IMPLICATIONS OF ALTERNATIVE
POLICIES FOR THE USE OF
PERMANENT CONTROLS AND
SUPPLEMENTAL CONTROL SYSTEMS
(SCS)

-------
                                                       1 8 NOV  1974
         IMPLICATIONS OF ALTERNATIVE POLICIES
        FOR THE USE OF PERMANENT CONTROLS  AND
          SUPPLEMENTAL CONTROL SYSTEMS"(SCS)
Conclusions
- .    EPA iri cooperation with other agencies has  analyzed
the implications of alternative policies concerning
the use of permanent controls  (i.e. use of low sulfur
coal or scrubbers) or supplemental control systems
(SCS). The principal findings of this study are:
     o Compliance with permanent controls by 1980
       (Option 1 or current EPA policy) would increase
       the utility industry's capital requirements                  ij
       between 1974 and 1980' by $5.5 billion (or by      -      •     •
       4.6%).                                     .                 V,
                                                                    H
     o Between 18 and 70 plants (18,000-53,000 megawatts)
       could use SCS to meet ambient air quality standards
       for sulfur dioxide (S02 )-                                    j
                                                                    t
     o Delaying the date of compliance with permanent              j
       controls for plants that could u? e SCS (Options           -  i
       2 and 3) shifts between $.5  and .',1.6 billion                j
       of -the capital expenditure  burden for existing              |
       sources from the 1974-80 period-to the 1980-85              i
       period.

     o Permitting the indefinite use of SCS (Option 4)
       would reduce the utility industry's capital
       requirements by $.5 to  $1.6  billion between
       1974 and 1985.  If these figures were discounted to
       present worth using a TL discount  rate,  che savings
       would be $.3 to $.9 billion.

     o The utility industry is"projected  to  spend  $120
       billion (1974  dollars)  between 1974 and  1980
       and $260 billion between 1974 and  1985 in the                !
       absence of environmental  regulations.  Expenditures          '

-------
        for SC>2  control will iiiercasc the industry's
        capital requirements over the next 10 years
        between 2.1% (Option 4)  and 2.7% (Option 1).

      o Under Options 1,  2 and "3 expenditui-es for S02
        control will increase the average consumer's
        electricity bill approximately 4.77° in 1985.         .  -..
        Allowing the indefinite  use of SCS (Option 4)
        would reduce the expected price increase to
        between 3.8 and  4.4%.  However,  since 907, of
        the candidate plants for SCS are located in four
        electric reliability areas,  greater price increases
        will be experienced in some areas and less in others.

 Background

      The  Clean Air Act  establishes national ambient
 air quality standards to  protect  public health  and            .     [
 secondary "air  quality standards  tc  protect  other values       "     -|
 such  as property and vegetation.  In 1972,  the States              . }
 submitted implementation  plans  (SIP's)  which included              '
 constant  emission  limitations to  insure the attainment
 and maintenance  of ambient  air quality  standards.  The
 act established  a  deadline  for compliance  for stationary           j
 sources by mid-1975, with  extensions possible through              j
 State initiative up  to mid-1977.

     To achieve  the  statutory compliance dates,  more
 stack gas  scrubbers, other  control  technology and  low
 sulfur  fuel would  be required than will  be  available.
According  to studies by EPA, FEA and the Bureau  of
Mines, the  original  State Implementation Plans  (SIP's)
vould, in  theory, have precluded the burning  of  220
million tons of current coal production by 1975. However,
through EPA's "Clean Fuels Policy," States have  been
urged to  reduce limitations that were more stringent
than necessary to protect public health. As a result,
the deficit has been reduced to  185 million tons and
changes currently in progress should reduce tni.s deficit
further to  130 million tons. Furthermore, EPA has pursued
a policy of administratively extending compliance dates
to assure that coal can continue to ha burned.

-------
      While there is general, agreement that plants coming
 on line after 1975 should meet new -source performance
 standards, there is considerable disagreement over            . -
 the extent to which permanent controls (i.e., use of
 low sulfur coal or scrubbers) should be used in existing
 plants to meet the objectives of the Clean Air Act.            "  •
 FEA and other agencies have argued that the use of
 supplemental control systems (SCS) should be allowed
 indefinitely where they can reliably meet ambient air
 quality standards.  SCS is considerably cheaper than
 permanent controls.  On the other hand,  SCS does not
 appreciably reduce the total amount  of sulfuz- emitted
 into the air.  EPA indicates that there is accumulating
 evidence that sulfates — complex sulfur compounds whi-ch      •  .
 are formed from sulfur dioxide.—cause  adverse health
 effects.  Because SCS will not reduce the  total emissions
 of sulfur dioxide,  EPA believes that it would only         -        '-.
 be marginally successful  in reducing health damages                ;j
 from sulfates.                                                 "     •
          •  '                                -   .              .       j
 Altema t Ive Policles        '                    '                   ;
                                                             •. *?
      For  the  purposes  of  the  analysis, coal burning                -|
 power plants  have  been divided  into  three  categories:              |
 new sources (i.e., post-1975),  existing plants where               |
 SCS is  feasible  and  enforceable  and  existing plants          '     *|
 where  SCS is not feasible  and enforceable.""  The  analysis          ',
 assumes that new sources will conform with new source       .       \
 performance standards.                                             •

     °~ Option 1  (current EPA policy)                               |
          o All existing plants use permanent  controls            • J
             by 1930                             •                  :

     - Option 2
          o Existing plants where SCS is not  feasible
             and enforceable use permanent controls
             by 1980
•k
 Appendix A summarizes the methodology used to estimate
 the numbers of plants where SCS might be l:e;
 enforceable.

