A Techno-Economic Decision Support Tool for Guiding States’ Responses to the EPA Clean Power Plan

User’s Guide for

Interactive State On-site Mitigation Analytical Policy Tool (ISOMAP)

Model based on June 2014 Proposed Regulation Version 10.1 (27 May 2015)

Updates to follow final regulation announcement

1

Department of Engineering and Public Policy

Carnegie Mellon University

Approach Overview

• State-level analysis

• Coal-fired, unit-specific study – 635 coal boilers are modelled in detail

• Transparent – Model runs in Microsoft Excel without macros

– Many input values are shown and are available to be adjusted by the user

• Interactive – Effects of adjustments to multiple model parameters

(e.g., cost of coal and natural gas) immediately visible

2

WARNING!!!

• This is a preliminary version based on the June 2014 proposed EPA regulation – Not all the supporting data is accessible in this version – An updated model reflecting changes in the final

regulation will be released in the Summer 2015

• Please note any problems or questions with model – CleanPowerPlanTool@andrew.cmu.edu

• Merging historical datasets from different sources can lead to inconsistencies. – Where possible, we have noted the source of the data

used – Please let us know of any corrections in the historical data

3

Suggestions

• This is a very large spreadsheet! • Though interactive, if you have an older computer with

limited memory, it will be slow. – You will have to be patient.

• The “control panel” is also large. – To see all of the controls at once, you will have to zoom

out, making the fonts too small to be read. – Highly recommend splitting the screen so that different

parts can be seen at the same time.

• This is basic Excel. – You can copy and paste results into other spreadsheets for

further analyses and comparisons.

4

Disclaimer

5

© [2015] Carnegie Mellon University. All Rights Reserved.

The data and information made available through this site (the “Data”) is made available on an “as-is” “as available” basis solely for non-commercial academic and research purposes. The data are not intended to provide legal advice or legal opinions regarding any laws and/or regulations. To the maximum extent allowed under the law, Carnegie Mellon University is not responsible for any claims , damages or other liability arising out of use of the data, and you are responsible for your use of it. The data is not provided to (and may not be used by) any person or entity in any jurisdiction in violation of applicable laws, rules or regulations. By downloading, copying and/or using the data, you agree that you have read and agreed to the provisions in this paragraph and the terms of use. If you do not agree, you may not access or use the data.

Details with Transparency

6

Three-Step Model Process

1. Every coal-fired unit is made compliant with EPA MATS pollution regulations (SOx NOx, PM, and Hg) – LCOE calculated – Takes into account current configuration – User can improve the turbine efficiency two different ways

2. The cost and effectiveness of eight CO2 mitigation technologies is determined for each boiler – NG co-fire (5%-50%), two boiler upgrades, change in coal rank,

CCS (10%-90%), NG retro (100%), and replacement with new NGCC

3. Given user-defined forecasts of demand and generation mixes, the model will immediately determine the least-cost, state-wide solution that will meet EPA metric

7

Layout of Model Interface

8

User Interface

9

10

9

8

7 6

5 4 3 2

1

12

11

1. Selected state 2. Historical trends and forecasts 3. Historical generation data 4. EPA 2030 generation mix 5. User-defined 2030 mix 6. User controlled variables

7. Coal costs 8. Coal boiler operations 9. Boiler-level mitigation cost frontier 10. Boiler-level mitigation costs 11. Heat rate improvement model 12. Mitigation technology distribution

Historical Trends and Forecasts

10

2

• Shows state-level trends – Historical 2002-2012 – Forecast 2002 to 2030

• Generation and demand – Imports and exports – Includes EIA and EPA forecasts

• Renewables includes historical hydro and EPA forecast of non-hydro (Hydro is not included in EPA analysis

• Non-renewables include coal, NG and petroleum, and nuclear

• Carbon intensity (lbs/MWh) for both fossil and total generation

• User-defined values are shown as circles in 2030 for comparison with EPA forecasts

Details on the Historical Technology Mix and Population

Population

Generation technologies grouped by EPA

categories. “Ex” shows generation excluded in

EPA calculations

Demand, imports/exports

and total generation accounting for line loss (“Available”)

Per Capita comparisons

Generation intensity calculated for all

generation and fossil fuel generation. Million

tons of emitted CO2 shown

11

EPA Values for 2030

Values from EPA website

Demand is adjusted EIA forecast accounting for

energy efficiency improvements from EPA

EPA “Goal” for selected state

12

Intensity is measured in

lbs/MWh

% change is measured from

2012 values

User-defined 2030 Mix

EPA metric for user-selected values

Intensity improvement from

2005 and 2012

“Sliders” allow user to adjust the technology

mix for 2030 (“orange” values)

“Sliders” allow user to adjust the demand and generation totals for

2030 (“orange” values)

Spreadsheet “solves” for needed coal and coal

intensity to meet EPA goal (“green” boxes)

