Search

Pipelines are responsible for the transportation of a significant portion of the U.S. energy supply. Unfortunately, pipeline failures are common and the consequences can be catastrophic. Drawing on data from the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) that covers approximately 40,000 incidents from 1968 to 2009, this paper explores the trends, causes and consequences of natural gas and hazardous liquid pipeline accidents. The analysis indicates that fatalities and injuries from pipeline accidents are generally decreasing over time, while property damage and, in some cases, the numbers of incidents are increasing over time. In five of the ten cases considered in this paper, the damage from pipeline accidents – in terms of injuries, fatalities and volume of product spilled – are well characterized by a power-law distribution, indicating that catastrophic pipeline accidents are more likely than would be predicted by more common “thin-tailed” distributions. The results also indicate that relatively few accidents account for a large share of total property damage, while smaller, single-fatality and single-injury incidents account for a large share of total fatalities and injuries (43% versus 32%, respectively).

There is growing interest in reducing emissions from electricity generation in the United States (U.S.). Renewable energy, energy efficiency, and energy conservation are all commonly suggested solutions. Both supply- and demand-side interventions will displace energy-and emissions-from conventional generators. Marginal emissions factors (MEFs) give a consistent metric for assessing the avoided emissions resulting from such interventions. This paper presents the first systematic calculation of MEFs for the U.S. electricity system. Using regressions of hourly generation and emissions data from 2006 through 2011, we estimate regional MEFs for CO(2), NO(x), and SO(2), as well as the share of marginal generation from coal-, gas-, and oil-fired generators. Trends in MEFs with respect to system load, time of day, and month are explored. We compare marginal and average emissions factors (AEFs), finding that AEFs may grossly misestimate the avoided emissions resulting from an intervention. We find significant regional differences in the emissions benefits of avoiding one megawatt-hour of electricity: compared to the West, an equivalent energy efficiency measure in the Midwest is expected to avoid roughly 70% more CO(2), 12 times more SO(2), and 3 times more NO(x) emissions.