-------
          o Existing plants where SCS is  feasible and
              enforceable use SC$ as  an interim control
              strategy and install permanent controls
              by 1983

     •- Option 3 -
          o Same as  Option 2 except that  existing plants
              where  SCS is feasible and enforceable
              install permanent  controls  by  1985.

     " Option 4                                             '
          o Same as  Option 2 except that  SCS can be           _     '
              used indefinitely  by existing  plants where
              it is  feasible and enforceable.              .          I
                                                                    i
Analysis                                        .          -        -  -

1. Requirements for  Scrubbers^

     An analytical  study  of existing power  plants  indicates
that between  18 and  70  plants (18,000-53,000 megawatts)
could  be  rated  ac SCS candidates-.- Assuming  that  5G70
of these  plants would use scrubbers to comply with
constant  emission limitations, Table 1 summarizes  the              ";
impact of different options  for the phasing  in of  permanent
controls  on the demand  for  scrubbers:


                      Table  1
Cumulative
Scenario
1
2
3
A
Requirements
1980
83
56-74
56-74
56-74
for Scrubbers
1983
99
. 99
72-90
72-90
(thous. megawatt
1985
111
111
111
84-102
s**)





/
 Appendix A describes the methodology used to derive these
 estimates.
**
 Appendix B explains the estimates for both r.ev.T and existing
 plants.

-------
      Under the Energy Supply and Environmental Coordination
 Act (ESECA),  24,000-B-J of capacity are expected to- •
 convert from oil to coal. The above estimates for
 1980,  1983,  and 1985 assume that 14,000 Hi of this
 capacity will require scrubbers and the remaining 10,000
'will meet' requirements by using low sulfur coal.  In
 addition,  the estimates "for 1980,  1983 and 1985 assume
 that 23,000  39,000 and 51,000 megawatts will require
 scrubbers to  meet new source performance standards.
  »

      The analysis assumes complete achievement of EPA's
 Clean Fuels Policy which  would allow the burning  of
 90  million tons' of current high sulfur coal production
 through revision of SIP's that are more stringent than
 needed to  attain primary  standards.  Failure to achieve              I
 this goal  would  increase  the'requirement for scrubbers              \
 .and potential savings  attributable to  each of the Options
 2 through  4 since  some States might be willing to accept            . [
 interim SCS while  being unwilling  to revise 31? ll~.itat:ions.         sj
 Assuming a very  conservative  30  million tons shortfall,              *j
 approximately 8,000 megawatts of additional scrubber
 capacity would be  required.

 2*  Incremental Investment for SO?.   Control

     The utility industry is  projected to  spend $120
 billion (1974 dollars)  between 1974 and 1980 and  $260
 billion between  1974 and  1985 in the absence of environ-
 mental  regulations.*   The  incremental  capital require-
 ments  for  S02  control  for new and  existing plants
 are  shown  in  the following table:
•k                  '     '•
 Estimates are based on Temple, Barker, and Sloane Inc.'s
 work for the Technical Advisory Committee on Finance to
 the National Power Survey.

-------
                       Tnbl
              _C ;• o i.';a1  liv.'iv-.fr':"it: For SQo  Cont-rol
             : o i" ) < v.v; a     -  -; t- • _n r' 1' ' .'n ts
                         ly/A uoliars)

Opt i. on        1980
   1         $5.5           $6.3         ' $7.0
   2           3.9-5.0       6.4-6.6       7.1-7.3*
   3        '   3.9-5.0       4.7-5.8       7.1-7.3*
   4           3.9-5.0       4.7-5.8       5.4-6.5
     The estimates  of  total expenditures 'provide a
basis Cor evaluating the  implications of the alternative
policies for  financing requirements.In addition, the
following table  shov;s  the expenditures only for existing
«O *>*->*- r* •
|J — v»fc 1 <^ *~> *
Table 3

Opt



•
CUP.TUl

ion

1
2
3
4
'tt-'\v Cani t
for
(bil
1980
$Bil.
$4.2
2.6-3
2.6-3
2.6-3
- 1 -r .-• .
< . i. i : i ^
Exisc
lion 1

.7
.7
.7
r-trr-jnt f
iiv ijionc
974 dolla
1983
$Bil.
, $4.2'
4.3-4
2.6-3
2.6-3
~~ cr>^,
«. .' A. . - w '
s
rs)
r«^>-
\^ v->- t. i

f- ^.^
1
1985
**
.5
.7
.7
$Bi
$4.
4.
4.
2.
1.
2
3-4
3-4
6-3

.5
.5
.7
*
 Options 2 and 3 cost more  than Option  1  because a
 number of existing utiliti.es will  build  t.ull stacks
 by 1977 and then install permanent  controls by 1983
 or 1985. Appendix C summarises the  results for new
 and existing plants.

-------
      As indicated in Table 2 the cumulative capital
 investment for S02  control through 1985 will range
 from $5.4 to 37.3 billion or from 2.1 to 2.8% of the
 industry's projected capital expenditures during this
 period. The principal impact of the Options 2 and  3
 is to delay capital expenditures during this period.
 The principal impact of the Options 2 and 3 is to  delay
 capital expenditures while Option 4 would reduce total
 expenditures. Moreover,  because the reduced expenditures
 will 'be concentrated in existing utilities and since
 9070 of these plants are Ideated in four reliability
 regions",  the regional impacts of the options could
 vary considerably.