Intensity, EPA metric, and million of tons of CO2 for

user-defined technology mix

13

User-Controlled Variables

• Price of natural gas • Price of coal by rank • Price of CO2

• Natural gas pipeline distance adjustment (% greater than straight crow flight)

• Line loss percent • Retrofit cost model parameters for CCS

calculations

• Net or gross calculation • Coal and gas plant operating hours

– Min and max capacity factor

• Equal reduction of all coal capacity factor option

• Retirement model parameters • Fixed charge factor

Parameters affect all plants in the selected state

14

$5.50 NG Fuel Cost ($/MMBTU) Net or Gross generation

$1.61 161 Price of Bituminous ($/MMBTU)

$0.58 58 Price of Sub-bituminous ($/MMBTU)

$1.31 131 Price of Lignite ($/MMBTU) #

51% 51 Min coal capacity factor

$0.00 Price of CO2 ($/ton) # 88% 88 Max coal capacity factor

#

0.0% 0 NG pipeline distance adjustment 0% 0 Reduction of Coal capacity factor

0

7.5% 75 Line loss (%)

80 Boiler retirement age (years)

0.0% 0 CCS base plant retrofit cost adjustment # 25 Booklife (years)

3.0% 3 CCS SOx retrofit cost adjustment # 12.1% FCF

0.0% 0 CCS water tower retrofit cost adjustment

Net

EPA Metric

6

Comparison of intensity trends and LCOE for coal generation

15

Unit operation for user-defined 2030

solution • Each unit in the state is ranked by

LCOE of a compliant plant meeting necessary CO2 mitigation (solved to meet user-defined goal)

• Technology needed to meet CO2 requirement shown (e.g., CCS at 12% for first boiler)

• For a given state’s mix of boilers, many different technologies could be needed

• Operating hours (historical average or based on user-defined minimum/maximum)

• Plants are added until generation needed to meet demand in user-defined forecast is met.

• Expensive plants have zero annual hours

16

Technologies Used to Mitigate CO2

• Within the selected state, different boilers use different mitigation technologies to achieve user-specified goal

• Distribution of technologies weighted by size (MW) of plant or based on the number of plants

17

Compliant, 9774

Supercritical, 0

Ultracritical, 0

NG Retro, 0NG cofire,

1542

CCS, 0NGCC, 560

Distribution of Technologies Meeting CO2 Regulation

Compliant, 13

Supercritical, 0

Ultracritical, 0

NG Retro, 0

NG cofire, 3

CCS, 0

NGCC, 6

Based on MW Based on Count

Unit-level Cost Calculations

• For each unit in the state, cost frontier for mitigating carbon is shown

• Details of each mitigating technologies is displayed graphically and in table form

• Needed CO2 intensity to meet user-defined goal is shown with black dashed line

• Two units can be compared

18

Heat Rate Improvement Model and Coal Type Selection

• Three options available for heat rate improvement – No improvement – EPA 6% improvement for $100/kW for all boilers – Sargent & Lundy model with user-defined parameters

• Compared to the best plant of the same design, how much improvement is possible? • What is the cost of the improvement? • What is the most improvement that is possible?

• Sub-bituminous and lignite plants can be switched to bituminous

19

Coal Type Used

Default

Heat Rate Improvement Model

505 50% 50 % improvement

100 $97 Cost of improvement ($/KW)

1250 1,245 Maximum improvement (BTU)

Heat Rate Improvement?

S&L Model

Input Sequence

20

Notes on Using ISOMAP Tool

• It is important to follow the steps on the next slide. • Selecting a new state will require adjusting the generation and

demand levels, and the technology mix before looking at the results • Strongly suggest updating user parameters to the EPA base case

values to start. • Then sensitivity on variables can be explored …

– “What if renewables are less than EPA forecast, how will coal generation be affected?”

– “What if the nuclear generation is less than EPA forecast?” – “What if demand is greater than EPA forecast?” – “What happens to least-cost, coal-mitigation technologies if the 2030

price of natural gas (or coal) is different than EPA estimates?” – …

21

Input Sequence

1. Select state, and if needed, reset values to EPA base levels

2. Set demand and generation estimates for 2030

3. Set generation mix for all technologies except for coal

4. Set model variables

5. Set heat-rate improvement parameters

6. Excel model determines the necessary amount of generation from coal and the carbon intensity needed to meet EPA metric goal 22

6

5

4

3

2

1

Contacts

23

• Comments and reporting of problems CleanPowerPlanTool@andrew.cmu.edu

• Dr. Paul Fischbeck

pf12@andrew.cmu.edu (412) 268-3240

• Dr. Haibo Zhai hbzhai@andrew.cmu.edu (412) 268-1088

• Jeff Anderson

jja1@andrew.cmu.edu (503) 956-4667