase in the View of Galf Crimt Einegy mmuW 2030 P

P*Odk lor C DD AL owwo Sbn

$0 by

- 0w ~I~

C

- Modeled - IaMO cil -ri 90,OO0 mkss dp sdnes, 2W000A 00110phF=n and 27,000 web

- Camiwed -o 500, muiles of TEA,and -In onoldlo C hdusuacoimi scram 10-kicldim EIK MM&

EnwW VaoIfiY OGJ, Tocnion, HPIt, Wood WMd, Fop Modkoeml. Vutdyx,

$3 buuby MWJ BMWp V0ac*y, Entlaw Figure 31. Illustrative view of projected Gulf Coast energy assets at risk by 2030 Source: Entergy 2010 39 C

levelized cost of electricity (LCOE), and result in about key vulnerabilities that could inform an effective significant reductions in freshwater use (Figure 32). adaptation strategy. For example, electric utilities may The study found that total parasitic energy be able to avoid electricity outages and prevent major requirements are estimated at 140 million MWh, or economic damage by increasing generation, roughly 4.6% of the initial production from the transmission, and distribution capacity and reducing retrofitted plants. This includes an additional amount risk from wildfires and sea level rise (CEC 2012). This of electricity required to pump and treat water and any may require additional capital to finance capacity and lost energy production due to reduced efficiencies adaptation measures; current rate-setting practices may associated with dry cooling. In general, retrofitting to also need to change to allow the necessary utilize municipal wastewater is the least expensive improvements.

alternative, followed by utilizing brackish water.

Retrofitting to dry cooling was found to be the most Illustrative CurrentActivities: Stakeholder Engagement expensive and to have the greatest impact on changes The federal government, along with industry; state, local to the LCOE. and tribal governments; and non-governmental organizations, has an important role in climate change adaptation planning. Examples of current federal adaptation planning efforts include the following:

0 Interagency Climate Change Adaptation Task Force: In 2009, the Administration launched the Interagency Climate Change Adaptation Task Force, co-chaired by the White House Council on Environmental Quality, the Office of Science and Technology Policy, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (CEQ 2 013a). It includes representatives from more than 20 federal agencies, including DOE. The 2009 Executive Order 13514, FederalLeadership in Environmental,Energy, and Economic Performance12 called on agencies to evaluate and manage climate change risks and vulnerabilities and to develop approaches through which the policies and practices Figure 32. Changes in the levelized cost of electricity associated of the agencies could be made compatible with and with retrofitting thermoelectric power plants to dry cooling or reinforce climate change adaptation. The Task Force C non-potable water, depending on which was the least expensive continues to integrate adaptation into federal alternative government planning and activities, work with Source: Tidwell et al. 2073 stakeholders to build resilience to climate change in

• California energy infrastructure vulnerability communities and businesses, improve accessibility and assessment: In the April 2012 California Energy coordination of science for decision-making, and Commission report, Estimating Risk to Cakfornia Energv develop strategies to safeguard natural resources and Infrastructurefrom Projected Climate Change (CEC 2012), critical infrastructure in a changing climate.

researchers from Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, University of California at Berkeley, and The many outputs of the Task Force include the 2011 report, National Action Plan: Priorities for Managing the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro examined the Freshwater Resources in a Changing Climate (CEQ 2011),

end-of-century (2070-2099) vulnerability of which provides key recommendations for California's electricity sector to increased peak summer strengthening federal water data systems, expanding temperatures, sea level rise, and wildfires due to water use efficiency, and supporting training and climate change. The report provides quantitative estimates of the long-term aggregate risks across outreach to build a climate change response capability in the water sector. Two additional related reports California's electricity sector, including climate-related impacts on power plant generation; transmission line include the National Ocean Policy Implementation Plan and substation capacity during heat spells; wildfires (CEQ 2013c) and the NationalFish, Wildhfe and Plants

. near transmission lines; sea level encroachment on power plants, substations, and natural gas facilities; and peak electricity demand. This study provides insights 12 Executive Order 13514, 3 C.F.R. (October 5, 2009).