      Permitting the indefinite use of SCS (Option 4)
 would reduce the  utility industry's capital requirements
 by $.5 to $1.6 billion between 1974 and 1985.  If these   .      • .
 figures were discounted  to present worth using a 7%                '•
.discount  rate,  the savings would be $.3 to $.9 billion.             ?
                                                                    .1
      Failure to achieve  EPA's  full goal of 90  million               !
 tons of SIP revisions would increase capital requirements           j
 S*C f*\r*4~ - *->*-A r-  1   O   sJ *).  Af. ^i««>"-^,^N.*-»^-»rs*-*o/-^ rv-if-TT   /-» ^ *~ ••*•••» f~ ""v             *
 of a 30 million ton" shortfall,  this increase in cumulative
 capital requirements by  1985 would be  about $0.5 billion.

 3.  Incremental  Annual Cost  for SO?   Control

      In the absence  of environmental regulations,  the
 utility of  industry's annual revenues  are  projected
 to  increase from  $30  billion in 1973 to $65  billion
 in  1980 and $85 billion  in  1985. The incremental annual
 cost for  S02   control for new  and  existing plants is
 summarized  below:

-------
                               8
                       Table 4

 •Annual Cost of SOo  Contt-ol for New^ and Existing. Plants
 Option
    r
    2
    3
    4
                (billion'1974 dollars)
1980
$Bil;

$2.6
 1.8-2.3
 1.8-2.3
 1.8-2.3
1983
$Bil.
$3.4
3.4 -
2.6-3.1
2.6-3.1
1985
$Bil.
$4.0
4.0
4.0
3.2-3.





7
      Annual costs only for existing plants are shown in
 Table 5.
 Option
    1
    2
    3
    4
        Table 5
        Control fo:
                                   Eristinp; Plants
                  (billion 1974 dollars)
1980
$Bil.

$1.5
  .7-1.2
  .7-1.2
  .7-1.2
1983
$Bil.
$1.5
1.5
.7-1.2
.7-1.2
1985
$Bil.
$1.5
1.5
1.5
.7-1.




2
      As  indicated  in  the  above tables,  compliance with
 constant emission  limitations  by  1980 (Option 1) would
 increase the  industry's total  annual costs  in 1985 by
 $4.0  billion  which would  increase the average consumer1s
 electricity bill in 1980  by  about ^.770.  Permitting the
 indefinite use of  SCS (Option  4)  would reduce the industry's
 costs in 1985 by about 300 to  800 million dollars.  However,
-since 9070 of  the candidate plants for SCS are located in
 four  electric reliability areas,  the price  increase will be
 higher in some regions and lower  in  others.  If EPA1s clean
 fuels policy  is not as effective  as  currently anticipated,
 another  200 million dollars  in annual savings possibly
 could be attained  under Option 4.  .

-------
APPENDIX A

-------
                    ±L .CAN] ^ ] D A r] ' ] '-_ po AY I?l l 11L: A iilL STUDY
                               AR Y        ]xl3N
    An analysis war, made of 11?, coal burnin:'' power nlnnts (70. 581 AUV)
           1                 *"*«w*-w «.-* j» •*«, »,» •*s»iw^«,t.,-w™B^aU««is»*--^'«ii*;-J. i«ifcB^j.-~-B™«6««»F-"' *•*•»»•*« ^ ^cnafc^jMr-jjvrw - - -r-wU^
to determine their potential for the application of supplementary control
.systems (SCS) to moot sulfur dioxide (SO ) primary ambient air. quality
standards.  Essent ially all coal burning pcnvcr plants considered to
require further control of SO 2 emissions to meet primary standards
are. included in this study.  It should be emphasised, ho\vever, that
these plants were identified only for  analytical purposed and  inclusion
or exclusion does not reflect a regulatory decision. The analysis is
intended to be  used solely for the  purpose of e^tiruatingihc magnitude
of the problem.

    Emissions from the 9-1 plants  (see table 1) that  EPA has identified
as actual or potential violators of the primary air quality  standards were
tabulated and compared with total SO2 emissions within a specified gco-
graphicnl area surrounding the plant  (defined as the liability  area* to
permit an assessment oof the degree to which power plant emissions
might affect ground level concentrations of SO^ . In general, the higher
the power plant emissions  arc in comparison with total emissions, the
greater the potential for using SCS to'meet primary standards during
periods of adverse meteorological conditions.  Plants whose  emissions
"             •               *">                 ***~''**-'**™~-'>>****-~n'-'- •**"•**"*•*•<**"*
   -J
Plaints whose emission's comprise' less thaTTTnTjtrt'o 70';'o of the total are
considered poor SCS candidates because the aggregate emissions from
other sources limn ihe ability  of the plant 10 control  emissions as
required to meet primary standards.

