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.,-wB^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 trvi.*«-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.
------- |