This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-14-74 
entitled "Climate Change: Energy Infrastructure Risks and Adaptation 
Efforts" which was released on March 4, 2014. 

This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as 
part of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. 
Every attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data 
integrity of the original printed product. Accessibility features, 
such as text descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes 
placed at the end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, 
are provided but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format 
of the printed version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an 
exact electronic replica of the printed version. We welcome your 
feedback. Please E-mail your comments regarding the contents or 
accessibility features of this document to Webmaster@gao.gov. 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work 
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the 
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this 
material separately. 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
GAO: 

Report to Congressional Requesters: 

January 2014: 

Climate Change: 

Energy Infrastructure Risks and Adaptation Efforts: 

GAO-14-74: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-14-74, a report to congressional requesters. 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

According to the NRC and the USGCRP, changes in the earth's climate—-
including higher temperatures, changes in precipitation, rising sea 
levels, and increases in the severity and frequency of severe weather 
events-—are under way and expected to grow more severe over time. 
These impacts present significant risks to the nation's energy 
infrastructure. 

Economic losses arising from weather-related events-—including floods, 
droughts, and storms-—have been large and are increasing, according to 
USGCRP. Adaptation-—an adjustment to natural or human systems in 
response to actual or expected climate change—-is a risk-management 
strategy to help protect vulnerable sectors and communities that might 
be affected by climate change. 

GAO was asked to examine the vulnerability of the nation's energy 
infrastructure to climate change impacts. This report examines: (1) 
what is known about potential impacts of climate change on U.S. energy 
infrastructure; (2) measures that can reduce climate-related risks and 
adapt energy infrastructure to climate change; and (3) the role of the 
federal government in adapting energy infrastructure and adaptation 
steps selected federal entities have taken. GAO reviewed climate 
change assessments; analyzed relevant studies and agency documents; 
and interviewed federal agency officials and industry stakeholders, 
including energy companies at four sites that have implemented 
adaptive measures. 

What GAO Found: 

According to assessments by the National Research Council (NRC) and 
the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP), U.S. energy 
infrastructure is increasingly vulnerable to a range of climate change 
impacts—-particularly infrastructure in areas prone to severe weather 
and water shortages. Climate changes are projected to affect 
infrastructure throughout all major stages of the energy supply chain, 
thereby increasing the risk of disruptions. For example: 

* Resource extraction and processing infrastructure, including oil and 
natural gas platforms, refineries, and processing plants, is often 
located near the coast, making it vulnerable to severe weather and sea 
level rise. 

* Fuel transportation and storage infrastructure, including pipelines, 
barges, railways and storage tanks, is susceptible to damage from 
severe weather, melting permafrost, and increased precipitation. 

* Electricity generation infrastructure, such as power plants, is 
vulnerable to severe weather or water shortages, which can interrupt 
operations. 

* Electricity transmission and distribution infrastructure, including 
power lines and substations, is susceptible to severe weather and may 
be stressed by rising demand for electricity as temperatures rise. 

In addition, impacts to infrastructure may also be amplified by a 
number of broad, systemic factors, including water scarcity, energy 
system interdependencies, increased electricity demand, and the 
compounding effects of multiple climate impacts. 

A number of measures exist to help reduce climate-related risks and 
adapt the nation's energy systems to weather and climate-related 
impacts. These options generally fall into two broad categories—-
hardening and resiliency. Hardening measures involve physical changes 
that improve the durability and stability of specific pieces of 
infrastructure-—for example, elevating and sealing water-sensitive 
equipment—making it less susceptible to damage. In contrast, 
resiliency measures allow energy systems to continue operating after 
damage and allow them to recover more quickly; for example, installing 
back-up generators to restore electricity more quickly after severe 
weather events. 

In general, the federal government has a limited role in directly 
adapting energy infrastructure to the potential impacts of climate 
change, but key federal entities can play important supporting roles 
that can influence private companies' infrastructure decisions and 
these federal entities are initiating steps to begin adaptation 
efforts within their respective missions. Energy infrastructure 
adaptation is primarily accomplished through planning and investment 
decisions made by private companies that own the infrastructure. The 
federal government can influence companies' decisions through 
providing information, regulatory oversight, technology research and 
development, and market incentives and disincentives. Key federal 
entities, such as the Department of Energy, the Environmental 
Protection Agency, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and the 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission have also begun to take steps to address 
climate change risks—through project-specific activities such as 
research and development and evaluating siting and licensing decisions 
under their jurisdiction, as well as through broader agency-wide 
assessments and interagency cooperation. 

View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-14-74]. For more 
information, contact Frank Rusco at (202) 512-3841 or ruscof@gao.gov. 

[End of section] 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Background: 

U.S. Energy Infrastructure Is Increasingly Vulnerable to a Range of 
Projected Climate-Related Impacts: 

Adaptive Measures Could Reduce Potential Climate Change Impacts on 
U.S. Energy Infrastructure: 

Federal Role in Directly Adapting Energy Infrastructure Is Limited, 
but Selected Federal Entities Can Play an Important Supporting Role in 
Decision Making and Are Initiating Actions toward Adaptation: 

Concluding Observations: 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluations: 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

Appendix II: Summaries of Selected Federal Roles in Energy 
Infrastructure: 

Appendix III: Comments from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission: 

Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

Table: 

Table 1: Current and Projected Climate Changes in the United States: 

Figures: 

Figure 1: Illustration of U.S. Energy Supply Chain: 

Figure 2: Active Oil and Gas Platforms in the Central and Western Gulf 
of Mexico: 

Figure 3: Damage to Mars and Typhoon Platforms from Hurricanes Katrina 
and Rita, 2005: 

Figure 4: Pipeline Damages Reported for Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, 
2005: 

Figure 5: Examples of Weather-Related Electrical Grid Disturbances: 

Figure 6: Weather-Related Grid Disruptions, 2000-2012: 

Figure 7: Water Use by the U.S. Energy Sector: 

Figure 8: Historical Increases in Cooling Demand and Decreases in 
Heating Demand: 

Figure 9: The Gasoline Supply Chain: 

Figure 10: Fallen Transmission Lines after Hurricane Rita: 

Figure 11: Gateway Generating Station: 

Figure 12: Colonial's Portable Generators: 

Figure 13: Proposed Turkey Point Nuclear Units 6 and 7: 

Abbreviations: 

AWF: America's Wetland Foundation: 

BOEM: Bureau of Ocean Energy Management: 

BSEE: Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement: 

CBO: Congressional Budget Office: 

CEA: Council of Economic Advisers: 

CEQ: Council on Environmental Quality: 

CSP: concentrated solar power: 

DOE: Department of Energy: 

EIA: Energy Information Administration: 

ENO: Entergy New Orleans: 

EPA: Environmental Protection Agency: 

FEMA: Federal Emergency Management Agency: 

FERC: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission: 

FPL: Florida Power and Light: 

IPCC: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: 

NCDC: National Climate Data Center: 

NERC: North American Electric Reliability Corporation: 

NETL: National Energy Technology Laboratory: 

NFIP: National Flood Insurance Program: 

NOAA: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration: 

NRC: National Research Council: 

NWP: National Water Program: 

NWS: National Weather Service: 

NYH: New York Harbor: 

ONRR: Office of Natural Resources Revenue: 

PG&E: Pacific Gas and Electric Company: 

PMA: Power Marketing Administration: 

TVA: Tennessee Valley Authority: 

UN: United Nations: 

USGCR: PU.S. Global Change Research Program: 

[End of section] 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
GAO:
441 G St. N.W. 
Washington, DC 20548: 

January 31, 2014: 

Congressional Requesters: 

Climate change is a complex, crosscutting issue that could pose 
significant risks to the nation's energy infrastructure. According to 
assessments by the National Research Council (NRC)[Footnote 1] and the 
United States Global Change Research Program (USGCRP),[Footnote 2] the 
effects of climate change are already under way and are projected to 
continue.[Footnote 3] Global atmospheric emissions of greenhouse gases 
have increased markedly over the last 200 years which has contributed 
to a warming of the earth's climate as well as increasing the acidity 
of oceans. Changes observed in the United States include more intense 
weather and storm events, heat waves, floods, and droughts; rising sea 
levels; and changing patterns of rainfall. These trends, which are 
expected to continue, can adversely affect energy infrastructure such 
as natural gas and oil production platforms, pipelines, power plants, 
and electricity distribution lines, according to NRC and USGCRP, thus 
making it more difficult to ensure a reliable energy supply to the 
nation's homes and businesses. 

Energy infrastructure can be affected by both acute weather events and 
long-term changes in the climate, according to NRC and the Department 
of Energy (DOE). In particular, energy infrastructure located along 
the coast is at risk from increasingly intense storms, which can 
substantially disrupt oil and gas production and cause temporary fuel 
or electricity shortages. In 2012, for example, storm surge and high 
winds from Hurricane Sandy--an acute weather event--downed power 
lines, flooded electrical substations, and damaged or temporarily shut 
down several power plants and ports, according to DOE, leaving over 8 
million customers without power.[Footnote 4] [Footnote 5] Long-term 
changes in the climate could also impact energy infrastructure, 
according to USGCRP and DOE. For example, warming air temperatures may 
reduce the efficiency of power plants while increasing the overall 
demand for electricity, potentially creating supply challenges. In 
addition, while many climate change impacts are projected to be 
regional in nature, the interconnectedness of the nation's energy 
system means that regional vulnerabilities may have wide-ranging 
implications for energy production and use, ultimately affecting 
transportation, industrial, agricultural, and other critical sectors 
of the economy that require reliable energy. 

As observed by USGCRP, the impacts and financial costs of weather 
disasters--resulting from floods, drought, and other weather events--
are expected to increase in significance as what are historically 
considered to be "rare" events become more common and intense due to 
climate change.[Footnote 6] According to National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) National Climate Data Center 
(NCDC), the United States experienced 11 extreme weather and climate 
events in 2012, each causing more than $1 billion in losses.[Footnote 
7] Two of the most significant weather events during 2012 were 
Hurricane Sandy, estimated at $65 billion, and an extended drought 
that covered over half of the contiguous United States estimated at 
$30 billion. While it is difficult to attribute any individual weather 
event to climate change, these events provide insight into the 
potential climate-related vulnerabilities the United States faces. In 
this regard, both private sector firms and federal agencies have 
documented an increase in weather-related losses. A 2013 study by the 
reinsurance provider Munich Re, for example, indicated that, in 2012, 
insured losses in the United States totaled $58 billion--far above the 
2000 to 2011 average loss of $27 billion. The energy sector often 
bears a significant portion of these costs, according to USGCRP; for 
example, direct costs to the energy industry following Hurricanes 
Katrina and Rita in 2005 were estimated at around $15 billion. 
[Footnote 8] 

We have reported in the past that policymakers increasingly view 
climate change adaptation--defined as adjustments to natural or human 
systems in response to actual or expected climate change--as a risk 
management strategy to protect vulnerable sectors and communities that 
might be affected by changes in the climate.[Footnote 9] State and 
local governments and the private sector play key roles in planning 
and implementing energy infrastructure, and some are already engaged 
in various types of adaptation measures, including vulnerability 
assessments, strengthening or relocating vulnerable infrastructure, 
deploying more climate-resilient technologies, and improving 
electricity grid operations and responsiveness. While some of these 
measures may be costly, there is a growing recognition that the cost 
of inaction could be greater. As stated in a 2010 NRC report, 
increasing the nation's ability to respond to a changing climate can 
be viewed as an insurance policy against climate risks.[Footnote 10] 
To that end, emerging federal efforts are under way to facilitate more 
informed decisions about adaptation. However, we have reported these 
federal efforts have been largely carried out in an ad hoc manner, 
with little coordination across federal agencies or with state and 
local governments.[Footnote 11] In 2013, our most recent update to the 
list of programs at high risk of waste, fraud, abuse, and 
mismanagement, we identified the federal government's management of 
climate change risks as an area in need of fundamental transformation 
due to the fiscal exposure it presents.[Footnote 12] 

In this context, you asked us to examine the vulnerability of the 
nation's energy infrastructure to climate change. This report 
examines: (1) what is known about the potential impacts of climate 
change on U.S. energy infrastructure, (2) measures that can reduce 
climate-related risks and adapt the energy infrastructure to climate 
change, and (3) the role of the federal government in adapting energy 
infrastructure to the potential impacts of climate change, including 
what steps selected federal entities have taken towards adaptation. 

To examine what is known about the impacts of climate change on U.S. 
energy infrastructure, we reviewed climate change impact assessments 
from the NRC, USGCRP and federal agencies.[Footnote 13] We examined 
potential impacts to the following infrastructure categories, 
representing four main stages of the energy supply chain: [Footnote 
14] (1) resource extraction and processing infrastructure, (2) fuel 
transportation and storage infrastructure,(3) electricity generation 
infrastructure, and (4) electricity transmission and distribution 
infrastructure. We also assessed broad, systemic factors that may 
amplify climate change impacts to energy infrastructure. 

To identify and examine measures that can reduce climate-related risks 
and adapt energy infrastructure to climate change, we analyzed 
relevant studies and government reports and interviewed knowledgeable 
stakeholders including representatives from professional associations 
such as the American Gas Association and the National Association of 
State Energy Officials. We identified and selected a nonprobability 
sample of four energy companies where decision makers were taking 
steps to adapt their energy infrastructure to the potential impacts of 
climate change: Colonial Pipeline Company, Entergy Corporation, 
Florida Power and Light Company, and Pacific Gas and Electric Company. 
To select our sample we conducted a literature review and interviewed 
officials from research organizations, such as the Environmental and 
Energy Study Institute and the Center for Climate and Energy 
Solutions. Our sample selection reflects a range of geographic 
locations and climate-related risks, as well as infrastructure used in 
three of the four stages of the energy supply chain.[Footnote 15] 

To examine the role of the federal government in adaptation and steps 
selected federal entities have taken, we identified federal agencies 
with key responsibilities related to energy infrastructure by 
reviewing relevant literature, including previous GAO reports, and 
interviewing agency officials and knowledgeable stakeholder groups. 
[Footnote 16] We compiled an initial list of 15 federal entities that 
had a connection to energy infrastructure and then narrowed the list 
to the five that have the most direct influence on energy 
infrastructure adaptation decisions: DOE, the Environmental Protection 
Agency (EPA), the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), the 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission as well as the North American Electric 
Reliability Corporation (NERC).[Footnote 17] Appendix I provides a 
more detailed description of our objectives, scope, and methodology. 

We conducted this performance audit from July 2012 to January 2014 in 
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 
Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe 
that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our 
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

Background: 

This section describes: (1) potential climate change impacts in the 
United States, (2) energy infrastructure in the United States, and (3) 
climate change adaptation as a risk management tool. 

Observed and Projected Climate Change Impacts in the United States: 

According to assessments by USGCRP, NRC, and others, changes in the 
earth's climate attributable to increased concentrations of greenhouse 
gases may have significant environmental and economic impacts in the 
United States. These changes, summarized in Table 1, involve a wide 
range of current and projected impacts. While uncertainty exists about 
the exact nature, magnitude, and timing of climate change, over the 
next several decades, these and other impacts are projected to 
continue and likely accelerate, with effects varying considerably by 
region, according to NRC assessments. Because emitted greenhouse gases 
remain in the atmosphere for extended periods of time, some changes to 
the climate are expected to occur as a result of emissions to date, 
regardless of future efforts to control emissions.[Footnote 18], 
[Footnote 19] 

Table 1: Current and Projected Climate Changes in the United States: 

Category: Temperature; 
Observed climate changes: 
* U.S. average annual 
temperature has risen about 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit since record keeping 
began in 1895; more than 80 percent of this increase has occurred since 
1980. The most recent decade was the nation's warmest on record[A]; 
* The frost-free season has been lengthening since the 1980s, and 
rising temperatures are reducing ice volume on land, lakes, and sea. 
Minimum Arctic sea ice has decreased by more than 40 percent since 
satellite records began in 1978; 
Projected climate changes: 
* U.S. temperatures are expected to continue to rise, with varying 
impacts by region. In the next few decades, warming of 2 to 4 degrees 
Fahrenheit is expected for most parts of the nation; 
* The frost-free season is expected to increase by a month or more and 
is projected to occur across most of the United States by the end of 
the century; 
* Antarctic sea ice is projected to decline in future decades[B,C]. 

Category: Precipitation; 
Observed climate changes: 
* Data indicate an overall upward trend in annual precipitation across 
most of the United States, with an average 5 percent increase since 
1900; 
* Heavy downpours are increasing in most regions of the United States, 
especially over the last three to five decades; 
Projected climate changes: 
* Projections of future precipitation indicate that northern areas are 
expected to continue to become wetter, and southern areas, 
particularly in the Southwest, are expected to become drier; 
* Further increases in the frequency and intensity of extreme 
precipitation events are projected for most U.S. areas. 