The fc»iC"vvmg tciOiC surnm.arjzcs me linnings  liron) trus S-ncuysioi

    Plant Emissions of SO2
    (Percent of total in   "      No. of             Capacity
     liabjlily aiva)             Plants          MW  "~~   ~%~
          >  90%             '      18          17, 738        25
           70-89                   20          13,895       20
           50-69                   14           11, 922       17
             50                    42
          • TOTAL                 94           G9, 864       100

    Based on a review of a prior EEA study of the potential plants for SCS,  **
an  addition 18 plants (9717 MW) that are not burning conforming coal  were
identified.  These 'plants are listed in Table 2 and maybe candidates for SCS.
Their inclusion, as SCS candidates is based on their location in areas with
population densities under 1, 000 persons per square mile.  It' these relatively
rural locations are dominated by power plant emissions, they may bo good
SCS candidates.  JJ^i2iiL£^l^^L^l'iilJii^^                      1S ll£iliiir-c-llJj)
make tins determination.                                  """""

'••The following .sections explain the methodology for defining  the liability area.

** T!1(? ^-] V:'1Lll'll51l;LJ}lJ'-i-CJl_^_-:^--^(-.;l!.'1. AiXL_A
-------
    Based on the above findings the following tentative conclusions can
be made:

    - a low estimate of the potential for SCS would be the 13 plants
      in table 1  (17, 730 M\V) that accounted for over cJO",'o of the
     emissions  of SC>2  in the surrounding iiabiliiy area.

    - A  high estimate of the  potential  for SCS would be  the  52 plants
      in table 1 (-33, 555 MW) that-account for over  50% of the emissions
      of SO 2 in the surrounding liability area plus the 18 plants (Q717)
      in table 2  - that are located in counties v/i'h  population densities
    .  under 1, 000 persons per square mile.  It should be emphasized
      that a detailed analysis of most of these  plants would be required
      to verify their ability to meet primary standards with SCS.

The above "conclusions arc intended to be used only for analytical  purposes
and do not constitute  a regulatory decision concerning the use of SCS,
                                                                                      1
                        STUDY METHODOLOGY                                 •   '  |
      i
1.  Basic Approach
   A list of plants was developed to inclu'de all coal burning plants which
arc considered to require additional emission control to meet primary    '           \
ambient air quality standards for SOv .  Next, a liability area was defined            '•;
within which emissions from each SCS candidate plant rould result in a               }
violation of primary stands ret?.  Detailed emission data were drawn  from             I
the KPA_I\KDS emission file to define area source emissions and all sig-              t
nifleant point source  emissions within the liability area.  These data were             '.
tabulated and summ?ri7,ed.  An assessment was then made based on  plant             :
emissions  compared  with  toted area emissions to determine the potential          .    '
of each plant for use  of SCS.                             •                    '        '^

2>  Study Criterion                                       '        .                   [

    The geographical area in \vhich the plant may significantly  affect air
quality is  defined as the liability area,  it is assumed that this area will
vary with  plant SO^  emissions as follows:

              SO2 Tons/llr             Radius  (Miles) Defining
                                          Liability Area 	

                  16                   •            1
                  24        •                     10
                  32                  '           15
                  40 '               •             20
                  48      ..          \         25
                                         \
The liability area is based on the worst case limited mixing meteorological
conditions.   Distances define the- minimum  area i;: v.'hich the '.M h-jur pirmary
standard may be exceeded in flat terrain as a result of plant emissions.  The
basis for determining Uiir. iiabiliiy area i^ ihscus.sed u\ Section '1.

-------
     2.  Within  the  liability  area, 'it  is assumed  that  SO?  emissions from
 other  source0, nur.l  bo  relatively  low for a  plant  to  be considered an SCS
 candidate.   Otherv;isn , an SCS syst -^i m \y not,  reduce  arVL_k"iJllliJ_i!--Y J^0_a __

    The minimum liability area as defined under the study criterion  is  based
on air pollution concentration estimates of the likely impact of  largo
isolated pollution sources.  For a selected adverse' •! mnoni of peri odica 11 v
exceeding the 1IA.AQS.  Beyond this liability area, the pollutants are
diluted to the extent  that !!A.Ai)S should not be endangered.  It should be
noted that tho li.ibiliiy are.) ultimately must be established on a plant-by--
planl ))jsis and must consider factors unique to each plant.
                                                                          n
                                                                             'o

-------
   I/  Carpenter, S.B., et al , 1971:  Principle Plume Dispersion Models:
   — •  TVA Power Plants.  ^L^MJlJloll^c°Ili^^        Vo1 • 22, Mo.  8,
     -.  pp. 491-495.
                       *               '                  «.
   2/  Pooler, F., and I.E. Miemeyer, 1970:  Dispersion From, Tall Stacks:
   ~   An Evaluation.  Paper !lo.  ME-14D, presented at the Second Interna-
       tional Clean Air Congress, December 6-11, 1970, Washington,  D.C.,
       31 pp.

   3/  .Pooler, F., 1965:  Potential  Dispersion of Plumes  from Large Power
   ~   Pl.iiM.s.  AJM_6_, Environmental Pro) action Aqency, Washington,  D.C. ,
       13 pp.

   A_/  Environmental  Protection Agency, 1971:  Requirements for Preparation,
       Adoption, and Submittal  of Implementation Plans,   re_do_ral Reqislor,
       Vol. 36, No. 158, pp.  15486-15506.