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2010-titte3-voll/pdf/CFR-2010-tide3-voll-eo13514.pdf 40

U.0., i-1IZEIU I OF'L,* I U! ILVILMMOILI I IF-0 I V 1vL11V1M I F_ %.1V1P%11QL_PlJLJ F-A I UNF-IVIF- VVVr%I I 1LrX U.O. ~I'dIr~u r ~ I VI ILI'dLI",i'IDILI I ILO I ~J ~,LIIVIt~ IL ~jEIP~I'IUL MI'JLJ LA I F~LIVIL VVLI~ II ILIX Chlmate Adaptation Strategy (CEQ 2012), both of which

• National Infrastructure Protection Plan (NIPP):

include considerations of climate effects on the energy The NIPP was developed by federal agencies, state system. and local governments, and private sector entities to ec The Office of the Federal Environmental Executive in provide a unifying the White House Council on Environmental Quality framework for infrastructure protection also developed guidance for federal agencies to conduct adaptation planning and implementation, as efforts and resilience strategies (DHS 2009). The required by Executive Order 13514. The first agency climate change adaptation plans, a part of the annually NIPP framework supports C updated Strategic Sustainabilioy Performance Plan, were government and private released in 2013 (CEQ 2013b). DOE's Climate sector decision-making to help ensure resources are Change Adaptation Plan integrates climate change applied where they can adaptation planning into DOE programs and most effectively protect operations to ensure that DOE operations remain critical infrastructure and C resilient under future climatic conditions.

improve resilience. The National Climate Assessment: The U.S Global NIPP includes efforts to prepare for and prevent, if Change Research Program (USGCRP) is working to possible, damage to critical infrastructure as well as to improve the nation's ability to understand, anticipate, strengthen national response and recovery in the event and respond to climate change by providing the best of a deliberate attack or natural disaster. The available science to inform and support public and Department of Homeland Security oversees NIPP C private decision-making at all levels. The Global management and implementation.

Change Research Act of 199013 requires the USGCRP A successor to the NIPP will be released in late 2013 to conduct a National Climate Assessment (NCA) as required by the 2013 PresidentialPolig Directive on every four years. The NCA process, which includes CriticalInfrastructure Security and Resilience (PPD-2 1). The representatives from the public and private sector, is updated NIPP-to be developed by stakeholders from responsible for analyzing the effects of global change federal, state, and local governments, and from critical on energy production and use, the natural infrastructure owners and operators-will include a environment, agriculture, land and water resources, risk management framework, methods for prioritizing transportation, human health critical infrastructure, metrics for demonstrating and welfare, human social progress in managing risks, and additional efforts that systems, and biological are essential for strengthening and maintaining a diversity. It analyzes current secure, functioning, and resilient infrastructure. C trends in global change, both human-induced and natural; Illustrative Current Activities: Innovation and Deployment and projects major trends Policy and Strategy for the subsequent 25-100 years. The NCA is an In addition to information and stakeholder engagement, important resource for successful adaptation requires enabling policies and practices that facilitate public and private development and C understanding and communicating climate deployment of climate-resilient technologies and change science and impacts in the United States, and it approaches. Among these are basic federal strategies to provides input for key stakeholders including catalyze innovation and deployment. These include:

governments, communities, businesses, and citizens as National Principles for Adaptation: The they incorporate climate preparedness into plans for Interagency Climate Change Adaptation Task Force C the nation's future. The third NCA is expected to be developed national principles to foster government-released in 2014.14 wide actions that facilitate adaptation, including:

building resilience in local communities, safeguarding critical natural resources such as freshwater, and providing accessible climate information and tools to help decision-makers manage climate risks. C 13 Available online: http://www.globalchange.gov/about/

global-change-research-act 14 A draft of the third NCA is available at:

http://ncadac.globalchange.gov/

41 C

O

• Executive Order 13514: Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy and Economic exothermic reactions instead of water to fracture shale)

Performance: The Administration issued Executive

• Technologies to increase the resilience of coastal and Order 13514, which requires federal agencies to offshore oil and gas production and distribution develop and strengthen programs to adapt to the systems to extreme weather events impacts of climate change and ensures that Federal

• Enhanced restoration technologies and practices to Agencies align their climate change adaptation maintain or expand regional wetlands and other planning efforts to build a coordinated and environmental buffer zones comprehensive response.

Thermoelectric Power Generation Enabling Federal Energy Policies and Strategies for Development and Deployment of Climate-

• Use of dry and wet-dry hybrid cooling technologies, Resilient Energy Technologies: The Administration water recapture and reuse technologies, and implements policies including incentives, standards, nontraditional waters (e.g., brackish and saline and government investments that are contributing groundwater, municipal wastewater) for existing and either directly or indirectly to building a more climate- future thermoelectric power plants resilient energy sector (DOE 2011a). Specific

• Innovative water supply augmentation strategies, examples include policies that promote expanding the including alternative water sources and improvements use of renewable energy, such as wind energy, that is in desalination technologies not dependent upon water availability; improved

• Increased power plant efficiency through integration energy and water efficiency standards for appliances of technologies with higher thermal efficiencies than and equipment that reduce both energy demand and conventional coal-fired boilers (e.g., supercritical and water use; and modernization of the electric grid to ultra-supercritical boilers and integrated gasification reduce vulnerabilities to climate change. Progress in combined cycle) these areas can reduce energy consumption and