Category: Sea level rise and coastal erosion; 
Observed climate changes: 
* Global sea level has risen by about 8 inches since reliable record 
keeping began in 1880; 
* The current rate of global sea level rise is faster than at any time 
in the past 2000 years. 
Projected climate changes: 
* Sea levels are projected to continue to rise, but the extent is not 
well-understood[D]; 
* In the next several decades, sea level rise and land subsidence 
could combine with storm surges and high tides to increase flooding in 
coastal regions. 

Category: Extreme weather events and storms; 
Observed climate changes: 
* Certain types of extreme weather events, such as heat waves, floods, 
and droughts, have become more frequent and intense in some regions; 
* In the eastern Pacific, the strongest hurricanes have become stronger 
since the 1980s, while the total number of storms has declined; 
Projected climate changes: 
* The intensity of the strongest hurricanes is projected to continue 
as the oceans continue to warm, causing wind, precipitation, and storm 
surges; 
* Other trends in severe storms, including the number of hurricanes 
and intensity and frequency of tornadoes are uncertain and remain 
under study. 

Sources: GAO analysis of USGCRP's 2009 and 2013 draft National Climate 
Assessments and NRC's America's Climate Choices: Adapting to the 
Impacts of Climate Change, 2010. 

Sources: GAO analysis of USGCRP's 2009 and 2013 draft National Climate 
Assessments and NRC's America's Climate Choices: Adapting to the 
Impacts of Climate Change, 2010. 

[A] A report by the United Kingdom notes global mean surface 
temperatures rose rapidly from the 1970s, but have been relatively 
flat over the most recent 15 years to 2013. This has prompted 
speculation that human induced global warming is no longer happening, 
or at least will be much smaller than predicted. Others maintain that 
this is a temporary pause in global temperatures and that they will 
again rise at rates seen previously. United Kingdom Met Office, 
Observing Changes in the Climate System: The Recent Pause in Global 
Warming (1) What do observations of the climate system tell us? 
(United Kingdom: July 2013). 

[B] U.S. Climate Change Science Program (now known as USGCRP), Global 
Climate Change Impacts in the United States, Draft 2013 National Climate 
Assessment (Washington, D.C., 2013). 

[C] Liu, J, Judith A. Curry, Accelerated Warming in the Southern Ocean 
and its Impacts on the Hydrological Cycle and Sea Ice. School of Earth 
and Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology (Atlanta, 
GA: 2010). 

[D] Sea level has been rising, and at an increasing rate, but 
understanding all of the dynamics involved is not sufficiently 
complete to allow for an accurate prediction of the likely total 
extent of sea level rise this century. For example, scientists have a 
well-developed understanding of the contributions of thermal expansion 
of the oceans due to warming. However, other changes, such as ice 
sheet dynamics, are less well-understood , and while this variable is 
expected to make a significant contribution to sea level rise, 
quantifying that contribution is difficult. 

[End of table] 

U.S. Energy Infrastructure: 

U.S. energy infrastructure comprises four key components: (1) resource 
extraction and processing infrastructure, such as equipment to extract 
and refine coal, natural gas and oil; (2) fuel transportation and 
storage infrastructure, including physical networks of natural gas and 
oil pipelines; (3) electricity generation infrastructure, including 
coal-fired, gas-fired, and nuclear power plants, as well as renewable 
energy infrastructure; and (4) electricity transmission and 
distribution infrastructure, such as power lines that transport energy 
to consumers (see figure 1). According to DOE, the energy supply chain 
has grown increasingly complex and interdependent. In total, the U.S. 
energy supply chain includes approximately 2.6 million miles of 
interstate and intrastate pipelines, 6,600 operational power plants, 
about 144 operable refineries, and about 160,000 miles of transmission 
lines. Collectively, this infrastructure enables the United States to 
meet industrial, commercial, and residential demands, as well as to 
support transportation and communication networks. 

Figure 1: Illustration of U.S. Energy Supply Chain: 

[Refer to PDF for image: illustration] 

Energy resources: 
* Fossil fuels; 
* Nuclear; 
* Renewable sources. 

Resource extraction and processing: 
* Oil and gas platforms; 
* Mining equipment; 
* Liquid natural gas facilities; 
* Gas processing plants; 
* Oil refineries. 

Fuel transportation and storage: 
* Pipelines; 
* Fuel storage tanks; 
* Trucks, highways, railways; 
* Port facilities; 
* Tankers, barges. 

Electricity generation: 
* Fossil fuel power plants; 
* Nuclear power plants; 
* Renewable energy infrastructure. 

Electricity transmission and distribution: 
* Transmission lines; 
* Distribution lines; 
* Substations. 

Energy users: 
* Commercial; 
* Industrial; 
* Residential. 

Source: GAO. 

[End of figure] 

The nation's energy supply chain is designed to respond to weather 
variability, such as changes in temperature that affect load or rapid 
changes in renewable resource availability that affect supply. These 
short-term fluctuations are managed by designing redundancy into 
energy systems and using tools to predict, evaluate, and optimize 
response strategies in the near term. For example, electrical 
utilities are beginning to deploy automated feeder switches that open 
or close in response to a fault condition identified locally or to a 
control signal sent from another location. When a fault occurs, 
automated feeder switching immediately reroutes power among 
distribution circuits isolating only the portion of a circuit where 
the fault has occurred. This results in a significant reduction in the 
number of customers affected by an outage and the avoidance of costs 
typically borne by customers when outages occur, according to a 2013 
White House report.[Footnote 20] 

However, most energy infrastructure was engineered and built for our 
past or current climate and may not be resilient to continued and 
expected increases in the magnitude and frequency of extreme weather 
events and overall continued weather and climate change in the long-term. 
Further, this infrastructure is aging, according to DOE. For example, 
most of the U.S. electricity transmission system was designed to last 
40 to 50 years; yet, in some parts of the country, it is now 100 
years old. The nation's oil and gas infrastructure is also aging and 
about half of the nation's oil and gas pipelines were built in the 
1950s and 1960s. Changes in climate have the potential to further 
strain these already aging components by forcing them to operate 
outside of the ranges for which they were designed. DOE reported 
that aging infrastructure is more susceptible than newer assets 
to the hurricane-related hazards of storm surge, flooding, and 
extreme winds, and retrofitting this existing infrastructure with 
more climate-resilient technologies remains a challenge. 

Climate Change Adaptation as a Risk Management Tool: 

Climate change adaptation addresses the vulnerability of natural and 
human systems to changes in the climate and focuses on reducing the 
damage resulting from those changes.[Footnote 21] According to DOE, 
two broad ways to reduce the potential impacts of climate change on 
energy infrastructure are to invest in hardening and resiliency 
efforts. DOE defines hardening as physical changes to infrastructure 
to make it less susceptible to storm damage, such as high winds, 
flooding, or flying debris. DOE defines resiliency as the ability to 
recover quickly from damage to facilities' components or to any of the 
external systems on which they depend.[Footnote 22] The 
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) noted more flexible 
and resilient systems have greater adaptive capacity and are better 
suited to handle a changing climate.[Footnote 23] 

Additionally, adaptation requires making policy and management 
decisions that cut across traditional economic sectors, jurisdictional 
boundaries, and levels of government. While most energy infrastructure 
is owned by the private sector, both state and federal governments 
have roles in energy infrastructure siting, permitting, and 
regulation. For example, state public utility commissions are 
responsible for setting the rates for electric service within each 
state, and owners of energy infrastructure must work with state 
commissions in order to request rate increases to cover the cost of 
hardening their infrastructure. Owners of energy infrastructure that 
spans more than one state, such as natural gas or oil pipelines or 
electric power lines, may have to work with multiple state commissions 
on rate and licensing matters and with FERC regarding the rates, 
terms, and conditions of sales of electricity and transmission in 
interstate commerce. 

U.S. Energy Infrastructure Is Increasingly Vulnerable to a Range of 
Projected Climate-Related Impacts: 

According to USGCRP, NRC, and others, climate change poses risks to 
energy infrastructure at all four key stages in the supply chain. In 
addition, broad, systemic factors such as water scarcity and energy 
system interdependencies could amplify these impacts. 

Climate Change Poses Risks to Energy Infrastructure Across the Four 
Key Stages in the Supply Chain: 

Impacts from climate change can affect infrastructure throughout the 
four major stages of the energy supply chain: (1) resource extraction 
and processing infrastructure, (2) fuel transportation and storage 
infrastructure, (3) electricity generation infrastructure, and (4) 
electricity transmission and distribution infrastructure. 

Climate Change Can Impact Resource Extraction and Processing 
Infrastructure: 

Much of the infrastructure used to extract, refine, and process, and 
prospect for fuels--including natural gas and oil platforms, oil 
refineries, and natural gas processing plants--is located offshore or 
near the coast, making it particularly vulnerable to sea level rise, 
extreme weather, and other impacts, according to USGCRP and DOE 
assessments. The Gulf Coast, for example, is home to nearly 4,000 oil 
and gas platforms (see figure 2), many of which are at risk of damage 
or disruption due to high winds and storm surges at increasingly high 
sea levels.[Footnote 24] Low-lying coastal areas are also home to many 
oil refineries, coal import/export facilities, and natural gas 
processing facilities that are similarly vulnerable to inundation, 
shoreline erosion, and storm surges. Given that the Gulf Coast is home 
to approximately half of the nation's crude oil and natural gas 
production--as well as nearly half of its refining capacity--regional 
severe weather events can have significant implications for energy 
supplies nationwide. In 2005, for example, high winds and flooding 
from Hurricanes Katrina and Rita caused extensive damage to the 
region's natural gas and oil infrastructure, destroying more than 100 
platforms, damaging 558 pipelines, and shutting down numerous 
refineries, effectively halting nearly all oil and gas production for 
several weeks. (figure 3 illustrates damage to the Mars and Typhoon 
deepwater platforms following the 2005 hurricanes.) More recently, 
Hurricane Sandy caused flooding and outages at refineries and 
petroleum terminals in the New York Harbor area, according to a 2013 
DOE report comparing the impacts of northeast hurricanes on energy 
infrastructure, depressing regional oil supply and leading to 
temporary price increases.[Footnote 25] 

Figure 2: Active Oil and Gas Platforms in the Central and Western Gulf 
of Mexico: 

[Refer to PDF for image: illustrated map] 

Sources: Based on an online geographic information systems-based 
mapping tool of the Flower Garden Banks Sanctuary, using data 
from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) 
National Marine Sanctuaries Program and NOAA's National Coastal 
Data Development Center. 

Note: Nearly 4,000 active oil and gas platforms are located in the 
central and western Gulf of Mexico. 

[End of figure] 

Figure 3: Damage to Mars and Typhoon Platforms from Hurricanes Katrina 
and Rita, 2005: 

[Refer to PDF for image: 4 photographs] 

Mars platform: 
Before; 
After. 

Typhoon platform: 
Before; 
After. 

Sources: V. Bhatt, J. Eckmann, W. C. Horak, and T. J. Wilbanks: 
Possible Indirect Effects on Energy Production and Distribution in 
the United States in Effects of Climate Change on Energy Production 
and Use in the United States. A report by the U.S. Climate Change 
Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research 
(Washington, D.C.: 2007). (Mars platform photos); Det Norske Veritas, 
Technical Report prepared for the Minerals Management Service, 
Pipeline Damage Assessment from Hurricanes Katrina and 
Rita in the Gulf of Mexico, Report No. 448 14183, January 22, 2007 
(Typhoon platform photos). 

[End of figure] 

Storm-related impacts on natural gas and oil production infrastructure 
can also have significant economic implications. Losses related to 
infrastructure damage can be extensive, particularly given the high 
value and long life span of natural gas and oil platforms, refineries, 
and processing plants. For example, a report by Entergy Corporation, 
an integrated energy company serving a number of southern states, 
estimated its infrastructure restoration costs at around $1.5 billion 
following Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. A 2009 DOE assessment reported 
that some damages resulting from the 2005 hurricanes were too costly 
to repair; as a result, a number of platforms were sunk, and 
significant crude oil production capacity was lost.[Footnote 26] In 
addition to causing physical damage, increasingly intense severe 
weather events can disrupt operations and decrease fuel supplies, 
resulting in broader economic losses for businesses and industries 
that depend on these resources. According to USGCRP assessments, 
damage to key infrastructure--especially to refineries, natural gas 
processing plants, and petroleum terminals--can cause fuel prices to 
spike across the country, as evidenced by Hurricanes Katrina and 
Sandy. Flood damage is the most common and costliest type of storm 
damage to oil production infrastructure, resulting in the longest 
disruptions, according to DOE's 2010 report. 

Warming temperatures and water availability may also present 
challenges for the nation's extraction and processing infrastructure. 
For example, according to USGCRP, climate change impacts have already 
been observed in Alaska, where thawing permafrost has substantially 
shortened the season during which oil and gas exploration and 
extraction equipment can be operated on the tundra.[Footnote 27] Oil 
refineries around the nation are also potentially at risk, according 
to USGCRP; they require both significant quantities of water and 
access to electricity, making them vulnerable to drought and power 
outages. 

Climate Change Can Impact Fuel Transportation and Storage 
Infrastructure: 

USGCRP assessments identified several ways in which climate change can 
affect fuel transportation infrastructure, including pipeline systems 
that carry natural gas and oil; trucks, railways, and barges that 
transport coal, oil and petroleum products; as well as storage 
facilities, such as aboveground tanks, underground salt caverns, and 
aquifers.[Footnote 28] 

Natural gas and oil pipelines, which generally require electricity to 
operate, are particularly vulnerable to extreme weather events, 
according to DOE. The U.S. pipeline system is a complex network 
comprising over 2.6 million miles of natural gas and oil pipelines, 
some of which have already been affected by past weather events. For 
example, electric power outages from Hurricane Katrina caused three 
critical pipelines--which cumulatively transport 125 million gallons 
of fuel each day--to shut down for two full days and operate at 
reduced power for about two weeks, leading to fuel shortages and 
temporary price spikes. In addition to the power outage, the 
Department of the Interior's Minerals Management Service reported 
that approximately 457 pipelines were damaged during the hurricanes, 
interrupting production for months (see figure 4). [Footnote 29] 
More recently, in July 2011, ExxonMobil's Silvertip pipeline in 
Montana, buried beneath the Yellowstone riverbed, was torn apart 
by flood-caused debris, spilling oil into the river and disrupting 
crude oil transport in the region, with damages estimated at $135 
million, according to the Department of Transportation.[Footnote 30] 
Storm surge flooding can also affect aboveground fuel storage tanks, 
according to DOE; for example, tanks not fully filled can drift off 
of their platforms or become corroded by trapped salt water. 

Figure 4: Pipeline Damages Reported for Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, 
2005: 

[Refer to PDF for image: illustrated map] 

Map depicts: 
Path of Hurricane Rita; 
Path of Hurricane Katrina; 
Active pipelines; 
Damaged pipelines. 

Source: Det Norske Veritas, Technical Report prepared for the 
Department of the Interior's Minerals Management Service, Pipeline 
Damage Assessment from Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in the Gulf of 
Mexico, Report No. 448 14183, January 22, 2007. 

[End of figure] 

In addition to pipelines, rail, barge, and tanker trucks also play 
critical roles in transporting fuel across the country. According to 
USGCRP and DOE assessments, fuel transport by rail and barge can be 
affected when water levels in rivers and ports drop too low, such as 
during a drought, or too high, such as during a storm surge. During 
the 2012 drought, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers reported groundings 
of traffic along the Mississippi River due to low water depths, 
preventing barge shipments of coal and petroleum products. Lower water 
levels can also affect the amount of fuel the barges are capable of 
hauling; according to DOE's 2013 assessment, a one-inch drop in river 
level can reduce a barge's towing capacity by 255 tons. 

Fuel transportation infrastructure can also be affected by rising 
temperatures, according to assessments by DOE and USGCRP. For example, 
in 2012, Hurricane Sandy's storm surge produced nearly four feet of 
floodwaters, damaging or temporarily shutting down the Port of New 
York and New Jersey, as well as electrical systems, highways, and 
rail track. Disruptions in barge transportation due to extreme weather 
can also present challenges for areas such as Florida, which are 
nearly entirely dependent on barges for fuel delivery. Intense storms 
and flooding can also wash out rail lines--which in many regions 
follow riverbeds--and impede the delivery of coal to power plants. 
According to DOE, flooding of rail lines has already been a problem 
both in the Appalachian region and along the Mississippi River. 
The rerouting that occurs as a result of such flooding can cost 
millions of dollars and can delay coal deliveries. 