   5_/  Turner, D.C.,  1970:  Workbook, of Atmospheric Dispersion Estimates.
       AP-26, Environmental Prelection Agency, Washington, D.C.  84  pp.
     The- selected  adverse  atmospheric  dispersion  condition is the limited    '        »
 ii'ixino  situ,i! ion.   This has  h-en  ident i i iod  liv both  TYA1  and iTA:n with  appropriate graphs'' for           |;
 estimating  a tmospheric dispersion.  The model  is used  to  rcl-ite emissions,          |
 air quality,  and  downwind dis-tances.   The method described! in Appendix A    _       t
_for obtaining 24-hour avcrnqe  concentrations is 'ei:i])lo)'cd.   This nioth.od              \
 assumes  that  the  wind persists  in  one diiection  for  6  of  the 2-1 hours.
 The calculated  6  hour value  is  divided  by 4  to obtain  a  24 hour average.     '       1

     Wind .speed  and  mixing height used in  the model are 2.5 meters per second        ;r
 and 1)00 meters, respectively.   These  meteorological  conditions are known            I
 to  occur  for  periods of several hours on  a significant number of days in            i
 many parts  of the United  States.   For example, an  initial  review of available       \
 data indicates  that these or equivalent poor dispersion  conditions are likely       |
 to  occur  for  G  hours or longer  on  an  average of  8-10 days  per year in the niic!-      {
 eastern United  States.                                             •          '   .     |
                                                                                     t
     For  these meteorological conditions and  the model  specified above, emission     j
 rates ranging from  16 tons/hr  to 48 tons/hr  were considered.   The greatest  .        j
 downwind  distance at. which  concentration  estimates exceeds the 24-!io,ir ;,'-V-.ns        '
 (based  on a  6 hour  calculated  value of  4  times the 24-hour standard) is indicated   i
 in  the  table  for  selected emission rates.                                           i

-------
                    TABLE  1             	_
CANDIDATE  PLAETf;  FOR SCS IDENTIFIED BY EPA
State
A la ban a
Florida

Illinois
w*
V
V



w





•»•


Indiana
t*-













V
Plant
Uido..s Creek
Gannon
Big r.e.id
Hi. .on
Grand To..vr
Mori do sic.
Coffeen
Edwards
V.'alU-cc
.loliet
Kincaid
Pov/erton
Waukegan

V.'ill Cci.Tity
Wood River
Dal Imon
Lakes ide
Venice
Michigan City
Clifty Creek
State Line
T f T
Tanners Creek

Stout
Daily
Mitchell
rii*'ic t ("• r*

.' C(bard'.,|.<_rt
Wo bash River
.'.Cully
', Karri ck
x PC tors bury
• r i
1,9? a
1,270
89?
TH
180
35'
1,005
769
30.
' 1 ,787
1,319
2,10..
933

1 ,2G.
65C
1C.
1 'i C
47-'
73c
1,30''
97;
1 T pr
1 , i 01

83'
61(
52.
15f

14:
9G:
40:
73'<
'I?-'
'/, Of SO-
Lui _ s ions
9.°.:;
54:',
324
79:.
89 :i
94%
91%
r, oc/
J> ^- /o
- 33..
61 •.
95;',
fA'f,
57:.

58";
502
90'.
79.',
19%
7G.
9V ;.
14:i
il?'"''
'1 / »

42%
72;;
vn
4 or.

79:',
GO.;
• 23V,
;jo..
xu
L i a b i 1 i t v ,
H.Til i ..s Hi ic.
• 25 " !
15
10
7
7
7
15
10 •
7 '
25
20
25
7

10
7
7
7
7
7 '
" 20
7
?5
t J

10
K)
7
7

7
10
7
10
1 , . .10
St. i.o
	 . 	
Kentucky
.






;!ory1ar,r_
i
i
1'iicli !gan
1
•
i
i
! .

.


I
.'
i
(•iinnejO(.,i

Missouri
!
1
I
Oh TO
!
;
!
i
.
Plr.nt.
Colcran
Cone Run
Paddy .. Run
Kill Creek

Green P, iver
Paradise
Sha'./neo
Ch.il1: Point
Dickerson
L c '< e r .
CGiinors Creel
r'.'.rysv i 1 le
Pcnr.s.il t

River P-oogo
St. Clr.ir
Troii tori
Cliannol
V/yanJott.? J.'o.
Eric s'o n
His tursky
Cobb

I! lack 1-otj

f'r.ra-.:oc
Sou ix
lab.-.iic

La1.'; T'Lici
C-T-iMiul
Cl'. /••!,:',•!
l'.i_:ii <: i[,,il .
A'J.t...-i:la
Mst L.ikc
^s
r.'.;
521
1,017
333
321
('75)
263
2," 553
1,750
7?3
5SG
38G
5 40
230
L?/

933
1 ,905
1 ,070
5,1
1GO
171
510

487

923
1 ,100
2,417

1 GO
1,?20
200

4'JG
1,257 _
7, of SO.
f l.'i SS i . ni
95.:
30;
5:.
• " 64(;

94=.
91"
57-;
83%
89::
7v:
33;
83';
C. ' 1

?()'-'.
p.r.
56V
i:.
27;;
3'.
897,

3//,

98'i
33:;
71:;

~\~*
-^ .
22"
3V.