• Advanced carbon capture and storage (CCS) systems greenhouse gas emissions, while simultaneously that utilize efficient water use designs, and the reducing the vulnerability of the energy sector to potential to use saline waters extracted from CCS climate change and extreme weather. saline reservoirs and waste heat from thermoelectric power plants Major Opportunities " Improved design and placement of cooling water Despite progress being made in several areas, the intake and outflow system channels and pipes to magnitude of the potential challenge posed by climate address changes in water levels and temperatures

• Improvements to power generation infrastructure to D change and extreme weather requires additional efforts.

withstand more frequent and intense storms, flooding, Opportunities: Climate-Resilient Energy Technologies and and surges, including elevation of equipment and Practices structures Understanding the impact of climate change and extreme Renewable Energy Resources weather on future energy sources and technologies is

• Enhanced materials for CSP and PV solar to address critically important. While many impacts are anticipated, the impacts of higher temperatures and related factors there is no single technology solution, and the climate resilience of any energy technology option will ultimately (e.g., higher humidity, cloud coverage, and dusty be measured by its ability to remain reliable under a broad conditions) on the potential for electricity generation range of environmental conditions. Figure 33 illustrates a " Improved reservoir management and turbine range of technological options to improve climate efficiency for more efficient hydropower generation resilience. Specific opportunities include the following. " Cost-effective, energy-efficient desalination technologies to address the current energy demand of Oil and Gas Exploration and Production desalination technologies, and the potential application Improved technologies to reduce freshwater use for of renewable desalination (e.g., solar desalination) fuels production-including for alternative or

• Improved wind technologies and materials to unconventional fossil fuels-by increasing utilization withstand extreme weather events D of degraded waters (e.g., produced waters) and

• Improved climate resilience and water efficiency in nontraditional waters (e.g., brackish waters), or bioenergy production; use of salt-tolerant feedstocks improving technologies for enhanced shale gas such as algal biomass that could reduce competition recovery such as dry fracturing processes (use of for freshwater 42

Electric Grid:

Increased storm hardening of Wn nry Wind Energy:

Improved ability to handle e

transmission/ distribution extreme weather events lines, distributed and backup generation, enrmystaorGan. and C

C C

Figure 33. Illustrative technology opportunities to build a more climate-resilient U.S. energy sector C

Electric Grid maintain service and minimize system vulnerabilities in response to possible climate disruptions of the power

• Operational and infrastructure improvements to grid enhance safety, reliability, and performance of Placement of substations and other critical local transmission and distribution systems, including electricity infrastructure in locations that are not measures to create additional system capacity and C anticipated to be affected by storm surges redundancy

• Practical models and tools for integrating renewable Energy Demand resources, demand side management, and alternative " Enhanced demand-side management and development energy storage technologies of energy/water-efficient and energy-smart appliances,

• Improved design standards for specific components of equipment, buildings, and vehicles the smart grid and protective measures for lightning, More energy-efficient freshwater extraction, C wildfires, wind, flooding, and other extreme events distribution, use, and treatment technologies

• Optimized storage technologies for varied load " Enhanced demand-side management profiles, including onsite storage

• Improved grid monitoring capabilities and dispatch Opportunities:Information and Assessment protocols to manage more varied load scenarios and improve timely restoration of power Despite increased awareness and improved understanding C of potential impacts of climate change and extreme

• Development and use of microgrids, controlled weather on the U.S. energy sector, the need for improved islanding, distributed generation, and technologies to projections of future changes and resulting impacts 43 C

C¢ /DILI I11-0 I U ULIIVl/i I C it

.and I I remains. Typically, decision-making and engineering tools technologies, with a particular focus on water use practices rely on historical climate, natural resource, intensity optimization for the specific technology and D and hazard information. In a changing climate, these tools across competing sectors (e.g., agriculture, industrial, and practices may need to be adjusted. In addition, and residential) at local, regional, and national levels improving knowledge about interdependencies among

• Improved understanding of potential uses and energy sector components and across the energy sector challenges of advanced cooling technologies and and other sectors exposed to climate change risks and alternative water sources for power production vulnerabilities is critical to supporting strategies and

• Additional assessment of potential impacts and actions to reduce these vulnerabilities. Opportunities to resilience efforts for hydropower, including changes in enhance information and related tools and practices generation and electricity costs, effects on reliability include the following: and the frequency of potential outages, potential for