Colder climates present a different set of risks for fuel 
transportation infrastructure, according to DOE and USGCRP 
assessments. For example, in Alaska--where average temperatures have 
risen about twice as much as the rest of the nation--thawing 
permafrost is already causing pipeline, rail, and pavement 
displacements, requiring reconstruction of key facilities and raising 
maintenance costs.[Footnote 31] Melting sea ice caused by warmer 
temperatures can result in more icebergs and ice movement, which in 
turn can damage barges transporting natural gas and oil. On the other 
hand, decreasing sea ice could also generate some benefits for the 
natural gas and oil sectors; USGCRP reports that warmer temperatures 
are expected to improve shipping accessibility in some areas of the 
Arctic Basin, including oil and gas transport by sea. 

Climate Change Can Impact Electricity Generation Infrastructure: 

According to assessments by USGCRP, DOE, and others, climate change 
will have a significant impact on the nation's electricity generation 
facilities, including fossil fuel and nuclear power plants--which 
together produce the vast majority of the nation's electricity--as 
well as renewable energy infrastructure such as wind turbines and 
hydropower dams. 

Fossil fuel and nuclear power plants. According to USGCRP, climate 
change is expected to have potentially significant consequences for 
fossil fuel and nuclear power plants. Fossil fuel plants--which burn 
coal, natural gas, or oil--are susceptible to much of the same 
impacts as nuclear power plants, according to USGCRP and DOE, 
including diminishing water supplies, warming temperatures, and severe 
weather, among others. 

According to USGCRP, episodic and long-lasting water shortages and 
elevated water temperatures may constrain electricity generation in 
many regions of the United States. As currently designed, most fossil 
fuel plants and nuclear plants require significant amounts of water to 
generate, cool, and condense steam. Energy production, together with 
thermoelectric power, accounted for approximately 11 percent of U.S. 
water consumption in 2005, according to one study[Footnote 33], second 
only to irrigation.[Footnote 34] Issues related to water already pose 
a range of challenges for existing power plants, as illustrated by the 
following examples cited by DOE[Footnote 35]: 

* Insufficient amounts of water. In 2007, a drought affecting the
southeastern United States caused water levels in some rivers, lakes
and reservoirs to drop below the level of intake valves that supply
cooling water to power plants, causing some plants to stop or reduce
power production. 

* Outgoing water too warm. In 2007, 2010, and 2011, the Tennessee 
Valley Authority had to reduce power output from its Browns Ferry 
Nuclear Plant in Alabama because the temperature of the river was too 
high to receive discharge water without raising ecological risks; the 
cost of replacing lost power was estimated at $50 million.[Footnote 36] 

* Incoming water too warm. In August 2012, Dominion Resources' 
Millstone Nuclear Power Station in Connecticut shut down one reactor 
because the intake cooling water, withdrawn from the Long Island 
Sound, exceeded temperature specifications. The resulting loss of 
power production was estimated at several million dollars. 

USGCRP and NRC assessments project that water issues will continue to
constrain electricity production at existing facilities as temperatures
increase and precipitation patterns change. Many of these risks are
regional in nature; research by the Electric Power Research Institute
(EPRI), for example, indicates that approximately 25 percent of existing
electric generation in the United States is located in counties projected to
be at high or moderate water supply sustainability risk in 2030.[Footnote 37] 
Water availability concerns are already affecting the development of new power
plants, according to USGCRP's 2009 assessment, as plans to develop
new plants are delayed or halted at increasing rates. Moreover, as
demands for energy and water increase, competition between the energy,
industrial, and agricultural sectors, among others, sectors could place
additional strain on the nation's power plants, potentially affecting the
reliability of future electric power generation.[Footnote 38] 

USGCRP and DOE assessments also indicate that higher air and water 
temperatures may diminish the efficiency by which power plants convert 
fuel to electricity. A power plant's operating efficiency is affected 
by the performance of the cooling system, among other things. 
According to USGCRP, warming temperatures may decrease the efficiency 
of power plant cooling technologies, thereby reducing overall 
electricity generation. While the magnitude of these effects will vary 
based on a number of plant-and site-specific factors, USGCRP 
assessments suggest that even small changes in efficiency could have 
significant implications for electricity supply at a national scale. 
For example, an average reduction of 1 percent in electricity 
generated by fossil fuel plants nationwide would mean a loss of 25 
billion kilowatt-hours per year, about the amount of electricity 
consumed by approximately 2 to 3 million Americans. When projected 
increases in air and water temperatures associated with climate change 
are combined with changes to water availability, generation capacity 
during the summer months may be significantly reduced, according to 
DOE. Warmer water discharged from power plants into lakes or rivers 
can also harm fish and plants; such discharges generally require a 
permit and are monitored. 

In addition to the effects of rising temperatures and reduced water 
availability, power plant operations are also susceptible to extreme 
weather, increased precipitation, and sea level rise, according to 
assessments by USGCRP and DOE. To a large extent, this vulnerability 
stems from their location--thermoelectric power plants are frequently 
located along the U.S. coastline, and many inland plants sit upon low-
lying areas or flood plains. For coastal plants, more intense 
hurricane-force winds can produce damaging storm surges and flooding--
an impact illustrated by Hurricane Sandy, which shut down several 
power plants. Some power plants near the coast could also be affected 
by sea level rise, according to DOE, because they are located on land 
that is relatively flat and, in some places, subsiding. Increasing 
intensity and frequency of flooding also poses a risk to inland power 
plants, according to DOE. The structures that draw cooling water from 
rivers are vulnerable to flooding and, in some cases, storm surge. 
This risk was illustrated when Fort Calhoun nuclear power plant was 
initially shut down for a scheduled refueling outage in April 2011. 
According to Nuclear Regulatory Commission officials, the outage was 
subsequently extended due to flooding from the Missouri River and a 
need to address long-standing technical issues that continued to 
impair plant operations.[Footnote 39] According to USGCRP, seasonal 
flooding could result in increased costs to manage on-site drainage 
and runoff. 

Renewable energy infrastructure. Overall, use of renewable energy is 
growing in the United States, according to the Energy Information 
Administration (EIA), with hydropower and wind representing the 
largest renewable sources of electricity in 2012. Renewable energy 
sources generally produce much lower emissions of greenhouse gases, 
the primary anthropogenic driver of climate change. However, these 
sources can also be affected by climate change, given their dependence 
on water resources, wind patterns, and solar radiation. Specific 
impacts to these sectors are described below: 

* Hydropower. Hydropower—a major source of electricity in some
regions of the United States, particularly the Northwest—is highly
sensitive to a number of climactic changes. According to USGCRP
and DOE, rising temperatures can reduce the amount of water available 
for hydropower-—due to increased evaporation-—and degrade habitats 
for fish and other wildlife. Hydropower production is also highly 
sensitive to changes in precipitation and river discharge, according 
to USGCRP and DOE assessments. According to USGCRP's 2009 assessment, 
for example, studies suggest that every 1 percent decrease in 
precipitation results in a 2 to 3 percent drop in streamflow; in the 
Colorado Basin, such a drop decreases hydropower generation by 3 
percent. Climate variability has already had a significant influence 
on the operation of hydropower systems, according to USGCRP, with 
significant changes detected in the timing and amount of streamflows 
in many western rivers. 

* Biofuels. According to USGCRP assessments, biofuels made from 
grains, sugar and oil crops, starch, grasses, trees, and biological 
waste are meeting an increasing portion of U.S. energy demand. 
[Footnote 40] Currently, however, most U.S. biofuels are produced from 
corn grown on rain-fed land, making biofuel susceptible to drought and 
reduced precipitation, as well as competing demands for water. 
[Footnote 41] These issues were highlighted when droughts in 2012 
produced a poor corn harvest, raising concerns about the allocation of 
corn for food versus ethanol. Production of biofuel crops may also be 
inhibited by heavy rainfall and flooding, according to DOE. Climate 
change could also present some benefits; for example, warmer 
temperatures could extend the period of the growing season (although 
DOE also notes that extreme heat could damage crops). 

* Solar. The effects of climate change on solar energy—-which
generated about 0.05 percent of U.S. electricity in 2010—-depend on
the type of solar technology in use, according to DOE and USGCRP.
Some studies suggest that photovoltaic energy production could be
affected by changes in haze, humidity, and dust. Higher temperatures
can also reduce the effectiveness of photovoltaic electricity
generation. On the other hand, concentrating solar power (CSP)
systems— unlike photovoltaic cells—require extensive amounts of
water for cooling purposes, making them susceptible to water
shortages.[Footnote 42] 

* Wind. Wind energy accounted for about 13 percent of U.S. renewable 
energy consumption in 2011, but its use is growing rapidly, according 
to EIA. Unlike thermoelectric generation, wind energy does not use or 
consume water to generate electricity, making it a potentially 
attractive option in light of water scarcity concerns. On the other 
hand, wind energy cannot be naturally stored, and the natural 
variability of wind speeds can have a significant positive or negative 
impact on the amount of energy produced. Wind turbines are also 
subject to extreme weather, according to USGCRP. 

* Geothermal. Geothermal power plants extract geothermal fluids—hot
water, brines, and steam—from the earth by drilling wells to depths of
up to 10,000 feet. According to EIA, geothermal energy represented
approximately 2 percent of U.S. energy consumption in 2011, with
most geothermal reservoirs located in western states, Alaska, and
Hawaii. As with fossil fuel power plants and concentrating solar
power, increases in air and water temperatures can reduce the
efficiency with which geothermal facilities generate electricity,
according to DOE's 2013 assessment. Geothermal power plants can
also withdraw and consume significant quantities of water, according
to DOE, making them susceptible to water shortages caused by
changes in precipitation or warming temperatures. 

Climate Change Can Impact Electricity Transmission and Distribution 
Infrastructure: 

Transmission and distribution infrastructure can extend for thousands 
of miles, making it vulnerable to a variety of climate change impacts. 
[Footnote 43] According to assessments by USGCRP and others, 
transmission and distribution lines and substations are susceptible to 
damage from extreme winds, ice, lightning strikes, wildfires, 
landslides, and flooding (see figure 5). High winds, especially when 
combined with precipitation from tropical storms and hurricanes, can 
be particularly damaging, potentially interrupting service in broad 
geographic areas over long periods of time.[Footnote 44] In the winter 
months, heavy snowfall[Footnote 45] and excessive icing on overhead
lines can cause outages and require costly repairs, according to a review
of literature published in the journal Energy.[Footnote 46] According to 
USGCRP, increasing temperatures and drought may increase the risk of 
wildfires, which in turn may cause physical damage to electricity 
transmission infrastructure and decrease available transmission capacity. 
Apart from transmission and distribution lines, severe weather can also 
present risks for substations, according to DOE, which modify voltage 
for residential and commercial use, as well as for operation centers 
that are critical components of any electricity supply system. 

Figure 5: Examples of Weather-Related Electrical Grid Disturbances: 

[Refer to PDF for image: 4 photographs] 

Sources: KOMO News (upper left); National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration Photo Library, National Weather Service Collection 
(upper right); Federal Emergency Management Agency/Win Henderson 
(bottom photos). 

[End of figure] 

Since 2000, there has been a steady increase in the number of weather-
related grid disruptions in the United States, according to DOE. These 
disruptions--which are often a result of trees damaging distribution 
lines--can result in high costs for utilities and consumers, including 
repair costs for damaged equipment and economic costs related to work 
interruptions, lost productivity, and other factors. Some recent 
events, as reported by DOE, illustrate these vulnerabilities. In 2012, 
for example, about 3 to 4 million customers lost power due to a 
combination of thunderstorms and strong winds--known as a derecho--
that affected the Midwest and Mid-Atlantic coast. Hurricane Sandy's 
impact was even more severe, according to DOE, with electricity 
outages affecting around 8.7 million customers[Footnote 47]. DOE 
further reported that around 1.4 million of these customers were 
still without power 6 days later. Winter conditions can also pose 
risks to the electrical grid; in February 2013, a winter storm 
caused extensive damage to transmission systems in the Northeast, 
causing over 660,000 customers in eight states to lose power. 
See figure 6 for weather-related grid disruptions. 

Figure 6: Weather-Related Grid Disruptions, 2000-2012: 

[Refer to PDF for image: stacked vertical bar graph] 

[Specific graph data available from source agency] 

Sources: DOE, “Electric Disturbance Events (OE-417).” U.S. Department 
of Energy, Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, 
April 2013. [hyperlink, http://www.oe.netl.doe.gov/oe417.aspx]. Data 
analysis by Evan Mills, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. 

[End of figure] 

Apart from risks related to extreme weather events, increasing 
temperatures may decrease transmission system efficiency and could 
reduce available transmission capacity, according to DOE. 
Approximately 7 percent of generated power is lost in transmission and 
distribution, according to information publicly available on the U.S. 
Energy Information Administration's (EIA) website. As temperatures 
rise, the capacity of power lines to carry current decreases, 
according to DOE, as does the overall efficiency of the grid. Higher 
temperatures may also cause overhead lines to sag, posing fire and 
safety hazards. All of these factors can contribute to power outages 
at times of peak demand, according to USGCRP. In 2006, for example, 
electric power transformers failed in Missouri and New York, causing 
interruptions of the electric power supply in the midst of a 
widespread heat wave. 

Broad, Systemic Factors Could Amplify Climate Change Impacts on Energy 
Infrastructure: 

Based on our previous work, as well as reports from USGCRP, NRC, and 
others, we identified several broad, systemic factors that could 
amplify the effects of climate change on energy infrastructure. These 
factors--which include changes in water availability, system 
interdependencies, increases in energy demand, and the compounding 
effects of multiple climate impacts--could have implications that 
extend throughout the energy sector and beyond. 

Changes in Water Availability May Significantly Impact Energy Supply: 

As our series of reports on the energy-water nexus has shown, water 
and energy are inextricably linked and mutually dependent, with each 
affecting the other's availability.[Footnote 48] Many aspects of 
energy production require the use of water to operate (see figure 7). 
As discussed earlier in this review, fossil fuel and nuclear power 
plants--which accounted for about 90 percent of U.S. energy 
consumption in 2011--rely heavily on water for cooling purposes. As we 
reported in 2012, recently developed hydraulic fracturing methods also 
require significant amounts of water--3 to 5.6 million gallons of 
freshwater per well, according to our previous work on shale resources 
and development.[Footnote 49] Increased evaporation rates or changes 
in snowpack may affect the volume and timing of water available for 
hydropower. Water is also required to mine and transport coal and 
uranium; to extract, produce, and refine oil and gas; and to support 
crops used in biofuel production, among other uses. According to the 
Congressional Research Service, the energy sector is the fastest 
growing water consumer in the United States and is projected to 
account for 85 percent of the growth in domestic water consumption 
between 2005 and 2030. This increase in water use associated with 
energy development is being driven, in part, by rising energy demand, 
increased development of domestic energy, and shifts to more water-
intense energy sources and technologies.[Footnote 50] 

Figure 7: Water Use by the U.S. Energy Sector: 

[Refer to PDF for image: illustration] 

Energy Sector Water Use: 
The energy sector has been the fastest growing water consumer in the 
United States in recent years and is projected to account for 85 
percent of the growth in domestic water consumption between 2005 and 
2030. 

Bioenergy: 
* Crop irrigation and processing. 

Oil and gas refining, processing, and storage. 

Resource extraction: 
* Coal and uranium mining; 
* Oil and gas drilling and completion; 
* Shale gas and shale oil development. 

Hydroelectric energy production. 

Power plant generation: 
* Cooling water for thermoelectric and nuclear power plants; 
* Emissions reduction technologies. 

Transportation: 
* Adequate river flows for barge transport of coal, oil, and petroleum 
products; 
* Hydrostatic testing of pipelines and tanks. 

Sources: GAO summary of information from DOE and Congressional 
Research Service. 

[End of figure] 

According to USGCRP and NOAA, increasing temperatures and shifting 
precipitation patterns are causing regional and seasonal changes to 
the water cycle--trends that present significant risks for the U.S. 
energy sector. More frequent and intense droughts, reduced summertime 
precipitation, and decreased streamflows are likely to adversely 
affect available water supply in some regions, particularly during the 
summer months.[Footnote 51] Given the energy sector's dependence on 
water, these changes are likely to have wide-ranging impacts on the 
costs and methods for extracting, producing, and delivering fuels; the 
costs and methods used to produce electricity; the location of future 
infrastructure; and the types of technologies used. In recent years, a 
number of weather and climate events have served to illustrate some of 
the risks associated with water scarcity, as reported by DOE: 

* In 2010, below-normal precipitation and streamflows in the Columbia 
River basin resulted in insufficient hydropower generation to fulfill 
load obligations for the Bonneville Power Administration, resulting in 
reported losses of approximately $233 million or 10 percent from the 
prior year; 

* In 2007, a severe southeast drought reduced river flow in the 
Chattahoochee River by nearly 80 percent; reducing hydroelectric power 
in the Southeast by 45 percent; 

* In 2012, drought and low river levels disrupted barge transportation 
of petroleum and coal along the Mississippi River. 