55%
434
f
I
i
?
Liability • !
P .1 •_! i u S ."i i 1 C S '
15 j
15 j
7 i
• 7 i
f
^
' i
\
?r> i
!
25
|
7 '
t
7 |
7 :
7
*

10
23
10
7
7
7
7



7
10 i
.
25
_, .
/ f
25
7

10
20
                                                               1

-------
.ale
    y
T/V',!.l ' 1
Pane 2
Plant I
I
Lake Shore
Conc-jVi 1 le
Pit .*. .y
Pos Ion
Gorge
Burger
Sa-rmis
Huskirgu:.)
River
Ph i 1 o
Tide!
Kyger Creek
Ii •> f\, < i
I iCjutl
Mior.ii Fort
Bcckjorcl
' Stuart
Elrama
Phillips
Chooi/ick
Crawford
S,ev/ord

₯

1 !'.M'
	 	
514
,276
231
232
23
544
2,304
1 ,530
500
226
1 ,036
t>5

393
1,221
,>-,,
, O J I
510
411
5C&
117
268



',', of S02
r-..:iv; ions ]
~- 	 ~~
3"?';
70:;
57X
y:;v,
13.-;
' Q'J'',
39?;
157,
94",
8X
99.',
5?,",

GO.^
mrf,
99',
46:',
25;-;
34'.',
1%
3'Yf,

•>
t
*.
Li.ilii 1 ilv ( |
f"; li '.r:, .'li :or,. .
i !
/ <
25 . i
i
7 !
t
7 j
.,
/
10
25
10
10
7. '
15
V

20
10
7
7
7
7
7

• .
Stale i
PC. Mil.




Tcr.n.


V i r "1 *•
L C. ,)
3-1,*;
14",
12.",
00',
r-r;
23 '^
13;; '

!20";
- 'r: 1
i fi
i fj /;
'. •> ',
2'i






I


1 i.ibility
KT .'. i ,is '' i ' cs
10
7
7
7
7
25
. 20
7
7

7
7
*1
/
10
yT
'


'

'




-------
                           Table  .  2
          /\Diimo;,'AL  fAr.'nin/rn:  scs POIO  PI ANTS
IDKNTTFI KI>
TVA Plants
Colbert A & B
• Allen

£lailts_<_IilQJ:l!i
^ Marion
" Logansporl •
»" Ames H2
v J. [)e Young
Louis It Clark
"" Hamilton
Holtvood
Hunlock
Henderson

Other Plants
De lav/a re City
Hammond
Morgan town
f- ,-,•(„ ~.-.
UU i di iv_ i
• Mo! save
Four Corners
V No. Vine St.

TOTAL - 10 PLAN
HY F.PA AN'P FFA*
States
Alabama
Tennessee
-
' St/rt£s_
11 lino is
Indiana
Iowa
Michigan
Montana
'Ohio
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Kentucky

States
De lav/a re
Georgia
Maryland
Nevada
Nevada
New Mexico
Ohio

IS

MW
139G
990
2386
MW
99
74
68
77
50
84
75
93
_JiL_
671
MM
130
953
1451
227
1520
2270
_JPi_
6660
" 97 } 7"
  *Tiio basis  for ccr^ic.'..^- i-u, tf-•.-.,-  [-.T.inL., ,i:,  r,CS canci i;!,i L(",
  is  Ihrir  Ice:,! titsr. in .!n:ar. \/il!i ,1  popul 
-------
 i  >

 : ' i  r^l
  . j  t™rvi.*«-Ii*"'


""77^2::
         i
        ij»

        !
                          \ '  ' ' ; i
                          . ,  i i ; i
                          i i
                         1 i
  S3
1 MM %  r", A \ ^ M M
 I i  V\5 y   D (\\ \ XL 0 
-------
X   B

-------
  lAlHi!^ m ~ CU'RUKNT  AND PROJECTED CONSUMPTION

    OF COAL r.V F.l.F.CTHU' FTH.1T1FS (million tons 'vr. > M
                          73    75    77    80   83
Consumption by
   existing coal plants    388   466   466  466   466  466

Consumption, by new
   plant:.-2 /                -      -    60  175   298  391

Consumption by
   existing plants that
   convert from oil or      -      5     15    60    60   60
   gas to coal 3/                       	       	 	
                         388    471   541  751  824  917
Typrojecnons areTxvsud on the most likely demand projections
   by the Technical Advisory Committee on Finance to the
   National Pov/or  Survey and on data reported under l-'PC in
   Docket 11-362, April 1, 1974.

 2/Nc\v plants are defined as  those plains coming on line after
 ~~ 1975.   It was also  assumed that all fossil plants coming on
   line e'.Mcr 1977 would burn  coal us their principal  fuel

 3/Schedule for conversion was based on FPA's preliminary
 ~ analysis of the environmental- ivqiu foments o! the I'lneruy
 '  Supply and I'lnvironment;1.!  C'oordi nal u>n Ael of 1974.  It was'
   assumed thai planis thai couui  usi; u-v; sulliif eu.il v/ounl
   need until 1977 or  19110 to obiam ilu  coal and upjM-atn.' the
   efficiency of parl iculat c control.  I'hc' I'einaininj,  plants
   would install s.e rubbi: rs  by  19110.

-------
         TAT-! -I-''
LHili'y coal cor.sr,mp'.i».i
  in K>V:> (mil!:, ; .- tons;yr)

      * Existing coal burning p!an;r,

    •  * Converti0:1 of existin;;; oi) or
           [f?.s plants

        Total Consumption in 1975
471
        -106
          •591      -.20
Projected rnelr. o-d of compliance (million tons/yr)

      •'•-' Currently  in complic.nce v/itli_Sll""r;

      * Will bo  in  ccrnpH-nce b;,scd on iSIP)
      * J^ov/ and medium .sulfur ccnl

      * "Washed coal

      * Blending

      ••-' Scrubbers

        Sub-Total

Projected (o;i:>.:• r;c that \vill not be in coraplianc
\vJ1h  emission regulations
     M
 200"    180
  5
  35

_J_3

 351


 120
           95
           35
          4-55
           4G
                      3/
                    15
  57 JjicUulus  ,'.' ;:: Til ic-.;r i c:;:; of coal I'n.i!  h:is  rv^vul; ' oo;ni' into
 *~  comnl ian'- 1.' ;•.:;  a  ri'S.nii 01  SI!' n .I:'.;O.K'. U-r ;;.•>•  i< >\ l< • .."; i, • :,! ;'.'S:
    A)abam:i,  Tenn« -ss> -r,  .^'oulh ( 'an/1 ; na,  and I'ol oradu.