• Better characterization at the regional and local levels utilizing pumped storage generation (which can buffer of climate change trends relevant to the energy sector, timing between peak supply and load), improved including water availability, wind resources, solar analysis of land use planning and watershed insolation and cloud cover, and likelihood and management in relationship to the energy sector, and magnitude of droughts, floods, storms, sea level rise tools for predicting water quality impacts at and storm surge hydropower facilities

• Better characterization at the regional and local levels

• Improved understanding and application of multi-of likely impacts of climate change and extreme sector adaptation solutions that benefit energy, natural weather on the energy system, including near-term and resources, and other sectors longer-term projections that have higher resolution and incorporate secondary effects (e.g., drought and Opportunities: Stakeholder Engagement wildfire) The transition to a climate-resilient energy sector will 0 Identification of a consistent methodology and require an improved understanding of the vulnerabilities, indicators to better prioritize and evaluate risks, and opportunities across society based on regular vulnerabilities and response actions; compare costs communication and outreach. A greater level of and benefits of adaptation intervention versus inaction engagement between key stakeholder and user (including the full costs of future critical infrastructure communities could facilitate such communication.

damage, loss of infrastructure, and power outages); Enhanced outreach could build on existing mechanisms and account for potential limitations of intervention and embrace new approaches for communication and measures over a range of spatial and temporal scales education. Specific opportunities include the following-(including high-impact/low-probability events)

" Enhanced federal interagency collaboration focused 0 Determination of the sensitivity of the energy sector on climate-energy and energy-water challenges to to non-climate changes, such as changes in address the entire energy value chain demographics, population, and economic activity and

• Effective coordination mechanisms with states, associated energy demand localities, and tribes to build capacity and to increase

• Better characterization of the aggregate vulnerabilities technical understanding of the energy sector to climate change, as well as the

• Expanded programs to enable greater information interdependencies between the energy sector and sharing across the electricity generation sector and other sectors (e.g., agriculture, transportation, and between the electricity sector and fuels sectors on health), which can lead to cascading impacts and existing adaptation actions and operating experiences, influence overall energy sector vulnerability lessons learned, and potential adaptation opportunities

• Development of an inventory of climate-resilient

• Partnerships and initiatives between electric and water technologies and practices, including information utilities to accelerate the cost-effective implementation about development status, costs, benefits, and barriers, of energy and water conservation, integrated resource in order to help stakeholders identify, access, and planning, or other adaptation strategies adopt innovative energy technologies and practices

" Partnerships with investment, financial, and insurance

• Technology-, sector-, and region-specific analyses to communities to understand their potential role in better understand resilience strategies climate change risk mitigation, including through the D Data sets on demand response options under various use of financial instruments like insurance climatic conditions

• Enhanced communication strategies to engage 0 Improved tools, methodologies, and analysis stakeholders, disseminate critical information, build capabilities for life-cycle assessment of energy 44

U.:j. tNLtiUY btU I UK VULNtKAbILI I LbZI U ULIMA I t UHANL~L AN t) A I KLML VVLA I 1MLN awareness of climate risk, promote the widespread

• Expanded demonstration and deployment of climate-adoption of resilient technologies and practices, and evaluate societal responses to perceived risk in the energy sector resilient energy technologies on federal and tribal lands Integration of climate risk considerations in design, siting, and operation of energy facilities, through ec measures such as buildings standards and codes, and Opportunities:Innovation and Deployment Policy and Strategy the review process for replacing or repairing damaged An improved framework of enabling policies would infrastructure further accelerate deployment of the technologies and

• Removal of inappropriate barriers that impede the approaches needed to build a climate-resilient energy transition to a climate-resilient energy sector C sector m a timely manner. Novel policies may include

• Consideration of the impact of water policies and those that enhance technological innovation and help to regulations on the energy sector and vice versa bring new technologies to market, including

• Incentives for decentralized power generation that demonstration, or those that remove inappropriate barriers could expand adaptive capacity by decreasing stress on to the deployment of existing commercial technologies. In the centralized power generation system addition, existing policies could be examined in terms of

• Measures that promote integration of energy sector C how they increase or decrease climate resilience. Policy climate risks into different levels of development intervention, when deemed necessary, can occur at the planning and maximize benefits of adaptation to federal, state, and local level, and solutions may or may not multiple sectors be best implemented from the federal level. Specific

• Development and use of integrated decision opportunities in the area of improving the enabling policy frameworks for evaluating potential conflicts and framework include the following:

trade-offs for achieving clean air, clean water, climate C

• Continued research, development, and demonstration change mitigation, climate change adaptation, water of climate-resilient energy technologies resource conservation, and other relevant national

• Enhanced deployment policies such as price signals priorities associated with energy supply and use and incentives for climate-resilient technologies q

C C

C C

0 45 C