USGCRP and DOE assessments further note that the energy sector's 
demand for water will increasingly compete with rising demand from the 
agricultural, industrial, and other sectors. 

Energy Sector Interdependencies Can Amplify Impacts: 

The energy sector comprises a complex system of interdependent 
facilities and components, and damage to one part of the system can 
adversely affect infrastructure in other phases of the supply chain, 
according to DOE and USGCRP. Many different types of energy 
infrastructure--from pipelines to refineries--depend on electricity to 
function; as such, they may be unable to operate in a power outage, 
even if otherwise undamaged. Recent events associated with Hurricane 
Sandy illustrate these interdependencies--over 7,000 transformers and 
15,200 poles were damaged, according to DOE, causing widespread power 
outages across 21 states. These outages affected a range of 
infrastructure dependent on electricity to function--for example, two 
New Jersey refineries were shut down, and a number of petroleum 
terminals and gas station fuel pumps were rendered inoperable. Because 
many components of the U.S. energy system--like coal, oil, and 
electricity--move from one area to another, extreme weather events 
affecting energy infrastructure in one region can lead to significant 
supply consequences elsewhere, according to USGCRP. 

Interdependencies also link the energy sector to other sectors, such 
as transportation, agriculture, and communications. The energy sector 
requires railways, roads, and ports to transport resources such as 
coal, oil, and natural gas, for example; conversely, many modes of 
transportation rely on oil, gasoline, or electricity. Given these 
interdependencies, disruptions of services in one sector can lead to 
cascading disruptions in other sectors. Interrelationships between the 
transportation, fuel distribution, and electricity sectors were found 
to be major factors in Florida's recovery from past hurricanes, 
according to USGCRP. 

Higher Temperatures Are Expected To Increase Energy Demand: 

Increases in temperature are expected to affect the cost, type, and 
amount of energy consumed in the United States, according to NRC and 
USGCRP assessments. In the past four decades, the demand for cooling 
has risen and the demand for heating has declined (see figure 8). As 
average temperatures rise and extreme weather events--such as heat 
waves--become more common, these trends are expected to continue, 
although specific impacts will vary by region and season.[Footnote 52] 
Net electricity demand is projected to increase in every U.S. region, 
but particularly in southern states, since homes and businesses depend 
primarily on electricity for air conditioning. (In contrast, heating 
is provided by a combination of natural gas, heating oil, electricity, 
and renewable sources.) Increases in peak electricity demand caused 
by extreme high temperatures could potentially strain the capacity of 
existing electricity infrastructure in some regions, according to DOE. 
In the summer heat wave of 2006, for example, some Midwest nuclear plants 
were forced to reduce output and several transformers failed, causing 
widespread electricity interruptions and making it difficult to access 
air conditioning. Climate change-related increases in demand could 
also be exacerbated by a number of ongoing trends, such as population 
growth and increased building sizes. 

Figure 8: Historical Increases in Cooling Demand and Decreases in 
Heating Demand: 

[Refer to PDF for image: vertical bar graph] 

[Specific graph data available from source agency] 

Source: United States Global Change Research Program 2013 Draft 
Climate Assessment. 

Note: The amount of energy needed to cool (or warm) buildings is 
proportional to cooling (or heating) degree days. The figure shows 
increases in "cooling degree days" that result in increased air 
conditioning use, and decreases in "heating degree days," meaning less 
energy required to heat buildings in winter, compared with the average 
for 1970-2000. 

[End of figure] 

Multiple Climate Impacts May Have Compounding Effects: 

According to DOE and IPCC, some climate change impacts are likely to 
interact with others, creating a compounding effect.[Footnote 53] 
For example: 

* Higher air and water temperatures may contribute to both an increase 
in electricity demand and a decrease in electricity supply. [Footnote 
54] 

* The effects of sea level rise may be exacerbated by more severe 
storms and coastal erosion, causing flooding across a larger area. 
Storms can also damage natural features, such as wetlands, and manmade 
structures, such as sea walls, that help protect coastal 
infrastructure from sea level rise and storm surges. 

* Both warmer temperatures and drought heighten the risk of flooding 
and wildfires, which--alone or in combination--could ultimately limit 
the amount of electricity that can be generated and transmitted during 
times of peak demand. 

Compounding factors may be important for climate preparedness from 
both a local perspective as well as a regional or national perspective 
focused on overall system resilience, according to DOE. 

Adaptive Measures Could Reduce Potential Climate Change Impacts on 
U.S. Energy Infrastructure: 

Adaptive measures could reduce the potential for climate change to 
affect the energy infrastructure in the United States. As previously 
discussed, these measures vary across the energy supply chain, but 
they generally fall into two broad categories--hardening and 
resiliency. Industry decision makers we spoke with provided examples 
that illustrate some of the steps they have taken to integrate 
adaptive measures into their energy infrastructure, including 
investments that hardened their physical assets--such as elevating 
electrical substation control rooms to reduce potential flooding 
hazards--and improved the resiliency of portions of their energy 
supply system--such as purchasing backup power generators to restore 
electricity more quickly after a potential utility power outage. 

Adaptive Measures Can Be Employed Across the Energy Supply Chain: 

While potential adaptive measures vary widely across the energy supply 
chain, they all generally focus on hardening--physical changes to make 
particular pieces of infrastructure less susceptible to storm-related 
damage--or improving resiliency--increasing the ability to recover 
quickly from damage to facilities' components or to any of the 
external systems on which they depend. For instance, hardening energy 
infrastructure across the supply chain is part of the energy 
industry's normal responsibilities and operating practices to ensure 
existing infrastructure is available to deliver energy to its 
customers under a range of weather conditions. According to industry 
representatives, industry chooses to make physical changes to its 
infrastructure to make it less likely to be damaged by extreme winds, 
flooding, or other weather events. Choices to harden infrastructure 
can require significant investment by industry, according to DOE's 
2010 report on hardening and resiliency, such as building flood walls 
around refineries, elevating pumps used to transport fuels via 
pipelines, building power plants at higher elevations to minimize the 
risk of flooding, and replacing transmission and distribution poles 
with poles made of stronger materials to make them less susceptible to 
damage from high winds and storms. 

In contrast to hardening measures that try to prevent damage, 
resiliency measures are focused on quickly recovering from damage to 
various parts of the energy supply chain, thereby enabling the system 
to continue to operate. Resiliency can take many forms and can be 
implemented by industry participants anywhere along the energy supply 
chain.[Footnote 55] The following example--using one part of the 
energy supply chain, gasoline supplies--illustrates resiliency to 
potential events related to climate changes. In this illustration, if 
climate change resulted in rising sea levels that accentuate the 
damaging effects of tropical storms on the infrastructure for 
extracting, refining, transporting, or distributing oil, adaptation 
efforts in the various related parts of this infrastructure (see 
figure 9) could help improve the overall resiliency in the gasoline 
supply chain. Specifically, at the beginning of the chain, adaptation 
could take the form of decreased extraction of oil from vulnerable 
offshore platforms supplanted by increased extraction from or use of 
less vulnerable onshore and foreign sources of oil. 

Figure 9: The Gasoline Supply Chain: 

[Refer to PDF for image: illustration] 

Imported oil; 
Domestic oil; 
Sent to Refinery. 

From Refinery to Refinery storage. 

From Refinery storage to: 
Pipeline storage; 
Tanker or barge. 

From Pipeline storage to Common pipeline. 

From: 
Common pipeline; 
Tanker or barge; 
Train with ethanol; 
Imported gasoline; 
To Bulk terminal storage and blending. 

From Bulk terminal storage and blending to: 
Tanker trucks, to: 
Gas Stations. 

Source: DOE's Energy Information Administration. 

[End of figure] 

Further down the supply chain, adaptation might involve decreased 
refining of oil from vulnerable refineries supplanted by increased 
refining of oil from less vulnerable refineries and additional 
imported gasoline from foreign refineries. Still further down the 
supply chain, if climate change rendered one mode of transport or 
distribution more vulnerable than others, adaptation might involve 
shipping or distributing less gasoline via the more vulnerable mode. 
Substitute sources of oil, refining, and transportation for the 
development and distribution of gasoline, therefore, represent ways in 
which industry can choose to adapt and limit disruptions to gasoline 
infrastructure and supply. 

Examples of actual gasoline supply chain resiliency are demonstrated 
by actions taken during Hurricanes Katrina in 2005 and Sandy in 2012 
as follows: 

* In 2005, oil platforms were evacuated and damaged, as a result of 
Hurricane Katrina, virtually shutting down all oil production in the 
Gulf region. In response, the Administration approved loans of oil 
from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to help refineries offset this 
short-term physical supply disruption at the beginning of the supply 
chain, thereby, helping to moderate the impact the production shutdown 
had on U.S. crude oil supplies.[Footnote 56] 

* A more recent example, following Hurricane Sandy, illustrates how 
such alternatives can help increase resiliency at the distribution 
stage of the supply chain. In 2012, this storm damaged petroleum 
terminals used to store and distribute gasoline in the New York Harbor 
(NYH) area, thus disrupting the normal supply chain. However, 
according to DOE's EIA report on the summary of impacts on petroleum 
supplies following Hurricane Sandy, "...areas normally served by the 
NYH terminals were also receiving some supplies through more distant 
terminals as industry pursued workarounds to meet customer needs to 
the best of their ability."[Footnote 57] Thus, while a significant 
disruption in the overall ability to move gasoline through the NYH 
area occurred as a result of the storm, other terminals outside the 
affected area helped to ameliorate some of the supply loss. 

Ultimately, how much adaptation will take place and in what form--
hardening and increasing resilience, such as choosing substitute 
actions as described above--will depend on how the costs of adaptation 
compare with the expected costs of taking no action.[Footnote 58] 

Industry Decision Makers Have Taken Steps to Integrate Adaptive 
Measures Into Energy Infrastructure: 

Industry decision makers have taken steps to integrate adaptive 
measures into energy infrastructure planning and investments using 
varying approaches as illustrated by the following examples. In three 
of the examples we selected, companies implemented a company-wide 
approach and incorporated several adaptive measures into overall 
energy infrastructure planning and investments. In another example we 
selected, a company increased resiliency by purchasing and 
prepositioning mobile generators to run key facilities and pumping 
stations along oil pipelines in the event of power outages. 

Entergy: 

Entergy Corporation generates, transmits, and distributes electric 
power in the Southeast. According to Entergy representatives, its 
transmission and distribution infrastructure along the coast of the 
Gulf of Mexico is vulnerable to extreme weather events and storms, 
storm surge caused by hurricanes, and sea level rise associated with 
land subsidence. Following Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005, 
Entergy experienced unprecedented damage, leading to power outages for 
roughly 800,000 customers in Louisiana. The company faced widespread 
damage to transmission and distribution systems, flooded substations, 
and power plants resulting in shutdowns. Figure 10 shows an example of 
damaged transmission power lines as a result of Hurricane Rita. 
Entergy's New Orleans subsidiary--Entergy New Orleans (ENO)--filed for 
bankruptcy after this major damage to its infrastructure and the 
declining revenues due to the drastic reduction to its customer base 
as residents left the city. 

Figure 10: Fallen Transmission Lines after Hurricane Rita: 

[Refer to PDF for image: photograph] 

Source: Energy. 

[End of figure] 

Driven by a lack of useful information on which to base planning for 
infrastructure protection against future storms, Entergy 
representatives told us that they partnered with the America's Wetland 
Foundation (AWF) and commissioned a study in 2010 identifying the 
company's most critical and vulnerable assets in the Gulf.[Footnote 
59] The study also highlighted adaptation strategies that have low 
investment requirements, high reduction of expected losses--regardless 
of climate change impacts--and additional benefits, such as coastal 
wetlands restoration. For example, Entergy representatives told us 
that the study identified a number of potential hardening and 
resiliency measures, such as replacing wooden transmission and 
distribution poles with steel or concrete, strengthening distribution 
poles, building levees and berms around oil refineries, elevating 
substations in flooding areas, and managing vegetation along 
electricity lines. The study estimated potential losses of $350 
billion along the Gulf Coast by 2030 due to rising sea level and loss 
of coastline. It also identified $120 billion in potential investments 
and concluded that supporting a range of adaptive actions to reduce 
the potential weather and climate-related risks, and identifying 
barriers to increasing industry resilience, are important elements of 
a coordinated response. 

Entergy representatives told us by taking a company-wide approach to 
identify infrastructure vulnerable to climate-related risks, they 
implemented several adaptive measures highlighted in the study, such 
as replacing wooden transmission poles with steel, strengthening 
distribution poles with support wires, and elevating sensitive 
electronic equipment in select substations. In response to more recent 
storms, such as Hurricane Isaac, Entergy representatives told us that 
the implementation of these adaptive measures has paid off. They have 
experienced less infrastructure damage and have restored power to 
their customers more quickly than in previous storms.[Footnote 60] 

Pacific Gas and Electric Company: 

Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) provides natural gas and 
electric power to 15 million people in northern and central 
California. PG&E continues to implement a company-wide approach to 
incorporate climate-related risks as part of its business planning and 
investments. In 2008, PG&E convened a science team--specializing in 
meteorology, biology, and hydrology--to evaluate global climate-
related risks, assess climate change modeling, and identify best 
adaptation practices for the company's assets. PG& E officials told us 
that risks and recommendations developed by the science team are used 
to develop adaptation strategies for infrastructure potentially 
impacted by weather and climate-related risks such as sea level rise, 
increased air temperatures, and changes in precipitation patterns. 

For example, PG&E representatives told us that some equipment in the 
company's substations is vulnerable to increased temperatures in the 
state. Therefore, PG&E worked with the equipment manufacturer's 
engineers on best operating practices for their substations at higher 
temperatures. Additionally, PG&E has major transmission and 
distribution lines in the San Francisco Bay Area that are potentially 
susceptible to sea level rise. Therefore, the company has strengthened 
electric transmission structures in the southern Bay Area and is 
collaborating with state and federal agencies on bay habitat 
restoration that will help increase utility resiliency to tidal 
action, according to PG&E officials. See figure 11 for a picture of 
Gateway Generating Station. 

Figure 11: Gateway Generating Station: 

[Refer to PDF for image: photograph] 

Source: PG&E Corporate Responsibility and Sustainability Report. 

[End of figure] 

As a result of limited water availability and other factors, PG&E 
implemented dry cooling technology at two of its natural gas fueled 
generating stations, Gateway Generating Station in Antioch, California 
(2007), and Colusa Generating Station in Maxwell, California (2010). 
Although reducing plant efficiency under some conditions, dry cooling 
technology uses 97 percent less water and produces 96 percent less 
discharge than a conventional water cooling system, which helps the 
company significantly reduce the use of water for cooling purposes. 
PG&E representatives cited incorporation of a less water intensive 
technology as having increased the plants' resiliency to potentially 
decreased water availability. 

Scientists also predict that climate change will result in significant 
reductions in snowpack in parts of the Sierra Nevada Mountains, 
potentially impacting PG&E's hydroelectric system. PG&E's adaptation 
strategies include developing new modeling tools for forecasting 
runoff, maintaining higher winter carryover reservoir storage levels, 
reducing conveyance flows in canals and flumes during winter storms as 
more precipitation falls as rain, and reducing discretionary reservoir 
water releases, according to PG&E officials. 

Colonial Pipeline: 

Colonial Pipeline owns and operates a 5,500-mile network of pipelines 
running from Houston, Texas, to NYH. [Footnote 61] These pipelines 
transport a daily average of 100 million gallons of refined petroleum 
products such as gasoline, diesel fuel, home heating oil, fuels for 
commercial aviation and for the U.S. military--accounting for about 15 
percent of the fuel supplied in the United States and almost 65 
percent of fuel supplied in the Southeast. In general, such pipeline 
systems are susceptible to disruption from severe weather events, 
primarily because they require significant amounts of electric power 
to operate computer systems, generators, and pumps. Disruptions to 
this power can reduce or halt the transport of refined products in the 
pipeline system. 