  2 / P r ( > 1 1 % '  t r • ' ;  ' ' ! • I i t i M : ' . !  ' < > : i • \ : " •• • 1 1 1 ' ' '  v. 1 1 !  b • • , M > i > 1 1 < > > 1 : 1 1 1 1 • • '  \ <  \~ ' ! i •
    a 1 1 p i <>',•; 1 1 i • ; < • \ . >. n  r • '. ; .  i • > : . . '  '. '. '••'< : . : . • • i • • • • : :  ' • < : ' ' •. ' i ! ••>•': : \ .  . . :  ' ' •  ' :
    i'ur Clt-cr;. ::-.,'  !:u::a::a,  .\i ;.-:: :;;.-.::, (•!.;•>,  ) '• •: :..-•;/! va n:a,  a:  ! i- .•..-.

  3 / An add i I i o' ,;\ 1 hi million tour; of <-u rreiil <•( >• •, i nr< uluc; i< >n \v ill  pi < •'. ).• ; ! .
    liol hi'  in C(>! -i pi ia ncr \vh'-n  I >cnluc|:y ';; ,SI1":;  ;ire  rnKTi-cd in \'j'i'i.

-------
        BY_ii:5 1 S ' i " r\Tj_VM . . \ >: ' j'S ( Th o v \ : -. ; u <, d j ri_e : * a \_v a t j_rO


  Cummulalive Demand for  Scrubbers (thousand  megawatts) I/
                                            \
           '     75      77      805      83 5/    »5 5/
 1 2_/           '7       32       CO      GO      GO



 23]          .7      "28     33-5]     GO       GO
       »

 3 37             7      28     33-51    33-51     GO



 4 4/             7      28      33-51   33-51    33-51
 I/The high end of the range assumes that SCS is reliable  and
~  enforceable at 18 plants which have a total capacity of IB, 000
   megawatts.  The low end of the range assumes that SCS is
   reliable and enforceable at 7 0 plants  which hove a toial capacity                    {
   of 53, 000 megawatt*.  l-'or both estiniates it was assumed -.ha: ii                   j
   SCS \vas nm alio\veu a? a pei-manem sliale^v oO '.'•-, 01 ;ne piar.iii
   v/ould install scrubbers and 50';,o would use lo\v sulfur coal.

 2 /"Under opu'.in i  LL \vas assumed i:;at the 144 million ions of                          J
   existing coal that would not be in compliance with, the current                     J
   or projected SiP's  and the 138 million tons thai will be  demanded                   j
   between 1973 and 1935 would comply with  constant emission lirriita-                 I
   tions by 1980 by utili'/ang the following methods of compliance:          •           j

         - low and medium sulfur coal       110    (39%)
         - washed coal                        15    ( 5°/o)
         -blending                            40   (14%)                             I
         - scrubbers                         117   (42T-,)                             I
                   Total    •                  2H~2
 3/Uncler options 2 and 3 it was assumed that plan's would u»'uply
   with constant emission  limitations by 1083 or 1985 usinj1, llie saiiie
   methods of compliance  as outlined in option 1.  llov/evi-r, in tin1
   interim, 1CS and tall siacks \vould be used by appro:-; inu1 1 el v
   18-"/ 0 pl.mLs  v/'r, ic!i would co:\:;umo 3r>-l?i'- ni-il-'-r, : ;)n:;  p;-r v<-:>r.
   It was also cu'.sunu-d that in lf'811 or l!'8j 50','r oi  llu':-,c plant:, v, <• u •-•>  d
 "~ iiulel'ini tely.

 5/lhidcr the  Knrrp.y Supply ^  l-'nviroivnent al Coordinat/urn /\c; \1-',S.1-X ,\)
 "~ 24, 000 M \V of rapacity  are  expcrl rd lo  (.-onviTi  from oil to  roal.  The
   above fslhuairs for I'.U'.O, 1083, and  1985 assume that 14,000 MW of
   this  capacity will  require seruhbr rs whib- Ihe remaminr, 10,(H)0 will
   meet rei|Ui n-mriit s by  usini; K>\v i.ullvir  i;oal.

-------
        TABLE 1M -- PROJECTED DEMAND EOR LOW SULFUR
    '•- Projections are based on the most likely demand projects by the
     Technical Advisory Committee on Finance to the National Po\ver  •
     Survey and on data reported under FPC Docket  11-3G2, April 1,  1/J7-1,


Period


76-77
78-80

81-83
84-85

COAL AND

Low Sul fur Coal
(million ions / yr )

.40
77

82
62

SORUF.P.ERS HY ,\E\V PLANTS
Scrubbers -;;:;:
•:•* (Thous.
(million ions /NT) mep,a\vatts)

20 8
38 15

41 1C
31 12



Total
Consunv.n ion
(miTljon tons)
60
115
.
123
93 ,

Total         261 '              130              5]            391                    . !
   ** It .was assumed that 2/3 of the phnits would use low sulfur coal                   j
      (predominately western Low sulfur coal) and 1 / o of the plants   .                  \
      would use scrubbers.