Colonial representatives told us that to enhance resiliency after the 
2005 hurricane season along the Gulf Coast, Colonial purchased 12 
large mobile generators (i.e., Gensets) and seven transformers to help 
it recover more quickly from power losses due to severe weather events 
(see figure 12). According to these representatives, this equipment 
allows the pipeline company to run key pumping stations anywhere along 
the pipeline to minimize disruptions when electric power is 
unavailable due to severe weather or other events. In addition, after 
Hurricanes Gustav and Ike in 2008, Colonial implemented a number of 
resiliency measures, such as monitoring storm paths to preposition 
generators where power would most likely be lost. Company 
representatives told us they also used Colonial's Control Center in 
Atlanta, Georgia, to communicate with fellow employees about potential 
areas where the pipeline might experience power outages. The company 
followed similar efforts in preparation for Hurricane Sandy in 2012. 
For example, Colonial representatives moved one-half of the company's 
new mobile generators from Mississippi to Linden, New Jersey, prior to 
Hurricane Sandy making landfall.[Footnote 62] After the storm, while 
Colonial's pipeline system remained undamaged, electrical power was 
down, but company representatives told us they successfully used the 
mobile generators to restore power to the pipeline, resulting in 
relatively few disruptions for oil transportation along the system. 
Figure 12 shows an example of portable generators used to transport 
oil during electrical outage. 

Figure 12: Colonial's Portable Generators: 

[Refer to PDF for image: photograph] 

Depicted: Gensets. 

Source: DOE. 

[End of figure] 

Florida Power and Light: 

Florida Power and Light (FPL)--the largest electric utility in 
Florida--generates and distributes electricity to approximately 4.5 
million customers. FPL representatives told us that one of the 
company's nuclear power plants, Turkey Point in Homestead, the largest 
generating station in Florida, is potentially vulnerable to extreme 
weather events and storms, storm surge caused by hurricanes, and sea 
level rise. In response, FPL has implemented a company-wide approach 
to incorporate climate-related risks into their infrastructure 
planning and investments. FPL representatives told us they have a 
vested interest in hardening existing and new infrastructure to 
withstand climate change impacts given the substantial capital expense 
that the company invests in this infrastructure. For example, the 
current power plant, which was built in the 1960s, is elevated 18 feet 
above sea level to protect against flooding and extreme storm surges. 
According to company representatives, all equipment and components 
important to nuclear safety are protected to about 20 feet above sea 
level and protected from waves to about 22 feet above sea level on the 
side facing Biscayne Bay. 

In June 2009, FPL submitted an application to the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission to evaluate an option for constructing and operating two 
new nuclear reactor units--Units 6 and 7--at the existing Turkey Point 
site. As part of its reactor licensing process, the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission requires licensees to assess and if necessary, take 
measures to mitigate the impacts of the natural hazards their reactors 
might face.[Footnote 63] As part of this permitting and licensing 
process, FPL's natural hazard assessment for Units 6 and 7 
incorporated potential sea level rise over the next 100 years. 
According to company representatives, their hazard assessments for 
Units 6 and 7 used assumptions that are at least 20 percent more 
conservative than those used in the 1960s. For example, based on an 
extrapolation of historical weather data, FPL calculated that 
potential sea level rise over the next 100 years would be about 9 
inches. The company rounded up the estimate to 1 foot of sea level 
rise to account for the uncertainties of potential climate change. 
Additionally, in March 2013, FPL representatives submitted a 
reevaluation of flooding hazards for Units 3 and 4 to the Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission that also incorporated projected sea level rise 
over the next 20 years when the existing reactors' license expires. 
FPL's reevaluation calls for it to use the latest available 
information and methodologies to analyze site-specific hazards, 
including stream and river flooding, hurricane storm surges, tsunamis, 
and dam failures. This reevaluation will determine whether the hazard 
exceeds the facility's flooding design basis so the Commission can 
assess the safety of the existing reactors at the Turkey Point site in 
light of more recent information. Figure 13 is a proposed illustration 
of Turkey Point's Nuclear Units 6 and 7. 

Figure 13: Proposed Turkey Point Nuclear Units 6 and 7: 

[Refer to PDF for image: photograph] 

Source: Florida Power and Light. 

[End of figure] 

Federal Role in Directly Adapting Energy Infrastructure Is Limited, 
but Selected Federal Entities Can Play an Important Supporting Role in 
Decision Making and Are Initiating Actions toward Adaptation: 

The federal government has a limited role in directly adapting energy 
infrastructure to the potential impacts of climate change, but 
selected federal entities can play important supporting roles that 
influence private companies' investment decisions and are taking steps 
to begin adaptation efforts within their respective missions. 

Federal Influence on Energy Infrastructure Adaptation Decisions 
Generally Falls into Four Areas: 

Energy infrastructure adaptation is primarily accomplished through 
planning and investment decisions made by private companies that own 
the infrastructure;[Footnote 64] nevertheless, the federal government 
can influence private sector investment decisions through: (1) 
providing information, (2) regulatory oversight, (3) technology 
research and development, and (4) market incentives and disincentives. 

Providing Information: 

The federal government plays an important role in providing 
information to promote climate resilience. As we reported in our 2013 
High Risk report, federal efforts on climate change are beginning to 
shift their focus to adaptation and providing information to state and 
local decision makers so they can make more informed decisions about 
the fiscal exposure posed by potential climate changes.[Footnote 65] 
Several federal agencies play a role in providing this information, 
including NOAA, DOE, U.S. Geological Survey, and USGCRP, as follows: 

* NOAA develops and shares weather and climate-related information 
with government officials and private industry. For example, NOAA 
officials told us that through the National Weather Service (NWS) it 
produces weather forecasts for local areas out to seven days and 
probabilistic climate outlooks from 6 days out to a year. According to 
officials, NWS also monitors and assesses the state of the climate and 
provides information on longer term climate cycles such as the El Nino 
Southern Oscillation cycle.[Footnote 66] Some industry decision makers 
told us that they use these data when making infrastructure planning 
and implementation decisions. 

* DOE is working to make more climate change information available for 
decision makers at the federal, state, and local levels. For example, 
DOE officials stated that the Office of Science supports research 
reviewing available climate models and scientific projections, and it 
looks at local climate models in order to build in more locally 
detailed information to be useful and available to decision makers on 
a timely basis. In addition, DOE officials stated that the Office of 
Science supports research analyzing extreme weather events, including 
floods and droughts, and how these events impact regions. 

* USGS provides fundamental scientific information, tools, and 
techniques that land, water, wildlife, and cultural resource managers 
and other decision makers can apply to anticipate, monitor, and adapt 
to climate change impacts. Also, according to the USGCRP 2012-2021 
strategic plan,[Footnote 67] USGS scientists have worked in 
collaboration with other USGCRP agencies to meet the needs of 
policymakers and resource managers for scientifically valid state-of-
the-science information and predictive understanding of global change 
and its effects. 

* USGCRP's strategic objectives for 2012-2021 include improving the 
deployment and accessibility of science to inform adaptation 
decisions. To this end, USGCRP states in its strategic plan that its 
member agencies will work with state, local, and tribal governments, 
and other federal agencies to build the capabilities for engagement 
and support needed by all decision makers, especially in key areas of 
vulnerability. Additionally, in coordination with USGCRP, the 
President's Climate Action Plan stated for the first time, the 2014 
National Climate Assessment will focus not only on dissemination of 
scientific information but also on translating scientific insights 
into practical, usable knowledge that can help decision makers 
anticipate and prepare for specific climate-change impacts.[Footnote 
68] 

Regulatory Oversight: 

The federal government can also play a supporting role in energy 
infrastructure investment decisions through its regulatory oversight 
role. EPA, FERC, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, as well as NERC, 
regulate energy infrastructure by promulgating and enforcing 
emissions, reliability, and safety standards as follows: 

* EPA issues environmental regulations that can have implications for 
electricity generation facilities, petroleum refineries, oil and gas 
extraction facilities, natural gas pipelines and hydrocarbon storage 
wells. EPA's influence over these types of energy infrastructure comes 
when owners must make technological changes to the infrastructure in 
order to comply with EPA's regulatory requirements. For example, in 
July 2012, we reported that EPA regulations will require some 
electricity generation facilities to install additional emissions 
controls. In some cases, electricity generation facilities may convert 
from coal to natural gas or even shut down rather than install the 
emissions controls necessary to comply with the regulations.[Footnote 
69] 

* FERC's influence on energy infrastructure comes primarily through 
its review and authorization process for specific projects. Through 
the review and authorization process, FERC can change the siting and 
design of a facility, require environmental mitigation measures and, 
for hydroelectric and natural gas infrastructure, can impose safety 
requirements. FERC's activities have implications for several types of 
energy infrastructure, including hydropower plants, interstate natural 
gas pipelines and storage facilities, liquefied natural gas 
facilities, and interstate oil pipelines. 

* The Nuclear Regulatory Commission, as part of its reactor licensing 
process, evaluates nuclear power plant specifications, including 
requirements for flood protection. Determining how high a plant should 
be built to be safe from flooding is critical for U.S. nuclear power 
plants located on the coast given the lack of scientific consensus on 
the actual rate of sea level rise. 

* NERC, through an industry-based consensus development process, 
establishes and enforces reliability standards for the bulk power 
system. These standards can result in energy infrastructure owners 
making technological changes to their infrastructure in order to 
ensure that the grid operates reliably.[Footnote 70] NERC also 
investigates and analyzes the causes of significant power system 
disturbances in order to help prevent future events. 

Technology Research and Development: 

DOE also plays an important role in the research and development of 
new technologies to support the energy industry. In general, DOE 
conducts and funds a wide array of research and development programs 
aimed at both understanding the impact of climate change on energy 
production and developing new technologies to improve resilience to 
climate change. DOE also conducts assessments of climate change on 
electric grid stability, water availability for energy production, and 
site selection of the next generation of renewable energy 
infrastructure. For example, DOE officials stated that its Office of 
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy is looking at how to make 
biofuels and biomass less dependent on water, and DOE's report on 
energy sector vulnerabilities identified this area of research as a 
technology opportunity where combined public and private efforts to 
improve the resilience of the energy sector should increase. The 
report also cites several other specific examples of technological 
options to improve climate resilience, including: enhanced restoration 
technologies and practices to maintain or expand regional wetlands and 
other environmental buffer zones; increased power plant efficiency 
through integration of technologies with higher thermal efficiencies 
than conventional coal-fired boilers; and improved water reservoir 
management and turbine efficiency for more efficient hydropower 
generation. 

Market Incentives and Disincentives: 

The federal government also provides a range of market incentives and 
disincentives that can encourage or discourage industry from 
implementing energy infrastructure adaptation measures. Incentives to 
incorporate adaptive efforts include tax incentives, direct 
expenditures and other support, such as production tax credits for 
renewable technologies. One example of direct expenditure is DOE's 
Smart Grid Investment Grant Program. The program is structured as a 
public-private partnership to accelerate investments in grid 
modernization. DOE reports that $3.4 billion dollars in federal 
Recovery Act funds were matched with private sector resources--
bringing the total investment to about $7.8 billion. These funds were 
used to support 99 projects that are now deploying smart grid 
technologies in almost every state. [Footnote 71] Smart Grid 
technology incorporates the usage of smart meters that have outage 
notification capabilities that make it possible for utilities to know 
when customers lose power and to pinpoint outage locations more 
precisely. Smart meters also indicate when power has been restored. 

At the same time, some federal programs may discourage adaptation 
efforts that, in turn, can impact energy infrastructure. For example, 
according to studies we reviewed, to the extent that federal insurance 
programs--such as the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP)[Footnote 
72]--have set premiums that are not risk-based, they can discourage 
individuals from engaging in adaptation that might otherwise have 
occurred. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) officials 
estimate that currently about 20 percent of NFIP policyholders pay 
less than full-risk premiums, which FEMA refers to as subsidized 
premiums. FEMA officials also estimate that, on average, policyholders 
with subsidized premiums pay only about 45 percent to 50 percent of 
the full-risk premium. In such instances, adaptation may have been 
discouraged because such premiums have lowered the incentive for 
individuals to adapt by subsidizing investments that do not take into 
account the potential impacts of climate change. In general, as 
population increases along U.S. coastal areas more prone to damage 
from extreme weather, sea level rise, and high winds, infrastructure 
is built to provide and extend essential services such as energy and 
water. As a result, this infrastructure maybe more vulnerable to 
changing weather and climate conditions than it might have been had it 
been located further from the coast. 

Selected Federal Entities That Can Influence Energy Infrastructure 
Adaptation Are Beginning to Take Steps to Address Climate Change Risks: 

Selected federal entities that can influence energy infrastructure 
adaptation decisions are beginning to address climate change risks 
through project-specific activities, as well as through broader agency-
wide assessments and interagency cooperation. Both the project-
specific activities and the broader agency-wide assessments could 
impact energy infrastructure adaptation, but it is too early in the 
agencies' assessment process to understand how, if it all, the 
assessments could influence energy infrastructure decision makers. 

Selected Federal Entities Address Climate Change Risks on a Project-
Specific Basis: 

DOE, EPA, FERC, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, as well as NERC, 
are beginning to incorporate consideration of climate change risks on 
a project-specific basis. Examples include the following: 

* DOE has a long history of conducting fundamental energy science and 
energy technology research and development, and climate change is an 
ongoing part of DOE research, modeling and policy development. DOE 
program offices support a range of research and development activities 
related to climate change, according to DOE officials. For example, 
DOE's Office of Fossil Energy and the National Energy Technology 
Laboratory (NETL) are developing advanced water management 
technologies applicable to fossil and other power plants in three 
specific areas: nontraditional sources of process and cooling water to 
demonstrate the effectiveness of utilizing lower quality water for 
power plant needs[Footnote 73]; innovative research to explore 
advanced technologies for the recovery and use of water from power 
plants; and advanced cooling technology research that examines wet, 
dry, and hybrid cooling technologies. This research, like other NETL 
activities that move innovations from the lab to the marketplace, can 
help advance the adaptive efforts that private companies are making to 
incorporate less water-intensive technology. 

* EPA's Office of Water implements the National Water Program (NWP), 
which, according to EPA officials, monitors changes in power 
generation across the United States and the impacts of those changes 
on water resources. The NWP has developed two climate change 
strategies, the first in 2008 and the second in 2012. The most recent 
2012 strategy recognizes that water and energy are intimately 
connected, and it puts forth the goal of using a systems approach to 
reduce the demand for both water and energy. The systems approach is 
one in which water, energy, and transportation infrastructure planning 
is integrated in order to increase efficiencies for all three sectors. 

* FERC officials told us that while they consider climate models as a 
part of their review, FERC makes decisions on a project-by-project 
basis, and general modeling information alone is not sufficient. For 
example, during the review and authorization processes for liquefied 
natural gas terminals, FERC evaluates whether terminal operators have 
accounted for potential hurricane and flooding impacts. Similarly, for 
hydropower project review and authorization, FERC noted that it looks 
at historical hydrological data as part of its analysis of project 
operation, which often includes monitoring and a provision that allows 
FERC to alter license requirements should environmental conditions 
change in the future. For example, if water levels change, officials 
can require project-specific adaptation changes that account for 
regional conditions, such as a drought in the Southeast. If drought 
conditions continue and less rainfall is expected, they may also 
suggest adaptive measures for a particular period of time. 

* The Nuclear Regulatory Commission uses the reactor licensing process 
to review whether individual projects have adequate protection against 
hurricanes, flooding, and other natural phenomena. The Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission has revised its guidance for hurricane wind 
speed protection at nuclear power plants. It has also required the 
operating fleet of nuclear power plants to complete reevaluations of 
certain hazards (i.e., seismic and flood hazards) using updated hazard 
information and present-day guidance and methodologies. Further, 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission officials noted that, if natural 
phenomena are shown to have the potential to cause a plant to exceed 
its safety parameters, the plant must correct the issue or be subject 
to enforcement actions.[Footnote 74] These officials told us that they 
have access to the same data that insurance companies use in their 
climate modeling as well as other information to evaluate such actions 
on plant safety and operations. 

* NERC uses historical weather data to help it assess the reliability 
of the electrical grid, including changes that might result from 
climate change. NERC looks at weather patterns as part of its summer, 
winter, and 10-year reliability assessments that provide an overview 
of projected electricity demand growth, as well as other information 
on generation and transmission additions. Additionally, NERC officials 
told us that NERC's annual 10-year reliability assessments provide an 
independent view of the reliability of the electrical grid, 
identifying trends, emerging issues, and potential concerns. NERC's 
projections are based on a bottom-up approach, collecting data and 
perspectives from grid operators, electric utilities, and other users 
and owners, of the electrical grid. 

DOE and EPA Are Initiating Plans to Address Climate Change Risks Using 
an Agency-wide Approach: 

DOE and EPA are also beginning to incorporate consideration of climate 
change risks on an agency-wide basis, via agency climate change 
adaptation plans and the Interagency Climate Change Task Force. 
Executive Order 13514 on Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy, 
and Economic Performance required federal agencies to develop 
strategic sustainability performance plans, which include climate 
change adaptation plans.[Footnote 75] The implementing instructions 
for developing the climate change adaptation plans stated that, 
through adaptation planning, each agency will identify aspects of 
climate change that are likely to impact the agency's ability to 
achieve its mission and sustain its operations and respond 
strategically. According to the implementing instructions, integration 
of climate change adaptation planning into the operations, policies, 
and programs of the federal government will ensure that resources are 
invested wisely and that federal services and operations remain 
effective in current and future climate conditions. Federal agencies, 
including DOE and EPA, publicly released their first climate change 
adaptation plans in February 2013, as part of their annually updated 
strategic sustainability performance plans.[Footnote 76] 

These initial adaptation plans provide a high-level vulnerability 
analysis of the impact of climate change on the agencies' mission, 
operations, and programs but do not address specific actions the 
agencies will take or how those actions could influence decision 
makers. Within DOE's adaptation plan, the actionable items for 
integrating climate change resilience focus on updating departmental 
planning documents to include climate adaptation planning 
considerations. Thus, the details of how DOE will take action on 
climate change across its programs is not yet known, although DOE will 
continue to update and modify DOE's adaptation plan as the 
understanding of climate change improves. Similarly, EPA's initial 
adaptation plan states that EPA expects to improve its understanding 
of how to integrate climate change adaptation into its programs, 
policies, rules, and operations over time. However, EPA officials 
told us that they have not yet determined which rulemaking processes 
this will include. 

In addition to developing climate change adaptation plans, DOE and EPA 
participate in the Interagency Climate Change Adaptation Task Force. 
Executive Order 13514 called for federal agencies to participate 
actively in the already existing Interagency Climate Change Adaptation 
Task Force.[Footnote 77] According to agency officials, both DOE and 
EPA have been active members of the task force. For example, DOE's 
Office of Energy Policy and Systems Analysis and Office of Science 
participate in task force working groups on water availability and 
climate science. According to DOE officials, much of the task force's 
time is currently spent on sharing best practices and lessons learned 
about the implementation of adaptation efforts among agencies. 
Additionally, EPA officials told us that the agency leads a community 
of practice within the task force to bring federal agencies together 
to work on common issues and share lessons learned relating to climate 
change adaptation. As part of those meetings, task force members 
discuss available adaptation strategies and associated costs, as well 
as the costs of inaction and ways to finance adaptive measures. The 
task force's most recent progress report, released in October 2011, 
reported that the federal government was working to improve the 
accessibility and utility of climate information and tools (e.g., 
climate models and early-warning systems) to meet the needs of 
decision makers. As the task force continues its work in this area, 
more information on how these efforts impact energy infrastructure 
decision makers may become available. The task force's next update on 
federal adaptation progress is due in March 2014. 

Concluding Observations: 

A wide range of studies and years of industry experience have clearly 
demonstrated that U.S. energy infrastructure is at risk for damage and 
disruptions to service due to severe weather events. The damage from 
such events can impose large costs on the energy industry, as well as 
impact the economies of local communities and the nation. According to 
best available science, energy experts, as well as industry officials 
with whom we spoke, climate change could increase these risks unless 
steps are taken to adapt to expected changes. While uncertainty exists 
about the exact nature, magnitude, and timing of climate change, the 
responsibility for adapting energy infrastructure remains principally 
under the domain of the private sector. In this context, industry has 
and will continue to face choices about how best to respond to these 
risks. 

At the same time, the federal government is just beginning to engage 
in more coordinated, multiagency efforts to better understand how 
climate change might impact federal facilities and their mission goals 
that intersect with the energy industry. As noted in our High Risk 
work, federal efforts related to infrastructure are beginning to focus 
on ways to help state and local governments make more informed 
decisions to adapt to climate change. Nascent federal efforts related 
to the energy sector may, in a similar way, provide an opportunity for 
agencies to consider how they could best inform private sector choices 
to adapt to climate change. 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluations: 

We provided a draft of this report for review and comment to the 
Department of Energy (DOE), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), and the Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission provided a 
general comment about the report which is summarized below and 
reprinted in appendix III. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission also 
provided technical and clarifying comments as did DOE and EPA which we 
incorporated as appropriate. FERC indicated that it had no comments on 
the report. 

In general, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission clarified that its 
regulations do not directly address the impacts of climate change on 
nuclear power plants but that it requires these plants to be protected 
against the effects of certain natural phenomena, such as flooding and 
high winds. In as much as climate change affects those natural 
phenomena on a site-specific basis, the Commission said that climate 
change effects are considered. In response to this comment, we added 
language to the report to clarify that the Commission believes climate 
changes is taken into consideration as part of its review of natural 
phenomenon. 

As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents 
of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days 
from the report date. At that time, we will send copies to DOE, EPA, 
FERC, and NRC and other interested parties. The report also will be 
available at no charge on the GAO website at [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov]. 

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please 
contact me at (202) 512-3841 or ruscof@gao.gov. Contact points for our 
Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on 
the last page of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions 
to this report are listed in appendix IV. 

Signed by: 

Frank Rusco: 
Director, Natural Resources and Environment: 

List of Requesters: 

The Honorable Ron Wyden: 
Chairman: 
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources: 
United States Senate: 

The Honorable Al Franken: 
United States Senate: 
The Honorable Tom Harkin: 
United States Senate: 

The Honorable Harry Reid: 
United States Senate: 

The Honorable Mark Udall: 
United States Senate: 

[End of section] 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

This report examines: (1) what is known about the potential impacts of 
climate change to U.S. energy infrastructure; (2) measures that can 
reduce climate-related risks and adapt the energy infrastructure to 
climate change; and (3) the role of the federal government in adapting 
energy infrastructure to the potential impacts of climate change and 
steps selected federal entities have taken toward adaptation. 

To address all three objectives, we reviewed relevant studies and 
government reports, including previous GAO reports. To identify 
relevant studies and reports, we conducted a literature review with 
the assistance of a technical librarian. We searched various 
databases, such as ProQuest, PolicyFile, and Academic OneFile and 
focused on peer reviewed journals, government reports, trade and 
industry journals, and publications from research organizations, 
advocacy groups, and think tanks from 2003 to 2013. To identify 
knowledgeable stakeholders, we reviewed our prior climate change work 
and relevant outside reports to identify individuals with specific 
knowledge of climate change adaptation and energy infrastructure. We 
then interviewed academics and knowledgeable professional association 
members from the American Gas Association, America's Wetland 
Foundation, the Center for Clean Air Policy, the Center for Climate 
and Energy Solutions, Ceres, the Environmental and Energy Study 
Institute, Georgia Institute of Technology, Louisiana State 
University, the National Association of Regulatory Utility 
Commissioners, the National Association of State Energy Officials, the 
National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, and the Nature 
Conservancy. 

To examine what is known about the impacts of climate change on U.S. 
energy infrastructure, we reviewed climate change impact assessments 
from the National Research Council (NRC), the U.S. Global Change 
Research Program (USGCRP), and relevant federal agencies. We 
identified these assessments using government and National Academies 
websites and prior GAO reports on climate change. We then evaluated 
whether the assessments fit within the scope of our work and 
contributed to the objectives of this report. For relevant 
assessments, we used in-house scientific expertise to analyze the 
soundness of the methodological approaches they utilized, and we 
determined them to be sufficiently sound for our purposes. Relevant 
assessments are cited throughout this report, but the key assessments 
for this objective included the following: 

* NRC, America's Climate Choices: Panel on Adapting to the Impacts of 
Climate Change, Adapting to the Impacts of Climate Change (Washington, 
D.C.: 2010). 

* V. Bhatt, J. Eckmann, W. C. Horak, and T. J. Wilbanks, Possible 
Indirect Effects on Energy Production and Distribution in the United 
States in Effects of Climate Change on Energy Production and Use in 
the United States. A Report by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program 
and the subcommittee on Global Change Research (Washington, D.C.: 
2007). 

* Thomas R. Karl, Jerry M. Melillo, and Thomas C. Peterson, eds., 
Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States (New York, NY: 
Cambridge University Press, 2009). 

* USGCRP, Draft Third National Climate Assessment Report, Chapter 4 - 
Energy Supply and Use (January 2013). 

* Department of Energy, Infrastructure Security and Energy 
Restoration, Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, 
Hardening and Resiliency U.S. Energy Industry Response to Recent 
Hurricane Seasons (August 16, 2010). 

* Department of Energy, U.S. Energy Sector Vulnerabilities to Climate 
Change and Extreme Weather, DOE/PI-0013 (July 2013). 

Using those assessments, we examined potential impacts to the 
following infrastructure categories, representing four main stages of 
the energy supply chain: (1) resource extraction and processing 
infrastructure; (2) fuel transportation and storage infrastructure; 
(3) electricity generation infrastructure; and (4) electricity 
transmission and distribution infrastructure. We also examined broad, 
systemic factors that may amplify climate change impacts to energy 
infrastructure. 

To identify and examine measures to reduce climate-related risks and 
adapt energy infrastructure to climate change, we analyzed relevant 
studies and government reports and interviewed knowledgeable 
stakeholders. We also identified and selected a nonprobability sample 
of four energy companies where the companies were taking steps to 
adapt their energy infrastructure to the potential impacts of climate 
change: Colonial Pipeline Company, Entergy Corporation, Florida Power 
and Light Company, and Pacific Gas and Electric Company. To select our 
sample, we reviewed the relevant literature and interviewed 
knowledgeable stakeholders in order to compile a list of adaptive 
measures that had been undertaken by energy companies across the 
country. We divided our initial list of approximately 20 companies 
that had taken adaptive measures into categories based on geographic 
location and the type of climate-related risk that the adaptive 
measure addressed. We then selected companies that represented a range 
of geographic locations--California, Louisiana, Florida, and the Mid-
Atlantic--and a range of climate-related risks--decreased water 
availability, increased frequency and intensity of storms, and 
increased precipitation. Our sample selection also reflects 
infrastructure used in three of the four stages of the energy supply 
chain: petroleum pipelines; hydropower, fossil fuel and nuclear power 
plants; and transmission and distribution infrastructure. Because this 
was a nonprobability sample, findings from our examples cannot be 
generalized to all U.S. energy infrastructure; instead, they provide 
illustrative information about energy companies that have undertaken 
adaptation measures. 

To examine the role of the federal government in adapting energy 
infrastructure to the potential impacts of climate change including, 
what steps selected federal entities have taken towards adaptation, we 
identified federal entities with key responsibilities related to 
energy infrastructure. We began by reviewing relevant literature and 
interviewing knowledgeable stakeholder groups. We also interviewed 
officials from: Department of Energy (DOE), Department of the Interior 
(DOI), Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Department of 
Transportation (DOT), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Federal 
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission (FERC), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 
(NOAA), the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, as well as the North 
American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC).[Footnote 79] Based 
on the information gathered from the literature and interviews, we 
compiled an initial list of 15 federal entities that had a connection 
to energy infrastructure and then narrowed that list to the five that 
have the most direct influence on energy infrastructure adaptation 
decisions: DOE, EPA, FERC, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and NERC. 

Appendix II contains one-page summaries of the federal government's 
role in energy infrastructure for DOE, EPA, FERC, and the Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission, as well as NERC. To develop the summaries, we 
reviewed and synthesized publicly available information about the 
entities from their websites, prior GAO reports, and other reports 
describing the federal government's activities related to energy, as 
well as interviews with officials from the federal entities. 

We conducted this performance audit from July 2012 to January 2014 in 
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 
Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe 
that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our 
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

[End of section] 

Appendix II: Summaries of Selected Federal Roles in Energy 
Infrastructure: 

Agency: Department of Energy (DOE); 

Mission Ensures America's security and prosperity by addressing its 
energy, environmental, and nuclear challenges through transformative 
science and technology solutions. 

Key activities related to energy infrastructure: 
Conducts and Funds Technology Research: 
* Conducts research and development activities for the energy sector, 
including oil and gas, renewable, and nuclear energy research; 
* Technology development and deployment programs designed to modernize 
the U.S. electric delivery system; 
Protects Critical Infrastructure: 
* Applies DOE's technical expertise to ensure the security, resiliency 
and survivability of key energy assets and critical energy 
infrastructure at home and abroad; 
Collects and Analyzes Key Data on the Energy Sector; 
Manages the Strategic Petroleum Reserve; 
Administers the Power Marketing Administrations. 

Incorporation of climate change adaptation: 
* Supports and funds research to understand the impact of climate 
change on energy production and to advance a predictive understanding 
of climate and inform development of sustainable solutions; 
* Conducts assessments of climate change on electric grid stability, 
water availability for energy production, and site selection for the 
next generation of renewable energy infrastructure. 

Types of energy infrastructure impacted: 
Electricity transmission and distribution systems and oil storage. 

Key programs and offices: 
Office of Energy Policy and Systems, Office of Energy Efficiency and 
Renewable Energy, Office of Science, Office of Electricity Delivery 
and Energy Reliability, Strategic Petroleum Reserve, Energy Information 
Administration, and National Energy Technology Laboratory. 

Key legal authority for activities related to energy infrastructure: 
Energy Policy Act of 2005, Energy and Water Research Integration Act. 

Agency: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); 

Mission: Protects human health and the environment. 

Key activities related to energy infrastructure: 
Regulates Hazardous Air Pollutants; 
* Emissions standards for power plants, petroleum refineries, and oil 
and gas extraction facilities; 
Regulates Waste Discharges into U.S. Waters; 
* Discharge and treatment of wastewater from power plants, petroleum 
refineries, and oil and gas extraction facilities; 
Responds to Oil Spills; 
Regulates Cooling Water Intake Structures; 
* Power plant cooling systems; 
Regulates Solid and Hazardous Waste; 
* Fossil fuel combustion waste; 
* Crude oil and natural gas waste; 
Prevents Contamination of Underground Drinking Water Resources; 
* Underground wells associated with natural gas and oil production; 
Oversees Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program; 
Reviews Preconstruction Permits for Natural Gas Pipelines. 

Incorporation of climate change adaptation: 
EPA has established agency-wide priority actions to begin integrating 
climate change adaptation into its programs, policies, rules and 
operations. The priorities are not specific to energy infrastructure, 
but some priority actions may impact EPA's activities related to 
energy infrastructure as follows: 
* Integrating climate change trend and scenario information into EPA 
rulemaking processes; 
* Factoring legal considerations into adaptation efforts--EPA may need 
to evaluate the legal basis for considering climate change impacts in 
setting standards or issuing permits under the Clean Air Act and Clean 
Water Act; 
* Developing program and regional office implementation plans--each of 
the national program offices will develop its own plan that provides 
more detail on how it will integrate climate adaptation into its 
planning and work. 

Types of energy infrastructure impacted: 
Power plants, petroleum refineries, oil and gas extraction facilities, 
natural gas pipelines, and petroleum storage tanks. 

Key programs and offices: 
Office of Air and Radiation, Office of Policy, Office of Solid Waste 
and Emergency Response, Office of Water, and Underground Injection 
Control Program. 

Key legal authority for activities related to energy infrastructure: 
Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Resource Conservation and Recovery 
Act, Oil Pollution Act, and Safe Drinking Water Act. 

Agency: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC); 

Mission: Assists consumers in obtaining reliable, efficient, and 
sustainable energy services at a reasonable cost through appropriate 
regulatory and market means. 

Key activities related to energy infrastructure: 
Electricity; 
* Regulates wholesale sales of electricity and transmission of 
electricity in interstate commerce; 
* Oversees energy markets and mandatory reliability standards for the 
bulk power system; 
Natural Gas; 
* Regulates interstate pipeline and storage facility siting, and 
abandonment; 
* Regulates natural gas transportation in interstate commerce and 
establish rates, terms, and conditions for service; 
Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG); 
* Oversees siting of new LNG terminals; 
* Oversees proposals for and operation of LNG terminals; 
Hydropower; 
* Issues licenses for the construction of new hydropower projects and 
for the continuance of existing projects (relicensing); 
* Oversees ongoing project operations, including dam safety 
inspections and environmental monitoring; 
Oil; 
* Establishes reasonable rates for transporting petroleum and 
petroleum products by pipeline; 
* Regulates oil pipeline companies engaged in interstate 
transportation; 
* Establishes equal service conditions to provide shippers with equal 
access to interstate pipeline transportation. 