-------
                 BY NFAY AND EXISTING PLAXTS
      Cnnarnillative DemandJor Scrubbers  (Ibous. mcp.awatts)

Option              ^5_       77_      80      8_3      85^

   1         .        7 "     40      83       9'9      111


   2               "  7     .27-36    5G-7-1     99      111


   3                 7     27-36    56-74    72-90    111

                                 '
   4                 7     27-36    56-7']    72-90   83-102
    ^NvirrihOi'S in fRis lahlo were derived by adding tlu-
     io iabh's 3 and •!.

-------

-------
    TAR1.E Cl -COST KST1M ATF.S   SK.
                                                A1 •
       THE KCGXO.vnr 1M PACT OF SO?.  REGULATIONS


    The estimated shown in the follov/ing table \vere used to

calculate the cost of complying with SO ^ regulations for each

scenario.

                               Incremental Cost (1974 dollars)

                             Capital (S/l;w)
Method of Compliance



- Low Dulfur coal

    Existing Plants

    Ne\v Plants


- Washed Coal
- Blending

    Existing' Plants


-• Scrvibbcrs

    Existing Plants

    New Plants


- ICS'and Tall Stacks

    Existing Plants
                                    $70

                                    $55
   Annual Cost-'
  $7Tbri    'CrrnTr
                                                $ 7. GO

                                                 $ 6. 20
 $0. 20

  $0. 'JO
             )3i i:



               33

                27
40

30
                                 $ 5
$.75
    ^InY-Tuni"-'. mr rcmrnl :\1  fuel f'a,c; OK M costs,  di-ufci iatiut^, tax'-;1.,  and
    return on ins'estmcnt

-------
                               OK AI.TI:IIN \TI\
        Required Curnmula! ivo 1 nv o s Ime r t  (bi'll ion 197-1 dollars)"
>tion
     BO
83
8f>
    -  Exir;lin£ plants

    -  New plants

    -  Total
4.2
1. 3
5. 5.
4.2
2. 1
6. 3
4. 2
2. 8
7.0
    - New plants

    - Total
1, P.  - 3, 7      4. 3 - 4. 5      4.3-4.5

   1.3             2.1            2.8

3. 9  - 5. 0       G. 4 - G. 6      7.1-7.3
    -  Existing plants

    -  New plants

    -  Total
2. G -.3. 7       2. G- 3. 7      4.3-4.5'

   1.3              2.1             2.8

3. 9 - 5. 0       4. 7 - 5. 8      7.1  -  7. 3
    -  New

    -  Tolal
2. G - 3. 7       2. G - 3. 7      2. G - 3. 7

    1.3             2.1             2.8

3. 0 - 5. 0       4.7- 5. 8      f>. -\ - G. 5
•'•Option:;  '.'.  and 'J ro;;l  more than option I  in  UK!!! and \'.){}'.) In rau:,c  ;h'-
plonl.1-' '."Mi'.'!; ','.:;'>: ll'^'S !!V.'. !:1 '..'-!'. :;uvji.:- ';••',  !'.;V7 .o'n! MM;;  ; i,;,',;i.l 1  i;< I'm-':;
eonlro!:-, by  in;U'. or l'.i!;T>

-------
TA1U.K C3 - SUMMARY OK Till-' ANNUM, COST Ol'
ALTERNATIVE scm:nri ,i:s run COMIM.YINC.
. . WITH S0? RKGULATIONS*
Annual Cost (billion 1974 dollars)"
Option . 80 '83 -85
1 . . • .
9
- Existing plants 1. 5 1. 5 1. 5
- New plants • - 1. 1 1. 9 2. 5
- Total 2. G 3. 4 4. 0
2
- Existing plants . 7 - 1. 2 1. 5 1. 5
'- New plants 1.1 1. 9 2. G
-. T -^ •< ~ "i 1P-9'3 °<1 /* n
i \ * « c, i. j JL • O <-' • ^-* • ^ « J i « V
3
- Existing plants • . 7 - 1. 2 .7-1.2 1.5
-'New plants 1.1 1. 9 2. 5
- Total 1. 8 - 2. 3 2. G - 3. 1 4. 0
4
- Existing plants . 7 - 1. 2 . 7 - 1. 2 .7-1.2
- New plants 1.1 • 1.9 . 2.5
- Total 1. 8 - 2. 3 2. G - 3. 1 3. 2 -3.7

:' lc'i j'_u fi1;, an- rsi i mat rs of the annual nisi in li'7'i, I'.'JK;, i1)'1,!; ;in<:
15)85. 'I'he c.-.st i mat es include >. nc renieni ,t | mel ,nid C '<•. \! eos.l.s.




1.
[
J
i
j
i
r

i.
1
(
•
t

,



•

i
i
CX) s I more U i a 11 u p I 11111 1  in  1!'!'.! i  ami 1'.' 1!. i  ! • i • v a 11:; i  the c >. i s I i n:',  plant:
which u:;<: SC'.S build tall  stacl.s by  l'J77 and (hen  install pcrin.un -nt
controls  by l'Jl',3 or  l!U>5.

-------