Incorporation of climate change adaptation: 
* Reviews LNG terminal projects to determine if terminal operators 
have accounted for hurricane and flooding impacts; 
* Considers trends in historical hydrologic data as part of analysis of 
project operations and resource effects for hydropower facilities. 

Types of energy infrastructure impacted: 
Electricity transmission lines and facilities, interstate natural gas 
pipelines and storage facilities, LNG terminals, interstate oil 
pipelines, and hydropower plants. 

Key programs and offices: 
Office of Electric Reliability, Office of Energy Infrastructure 
Security, Office of Energy Policy and Innovation, Office of Energy 
Projects, and Office of Energy Market Regulation. 

Key legal authority for activities related to energy infrastructure: 
Department of Energy (DOE): Federal Power Act of 1935, Natural Gas Act 
of 1938, Public Utility Holding Company Act of 2005, Energy Policy Act 
of 2005, Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, and Interstate Commerce 
Act. 

Agency: Nuclear Regulatory Commission; 
Mission: Licenses and regulates the nation's civilian use of 
byproduct, source, and special nuclear materials to ensure the 
adequate protection of public health and safety, promotes the common 
defense and security, and protects the environment. 

Key activities related to energy infrastructure: 
Reactor Licensing; 
* Issues licenses for all commercially owned nuclear power plants that 
produce electricity in the United States; 
* After the initial license is granted, the license may be amended, 
renewed, transferred, or otherwise modified, depending on activities 
that affect the reactor during its operating life; 
Power Uprates; 
* An amendment to an existing reactor operating license to allow a 
licensee to operate a reactor at a higher power level. 

Incorporation of climate change adaptation: 
Although not in response to climate change: 
* Provides guidance for design requirements for hurricane wind speed 
protection at nuclear power plants; 
* Requires the operating fleet of nuclear power plants to compare 
their existing designs with the new plant requirement for protecting 
against flooding hazards. 

Types of energy infrastructure impacted: 
Nuclear power plants. 

Key programs and offices: 
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Office of New Reactors, Regional 
Offices, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, and Advisory Committee 
on Reactor Safeguards. 

Key legal authority for activities related to energy infrastructure: 
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, Energy Reorganization Act of 1974. 

Nongovernmental organization: North American Electric Reliability 
Corporation (NERC); 

Mission: Ensures the reliability of the North American bulk power 
system. NERC is the electric reliability organization certified by the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to establish and enforce 
reliability standards for the bulk power system. 

Key activities related to energy infrastructure: 
* Develops and enforces reliability standards; 
* Assesses adequacy of generation and transmission annually via a 10-
year forecast and winter and summer forecasts; 
* Monitors the bulk power system and analyzes its performance; 
* Analyzes system disturbances and distributes lessons learned; 
* Operates Electricity Sector Information Sharing and Analysis Center; 
* Educates, trains, and certifies industry personnel. 

Incorporation of climate change adaptation: 
* Reflects projections of weather and other variables that potentially 
impact bulk system reliability as part of its adequacy assessments; 
* Reports on system performance including demand response issues on a 
yearly basis. Weather forecasting uncertainties, in part reflecting 
climate change adaptation, are included as part of long-term load, 
generation, and transmission forecasting activities. 

Types of energy infrastructure impacted: 
Electric power generation facilities, high-voltage electric 
transmission lines and facilities, and transmission and generation 
control centers. 

Key programs and offices: 
Reliability Standards Development, Compliance and Enforcement, 
Critical Infrastructure Protection, Reliability Assessment and 
Performance Analysis, Reliability Risk Management, Event Analysis, and 
Operator Training. 

Key legal authority for activities related to energy infrastructure: 
Section 1211(a) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (Section 215 of the 
Federal Power Act). 

Source: GAO analysis. 

[A] According DOE, its Power Marketing Administrations (PMA) provide 
electric power, largely hydropower from federal dams, to customers in 
32 western, southwestern, and southeastern states and maintain an 
infrastructure that includes electrical substations, high-voltage 
transmission lines and towers, and power system control centers. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix III: Comments from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission: 

United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission: 
Washington, D.C. 20555-0001: 

December 26, 2013: 

Mr. Frank Rusco: 
Director, Natural Resources and the Environment: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

Dear Mr. Rusco, 

On behalf of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), I am 
responding to your e-mail dated November 26, 2013, requesting comments 
on the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) proposed report GAO-
14-74, "Climate Change: Energy Infrastructure Risk and Adaptation 
Efforts." We appreciate the opportunity to provide our comments for your
consideration. 

As requested, the NRC has reviewed the draft report and has several 
comments. These comments are detailed in the enclosure. In general, 
the NRC wishes to clarify that it does not directly regulate the 
impact of climate change on nuclear power plants. Rather, the NRC
requires that the nuclear power plants be protected against the 
effects of certain natural phenomena, such as flooding or high wind 
speeds. In as much as climate change affects those natural phenomena 
on a site-specific basis, those effects are considered, as 
appropriate, within the NRC's existing regulatory framework. 
Therefore, the effects of climate change are taken into consideration, 
but climate change in and of itself, is not directly addressed in the
regulations. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

[Illegible] for] 
Mark A. Satorius: 
Executive Director for Operations: 

[End of section] 

Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contact: 

Frank Rusco, (202) 512-3841or ruscof@gao.gov: 

Staff Acknowledgments: 

In addition to the individual named above, Darnita Akers, Dr. Chuck 
Bausell, Elizabeth Curda, Dr. Dick Frankel, Cindy Gilbert, Stephanie 
Gaines, Dan Haas (Assistant Director), Jessica Lemke, Alison O'Neil, 
Dr. Timothy Persons, Dan Royer, and Barbara Timmerman made key 
contributions to this report. 

[End of section] 

Footnotes: 

[1] NRC is the operating arm of the National Academy of Sciences and 
National Academy of Engineering. Through its independent, expert 
reports; workshops; and other scientific activities, NRC's mission is 
to improve government decision making and public policy, increase 
public understanding, and promote the acquisition and dissemination of 
knowledge in matters involving science engineering, technology, and 
health. 

[2] USGCRP coordinates and integrates the activities of 13 federal 
agencies that conduct research on changes in the global environment 
and their implications for society. USGCRP began as a presidential 
initiative in 1989, and the program was formally authorized by 
Congress in the Global Change Research Act of 1990 (Pub. L. No. 101-
606, title I, 104 Stat. 3096-3104 (1990), codified at 15 U.S.C §§ 2931-
2938). USGCRP-participating agencies are the Departments of 
Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Energy, Interior, Health and Human 
Services, State, and Transportation; the U.S. Agency for International 
Development; the Environmental Protection Agency; the National 
Aeronautics and Space Administration; the National Science Foundation; 
and the Smithsonian Institution. 

[3] According to USGCRP, assessments assist decision making by 
surveying, integrating, and synthesizing science across sectors and 
regions. The key assessments used in this report compile information 
from many studies involving authors from academia; local, state, and 
federal government; the private sector; and the nonprofit sector. (See 
Objectives, Scope, and Methodology section for more information about 
the assessments used in this report.) 

[4] Hurricane Sandy has also been popularly referred to as 
"Superstorm" Sandy due to the confluence of rare meteorological 
conditions that contributed to the widespread destruction of property 
and infrastructure in 2012. 

[5] In response to extensive power outages during Sandy affecting 
millions of residents and resulting in substantial economic loss to 
communities, the federal government developed a Sandy Rebuilding Task 
Force that developed several recommendations regarding the alignment 
of investments in the Nation's energy infrastructure with the goal of 
improved resilience and national policy initiatives regarding climate 
change, transparency, and innovative technology deployment. 

[6] Thomas R. Karl, Jerry M. Melillo, and Thomas C. Peterson, eds., 
Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States (New York, NY: 
Cambridge University Press, 2009), otherwise known as the 2009 
National Climate Assessment. 

[7] Since 1980, NOAA's NCDC has provided aggregated loss estimates for 
major weather and climate events, including tropical cyclones, floods, 
droughts, heat waves, severe local storms (tornado, hail, and wind 
damage), wildfires, crop freeze events and winter storms. The loss 
estimates reflect direct effects of weather and climate events and 
constitute total--insured and uninsured--losses. Specifically, 
estimates include physical damage to buildings; material assets; time 
element losses, such as hotel costs for loss of living quarters; 
vehicles; public and private infrastructure; and agricultural assets, 
such as buildings, machinery, and livestock. Estimates do not include 
losses to natural capital/assets, health care related losses, or 
values associated with loss of life. NOAA's NCDC defines climate as a 
statistical analysis of weather. Additional information available at 
NOAA's NCDC here. 

[8] U.S. Climate Change Science Program (now known as USGCRP) Draft 
Third National Climate Assessment Report, Chapter 4 - Energy Supply 
and Use (January 2013). USGCRP, under the Global Change Research Act 
of 1990, periodically conducts a National Climate Assessment to inform 
the nation about observed climate changes and anticipated trends. The 
Third National Climate Assessment is scheduled to be completed in 
early 2014; as a result, we have used the draft 2013 assessment for 
the purposes of this report. The draft 2013 assessment includes 
information from 240 authors drawn from academia; local, state, and 
Federal government; the private sector; and the nonprofit sector. The 
draft National Climate Assessment is not a finalized document and is 
subject to change as a result of comments from and review by the 
public, external entities, and the Federal Government. For more 
information or to access these assessments see [hyperlink, 
http://www.globalchange.gov].  

[9] See GAO, Climate Change: Future Federal Adaptation Efforts Could 
Better Support Local Infrastructure Decision Makers, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-242] (Washington, D.C.: Apr 12, 
2013) and GAO, Climate Change Adaptation: Strategic Federal Planning 
Could Help Government Officials Make More Informed Decisions, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-113] (Washington, D.C.: 
Oct. 7, 2009). 

[10] NRC, America's Climate Choices: Panel on Adapting to the Impacts 
of Climate Change, Adapting to the Impacts of Climate Change 
(Washington, D.C.: 2010). 

[11] GAO, High-Risk Series: An Update, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-283] (Washington, D.C.: February 
2013). Every 2 years at the start of a new Congress, GAO calls 
attention to agencies and program areas that are high risk due to 
their vulnerabilities to fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement, or 
are most in need of transformation. Click here to access the Limiting 
the Federal Government's Fiscal Exposure by Better Managing Climate 
Change Risks content. 

[12] See [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-283]. 

[13] According to USGCRP, assessments are tools to survey, integrate, 
and synthesize science. For more information about USGCRP assessments, 
click here. For objective 1 of this report, we generally used NRC's 
2010 assessment, three USGCRP assessments (2007, 2009, and 2013), and 
DOE's assessments in 2010 and 2013, unless otherwise indicated. 
Citations for these assessments can be found in appendix I. 

[14] We developed these four categories as a means of grouping similar 
processes together. Actual infrastructure and methods used to produce 
and distribute energy can vary. 

[15] Because this was a nonprobability sample, findings from our 
examples cannot be generalized to all U.S. energy infrastructure; 
rather, they provide illustrative information about energy companies 
for which adaptation measures have been undertaken. 

[16] When identifying agencies with key responsibilities related to 
energy infrastructure we focused on agencies with a direct role in 
overseeing and developing activities within the energy sector. 

[17] NERC is not a federal agency; it is a nonprofit entity 
responsible for the reliability of the bulk power system (the 
generation and high-voltage transmission portions of the electricity 
grid) in North America (primarily the United States and Canada), but 
it is subject to the oversight of FERC and Canadian regulatory 
authorities. Because of NERC's important role with the electricity 
grid throughout the United States and oversight by FERC we will, 
hereafter, refer to NERC as a "federal entity." 

[18] According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, about 
50 percent of carbon dioxide emitted by human activity will be removed 
from the atmosphere within 30 years, and a further 30 percent will be 
removed within a few centuries. The remaining 20 percent may stay in 
the atmosphere for many thousands of years. USGCRP estimates that 
another 0.5 degree Fahrenheit increase would occur even if all 
emissions from human activities were suddenly stopped. 

[19] See GAO, Technology Assessment: Climate Engineering: Technical 
Status, Future Directions, and Potential Responses, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-71] (Washington, D.C.: July 28, 
2011) for a depiction of the global carbon cycle changes over time and 
the global average "energy budget" of the Earth's atmosphere. 

[20] President's Council of Economic Advisers, Economic Benefits of 
Increasing Electric Grid Resilience to Weather Outages (Washington, 
D.C.: August 2013). 

[21] See GAO 13-242. 

[22] Similarly, the Department of Homeland Security's recent 2013 
National Infrastructure Protection Plan (Partnering for Critical 
Infrastructure Security and Resilience) defines resilience as the 
"ability to prepare for and adapt to changing conditions and withstand 
and recover rapidly from disruptions…" 

[23] The IPCC is a scientific body under the auspices of the United 
Nations (UN). It reviews and assesses the most recent scientific, 
technical and socioeconomic information produced worldwide relevant to 
the understanding of climate change. It neither conducts any research 
nor monitors climate related data or parameters. 

[24] According to a 2011 U.S. Geological Survey paper, these platforms 
were not designed to accommodate a permanent increase in sea level. 
See Burkett, Virginia, U.S. Geological Survey, "Global Climate Change 
Implications for Coastal and Offshore Oil and Gas Development," Energy 
Policy 39 (2011). 

[25] U.S. Department of Energy, Comparing the Impacts of Northeast 
Hurricanes on Energy Infrastructure (April 2013). 

[26] U.S. Department of Energy, Comparing the Impacts of the 2005 and 
2008 Hurricanes on U.S. Energy Infrastructure (February 2009). 

[27] By way of protection, the Alaska Department of Natural Resources 
limits the amount of travel on the tundra. Over the past 30 years, the 
number of days where travel is permitted has dropped from more than 
200 to 100, thereby reducing by at least half the number of days that 
natural gas and oil exploration and extraction equipment can be used. 

[28] Crude oil and petroleum products are transported by rail, barge 
systems, pipelines, and tanker trucks. Coal is transported by rail, 
barge, truck, and pipeline. Corn-based ethanol, blended with gasoline, 
is largely shipped by rail, while bioenergy feedstock transport relies 
on barge, rail, and truck freight. 

[29] The Department of the Interior's bureaus are responsible for 
overseeing the processes that oil and gas companies must follow when 
leasing, drilling, and producing oil and gas from federal leases. The 
Minerals Management Service, a bureau within the Department of the 
Interior, was responsible for managing offshore activities and 
collecting royalties for oil and gas leases until May 2010, when the 
bureau was reorganized. Under this reorganization, the Bureau of Ocean 
Energy Management (BOEM) and the Bureau of Safety and Environmental 
Enforcement (BSEE) now oversee offshore oil and gas activities and the 
newly established Office of Natural Resources Revenue (ONRR) is 
responsible for collecting royalties on oil and gas produced from both 
onshore and offshore federal leases. 

[30] U.S. Department of Transportation, ExxonMobil Silvertip Pipeline 
Crude Oil Release into the Yellowstone River in Laurel, MT on 
7/1/2011, Pipelines and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, 
Office of Pipeline Safety, Western Region. 

[31] As permafrost thaws, the tundra loses its weight-bearing 
capabilities, according to DOE. Risks to onshore fossil fuel 
development could include the loss of access roads built on 
permafrost, loss of opportunities to establish new roads, problems 
with pipelines buried in permafrost, and reduced load-bearing capacity 
of buildings and structures. 

[32] This improved accessibility will not be uniform throughout different 
regions, according to USGCRP, and extraction and exploration equipment 
may have to be redesigned to accommodate the new environment. 

[33] Elcock, D., "Future U.S. Water Consumption: The Role of Energy 
Production," Journal of the American Water Resources Association, vol. 
46, no. 3 (2010): 447-460. 

[34] Water use by thermoelectric power plants can be generally 
characterized as consumption, withdrawal, and discharge. Water 
consumption refers to the portion of the water withdrawn that is no 
longer available to be returned to a water source, such as when it has 
evaporated. Water withdrawals refer to water removed from the ground 
or diverted from a surface water source--for example, an ocean, river, 
or lake--for use by the plant. For many thermoelectric power plants, 
much of the water they withdraw is later discharged, although often at 
higher temperatures. According to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), 
in terms of water withdrawal, thermoelectric power was the largest 
source of water withdrawals (49 percent) in 2005, followed by 
irrigation at 31 percent. The amount of water discharged from a 
thermoelectric power plant depends on a number of factors, including 
the type of cooling technology used, plant economics, and 
environmental regulations. Some "once-through" systems can harm 
aquatic life--such as fish, crustaceans, and marine mammals--by 
pulling them into cooling systems or trapping them against water 
intake screens. The habitats of aquatic life can also be adversely 
affected by warm water discharges. 

[35] DOE, U.S. Energy Sector Vulnerabilities to Climate Change and 
Extreme Weather, DOE/PE-0013 (Washington, D.C.: July 2013). 

[36] To prevent hot water from doing harm to fish and other wildlife, 
power plants typically are not allowed to discharge cooling water 
above a certain temperature. When power plants reach those limits, 
they can be forced to reduce power production or shut down. 

[37] EPRI. 2011. Water Use for Electricity Generation and Other 
Sectors: Recent Changes (1985-2005) and Future Projections (2005-
2030). 1023676. Palo Alto, CA: Electric Power Research Institute 
(November 10, 2011). [hyperlink, 
http://www.epri.com/abstracts/Pages/ProductAbstract.aspx?ProductId=00000
000001023676]. 

[38] See the "Water Availability" section of this section for further 
information on competing demands for water. 

[39] According to NRC documents, Fort Calhoun remained closed as of 
November 1, 2013. 

[40] Generally, under the Renewable Fuel Standard, which is overseen 
by EPA, transportation fuels in the United States are required to 
contain 36 billion gallons of biofuels annually by 2022. 

[41] According to DOE, water use in biofuel refineries has been 
significantly reduced as a result of energy-and water-efficient 
designs in new plants and improved system integration in existing 
plants. 

[42] According to DOE's 2013 report, CSP power plants using 
recirculating cooling water typically consume more water than a fossil 
fuel or nuclear power plants. 

[43] Electricity generated through power plants or renewable energy 
sources is typically sent through high-voltage, high-capacity 
transmission lines to areas where it will be used; substations then 
transform the electricity to lower voltages and send it through local 
distribution wires to homes and businesses. 

[44] Although wind-related outages do occur on transmission systems, 
about 90 percent of outages during a storm event occur along 
distribution systems, according to DOE. 

[45] According to USGCRP, over the last century, snowstorms have 
increased in frequency in the Northeast and upper Midwest and 
decreased in frequency in the South and lower Midwest. 

[46] Roberto Schaeffer, Alexandre Salem Szklo, André Frossard Pereira 
de Lucena, Bruno Soares Moreira Cesar Borba, Larissa Pinheiro Pupo 
Nogueira, Fernanda Pereira Fleming, Alberto Troccoli, Mike Harrison, 
Mohammed Sadeck Boulahya, "Energy Sector Vulnerability to Climate 
Change: A Review," Energy 38 (2012). 

[47] DOE, Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, 
Comparing the Impacts of Northeast Hurricanes on Energy Infrastructure 
(Washington, D.C.: April 2013). 

[48] Since 2009, GAO has issued five reports on the interdependencies 
that exist between energy and water. GAO, Energy-Water Nexus: 
Improvements to Federal Water Use Data Would Increase Understanding of 
Trends in Power Plant Water Use, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-23] (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 16, 
2009); GAO, Energy-Water Nexus: Many Uncertainties Remain about 
National and Regional Effects of Increased Biofuel Production on Water 
Resources, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-116] 
(Washington, D.C.: Nov. 30, 2009); GAO, Energy-Water Nexus: Amount of 
Energy Needed to Supply, Use, and Treat Water Is Location-Specific and 
Can Be Reduced by Certain Technologies and Approaches, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-225] (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 23, 
2011); GAO, Energy-Water Nexus: A Better and Coordinated Understanding 
of Water Resources Could Help Mitigate the Impacts of Potential Oil 
Shale Development, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-35] 
(Washington, D.C.: Oct. 29, 2010); and GAO, Energy-Water Nexus: 
Information on the Quantity, Quality, and Management of Water Produced 
during Oil and Gas Production, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-156] (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 9, 
2012). 

[49] GAO, Oil and Gas: Information on Shale Resources, Development, 
and Environmental and Public Health Risks, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-732] (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 5, 
2012). Water used in shale oil and gas development is largely 
considered to be consumptive and can be permanently removed from the 
hydrologic cycle, according to EPA and Interior officials. However, it 
is difficult to determine the long-term effect on water resources 
because the scale and location of future operations remains largely 
uncertain. Similarly, the total volume that operators will withdraw 
from surface water and aquifers for drilling and hydraulic fracturing 
is not known until operators submit applications to the appropriate 
regulatory agency. As a result, the cumulative amount of water 
consumed over the lifetime of the activity remains largely unknown. 

[50] Water consumption is the portion of the water withdrawn that is 
no longer available to be returned to a water source, such as when it 
has evaporated. Energy production (which includes biofuel production), 
together with thermoelectric power, is the second largest consumer of 
water in the United States, accounting for approximately 11 percent of 
water consumption in 2005. Irrigation was the largest consumer, at 
approximately 74 percent. (Elcock, D., "Future U.S. Water Consumption: 
The Role of Energy Production," Journal of the American Water 
Resources Association vol. 46, no. 3 (2010): 447-460). However, according 
to the U.S. Geological Survey, in terms of water withdrawal, 
thermoelectric power was the largest source of water withdrawals (49 
percent) in 2005, followed by irrigation at 31 percent. Water 
withdrawal refers to water removed from the ground or diverted from a 
surface water source, such as an ocean, river, or lake. 

[51] According to EPA, water from snowpack declined for most of the 
western states from 1950 to 2000, with losses at some sites exceeding 
75 percent. Annual streamflows are expected to decrease in the summer 
for most regions, according to USGCRP, and drought conditions--which 
have become more common and widespread over the past 40 years in the 
Southwest, southern Great Plains, and Southeast, according to USGCRP--
are expected to become more frequent and intense. Groundwater 
resources are already being depleted in multiple regions, according to 
USGS, and these impacts are expected to continue. See EPA, Climate 
Change Indicators in the United States, EPA 430-R-10-007 (Washington, 
D.C.: 2010) and United States Geological Survey, Groundwater Depletion 
in the United States (1900-2008), Scientific Investigations Report 
2013-5079 (Reston, VA: May 2013). 

[52] Many factors can affect energy demand, including temperature and 
other weather conditions, population, economic conditions, energy 
prices, and conservation programs. 

[53] IPCC, Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to 
Advance Climate Change Adaptation: A Special Report of Working Groups 
I and II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [C.B. Field, 
V. Barros, T.F. Stocker, D. Qin, D.J. Dokken, K.L. Ebi, M.D. 
Mastrandrea, K.J. Mach, G.-K. Plattner, S.K. Allen, M. Tignor, and 
P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. (Cambridge, UK, and New York, NY : 2012). 

[54] According to DOE, projected increases in air and water 
temperatures could significantly reduce electricity generation 
capacity, particularly in the summer months, by (a) decreasing the 
efficiency of power plant generation, (b) forcing power plant 
curtailments due to thermal discharge limits, (c) reducing electricity 
generated through hydropower and photovoltaic solar sources, and (d) 
increasing the temperature of local water sources to the extent they 
can no longer be used for cooling water. 

[55] The energy supply chain is essentially a system of interconnected 
markets containing energy infrastructure that begins with extraction 
or generation of basic energy and ends with retail outlets for energy 
products. Along this chain, suppliers of inputs interact with 
demanders or consumers of these inputs, and both can avail themselves 
of substitute courses of action in adapting to climate change. For 
example, companies in the business of supplying oil to refineries may 
have alternative sources of oil, offshore and onshore that vary in 
their vulnerability to climate change impacts. In a mirror image, 
companies in the business of refining oil--consumers of oil as an 
input--may be able to avail themselves of these supply choices by 
switching their demand to less vulnerable oil. 

[56] The Strategic Petroleum Reserve was authorized by Congress in 
1975, following the Arab oil embargo of 1973-1974. It is owned by the 
federal government and operated by DOE. Under prescribed conditions, 
the President and the Secretary of Energy have the discretion to 
authorize release of oil in the Reserve through loans or other means 
to minimize significant supply disruptions and protect the economy 
from damage. See GAO, Strategic Petroleum Reserve: Available Oil Can 
Provide Significant Benefits, but Many Factors Should Influence Future 
Decisions about Fill, Use, and Expansion [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-872] (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 24, 
2006).  

[57] DOE's Energy Information Administration, New York/New Jersey 
Intra Harbor Petroleum Supplies Following Hurricane Sandy: Summary of 
Impacts through November 13, 2012 (Washington, D.C.: November 2012). 

[58] In our illustrative example, choices in the gasoline supply chain 
represent investments that are already in place regardless of climate 
change. Therefore, what is relevant in considering the cost of using 
the substitutes described are the incremental costs of making greater 
use of these existing, or potentially new, substitutes compared with 
not adapting. 

[59] AWF established in Louisiana, and working throughout the Gulf 
region, was founded in 2002 in response to a comprehensive coastal 
study calling on the need to alert the nation to the devastating loss 
of Louisiana's coastal wetlands and how their loss impacts the rest of 
the nation. Coastal barriers and wetlands can help reduce 
infrastructure damage from weather events along the coast. 

[60] In addition, Entergy has participated in Community Leadership 
Forums and technical conferences to educate local communities of 
potential climate change risks, help identify cost-effective measures 
to manage risk and discuss how the company could prioritize its 
investments in system hardening to minimize business interruption 
losses. 

[61] The pipeline travels through the coastal states of Texas, 
Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, North 
Carolina, Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey. Branches 
from the main pipeline also reach Tennessee. 

[62] Colonial representatives told us that the company sold the mobile 
generators used for power outages during Hurricanes Katrina and Rita 
in 2011. Since then, the company purchased eight new state-of-the-art 
mobile generators that were used in response to Hurricane Sandy. 

[63] NRC requires the designs of structures, systems, and components 
important to safety to reflect appropriate consideration of the most 
severe natural hazards (NRC refers to natural hazards as natural 
phenomena) that had been historically reported for a reactor site and 
the surrounding area, with sufficient safety margin to account for the 
limited accuracy, quantity, and period over which historical data on 
natural hazards have been accumulated. 

[64] Although most energy infrastructure is privately owned, the 
federal government owns a small number of hydroelectric power plants, 
transmission infrastructure, and strategic oil stock. The federal 
government's ownership of energy infrastructure is primarily managed 
through the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) and DOE through its Power 
Marketing Administrations (PMA) and Office of Petroleum Reserves. TVA 
supplies electricity to customers in parts of Tennessee, Alabama, 
Mississippi, Kentucky, Georgia, North Carolina, and Virginia. 
Similarly, three of the four DOE PMAs own and operate electricity 
transmission infrastructure. The PMAs distribute and sell electricity 
from a network of federally built hydroelectric dams, one nonfederal 
nuclear power plant, and several other small nonfederal power plants. 
DOE is also responsible for maintaining the infrastructure necessary 
to deliver crude oil from Strategic Petroleum Reserve. 

[65] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-283]. 

[66] The El Niño Southern Oscillation is a natural occurring 
phenomenon that involves fluctuating ocean temperatures in the 
equatorial Pacific Ocean. The pattern generally fluctuates between two 
states: warmer than normal temperatures in the central and eastern 
equatorial Pacific (El Niño) and cooler than normal temperatures in 
the central and eastern equatorial Pacific (La Niña). 

[67] USGCRP, The National Global Change Research Plan 2012-2021, A 
Strategic Plan for the U.S. Global Change Research Program (2012). 

[68] USGCRP is developing the Global Change Information System (GCIS), 
a comprehensive web-based system to deploy and manage global change 
information. This system will support the NCA by producing reports 
while also incorporating integrated and linked access to data to 
ensure open and transparent access to climate information. 

[69] GAO, EPA Regulations and Electricity: Better Monitoring by 
Agencies Could Strengthen Efforts to Address Potential Challenges, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-635] (Washington, D.C.: 
July 17, 2012). 

[70] NERC cannot require energy infrastructure owners to make a 
specific technological change, enlarge their facilities or construct 
new transmission or generation capacity, according to NERC officials. 
The officials stated that the specific actions that industry takes to 
meet NERC's standards can vary. 

[71] According to DOE, Smart Grid technology means "computerizing" the 
electric utility grid. It includes adding two-way digital 
communication technology to devices associated with the grid. Each 
device on the network can be given sensors to gather data (power 
meters, voltage sensors, fault detectors, etc.), plus two-way digital 
communication between the device in the field and the utility's 
network operations center. A key feature of the smart grid is 
automation technology that lets the utility adjust and control each 
individual device or millions of devices from a central location. 

[72] NFIP is administered by FEMA. The Congressional Budget Office 
(CBO), the Council of Economic Advisers (CEA), and GAO have cited 
insurance premiums as not fully reflecting risks. (See: CBO, "The 
National Flood Insurance Program: Factors Affecting Actuarial 
Soundness, " November 2009; CEA, "Economic Report of the President," 
March 2013; and GAO, Climate Change: Financial Risks to Federal and 
Private Insurers in Coming Decades Are Potentially Significant, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-285] (Washington, D.C.: 
Mar. 16, 2007); and GAO, FEMA: Action Needed to Improve Administration 
of the National Flood Insurance Program, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-297] Washington, D.C.: June 9, 
2011). To address this issue, the Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance 
Reform Act of 2012 (Pub. L. No. 112-141, title II, Jul. 6, 126 Stat. 
916 (2012), (codified at 42 U.S.C. § 4001-4129)) proposes steps to 
address shortcomings in the NFIP by authorizing FEMA to consider 
information such as changing coastal topography, erosion rates, sea 
level rise projections, and changes in intensity of hurricanes in its 
future flood maps. These changes are expected to significantly 
increase NFIP's insurance premium rates, in some cases. 

[73] Lower quality water generally can refer to degraded or nonpotable 
water such as contaminated groundwater, treated municipal wastewater, 
industrial process water, irrigation return water, brackish water, and 
other types of water impacted by humans or naturally occurring 
minerals. 

[74] In commenting on this report, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 
clarified that it does not directly regulate the impact of climate 
change on nuclear power plants but requires these plants to be 
protected against the effects of certain natural phenomena. Thus, in 
as much as climate change affects these natural phenomena, the 
Commission believes climate change impacts are taken into 
consideration in its review process. 

[75] On November 1, 2013, President Obama signed Executive Order (EO) 
13653 on preparing the United States for impacts of climate change. 
The EO directs U.S. federal agencies to take steps that will make it 
easier for American communities to strengthen their resilience to 
extreme weather and to prepare for other impacts of climate change. As 
a result, the Administration established the Council on Climate 
Preparedness and Resilience, an interagency working group. The Council 
includes an Infrastructure Working Group, co-chaired by the Department 
of Energy and the Department of Homeland Security that focuses on 
infrastructure resilience to climate change. 

[76] FERC and NRC have not developed agency adaptation plans. FERC 
officials told us that FERC is not subject to the requirement to 
develop an agency climate change adaptation plan under Executive Order 
13514. NRC officials told us that the Council on Environmental Quality 
(CEQ) approved of NRC using its climate change adaptation policy 
statement in lieu of developing an adaptation plan. NERC is not a 
federal agency and, therefore, was not required to develop a climate 
change adaptation plan. 

[77] The task force, which began meeting in Spring 2009, is co-chaired 
by CEQ, NOAA, and the Office of Science and Technology Policy and 
includes representatives from more than 20 federal agencies and 
executive branch offices, including DOE and EPA. The task force was 
formed to develop federal recommendations for adapting to climate 
change impacts both domestically and internationally and to recommend 
key components to include in a national strategy. FERC, NRC, and NERC 
are not members of the task force. 

[78] NERC is a not-for-profit corporation that has been certified by 
FERC as the Electric Reliability Organization in accordance with 
section 1211(a) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. As such, NERC is not 
a federal agency (see section 1211(b)), but we have included it in our 
discussion of federal action because it is responsible for developing 
and enforcing reliability standards for the North American bulk power 
system (the generation and high-voltage transmission portions of the 
electricity grid) and is subject to oversight by FERC within the 
United States and by Canadian regulatory authorities. 

[End of section] 

GAO's Mission: 

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting 
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the 
performance and accountability of the federal government for the 
American people. GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates 
federal programs and policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, 
and other assistance to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, 
and funding decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is 
reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and 
reliability. 

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through GAO's website [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each 
weekday afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, 
testimony, and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly 
posted products, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] and select 
“E-mail Updates.” 

Order by Phone: 

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO's actual cost of 
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black 
and white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO's 
website, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm]. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 
TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional 
information. 

Connect with GAO: 

Connect with GAO on facebook, flickr, twitter, and YouTube.
Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts.
Visit GAO on the web at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. 

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs: 

Contact: 
Website: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]; 
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov; 
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470. 

Congressional Relations: 

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4400: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7125: 
Washington, DC 20548. 

Public Affairs: 

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4800: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7149: 
Washington, DC 20548. 

[End of document]