N C S L L e g i s l a t i v e S u m m i t A u g u s t 1 1,

Similar documents
Reducing Power Plant Emissions: EPA s New Proposed Rules For Mercury

U.S. EPA s s Clean Air Gasification Initiative

Air Emissions Permitting Considerations for an Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) Unit Potentially Located in the State of Delaware

Updated State-level Greenhouse Gas Emission Coefficients for Electricity Generation

Zero Net Carbon Portfolio Analysis

The long-term life cycle private and external costs of high coal usage in the US

Power Sector Transition: GHG Policy and Other Key Drivers

confidence estimates of reserves] using current market conditions and current technologies)

Duke/Vectren Proposed Integrated Gasification Combined-Cycle Cycle Power Plant: Poor Energy Planning for Indiana. March, 2007

Future of Coal in America Update on CO 2 Capture & Storage Project at AEP s Mountaineer Plant

DATA ASSUMPTIONS AND DESCRIPTION OF STUDIES TO BE PERFORMED 2014 EGSL & ELL Integrated Resource Plans

Coal Closure In Ontario

Understanding the Scale of the Problem: US Energy Sources and CO2 Emissions

Electricity Markets. Rapid Conference May 17, Mike Rencheck Rencheck Consulting LLC

L.D. Carter For USCSC

UPDATE ON THE KEMPER COUNTY IGCC PROJECT Gasification Technologies Conference

Generation Technology Options in a Carbon- Constrained World

The Cost of Power Generation with CCS

PRISM 2.0: THE VALUE OF INNOVATION IN ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROLS

Advanced Coal Technologies. Laufer Energy Symposium. Dianna Tickner Peabody Energy April 5, 2013

california CCS coalition Created to represent CCS industry to ensure CCS is part of state s carbon stabilization program. Bring voices to the table th

Coal Low Cost Fuel for the Future

Energy-Environment Relationship: How Much Does Environmental Regulation Affect Investment in Energy Infrastructure?

The Cost of New Generating Capacity in Perspective

Technical Supplement to Opening Statement April 28, 2016 Clean Air Council Hearing The Clean Power Plan: Impact on New Jersey

Client Name/Presentation Title

Non-Technical Summary

CLEAN COAL TECHNOLOGY (CCT) II

Overview of CO2 Capture Technologies, System Integration, and Costs

2012 GENERATION TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT Generation Technology Cost & Performance Technical Supplement to 2012 ENO IRP

Appendix 3.C Electricity Generation Economics: Bases and Assumptions

COAL-FIRED POWER PLANT PLANNING ASSUMPTIONS

Mercury Measurement and Control

NATURAL GAS DEVELOPMENT

CSAPR & MATS: What Do They Mean for Electric Power Plants?

State Policy Options for Protecting the Environment, Keeping Electricity Affordable and Reliable, and Powering State Economies

Public Workshops on Carbon Capture and Sequestration

ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS

FutureMetrics LLC 8 Airport Road Bethel, ME 04217, USA

WÄRTSILÄ CORPORATION

Case Study : Underground Coal Gasification (UCG) Majuba Update. Mark van der Riet Corporate Consultant Eskom Holdings Ltd South Africa

Carbon Capture and Sequestration and its Potential Implementation in North Carolina. Sam Helton

U.S. Energy Security and Water. Paul Faeth CNA Corp. May, 2012

Greenhouse Gas Reporting Requirements. Georgia Environmental Conference Aaron Mitchell August 23, 2012

AEP Ohio. Combined Heat and Power (CHP) May 24 th, 2017 Steve Giles Vice President Alternative Energy Hull & Associates, Inc.

CCS - Commercially Viable but a Political Priority?

Natural Gas Facts & Figures. New Approach & Proposal

The Economic Future of Nuclear Power

Fuels Used in Electricity Generation

The President s Climate Action Plan and the Role of States

What is public power?

HEAT RATES FOR USE IN DETERMINING CAMPUS ENERGY CONSUMPTION

The Impacts of EPA s Clean Power Plan on Electricity Generation and Water Use in Texas

THE U.S. AUTOGAS MARKET

Technical and Economic Evaluation of a 70 MWe Biomass IGCC Using Emery Energy s Gasification Technology

Carbon Dioxide Capture from Coal-Fired Power Plants: A Real Options Analysis

Global Iron & Steel Technology Roadmap. Simone Landolina and Araceli Fernandez Kick-off workshop, 20 November 2017

COLORADO ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

05/23/14. Power Sector Transition: GHG Policy and Other Key Drivers

Duke Energy s Edwardsport IGCC Plant: Concept to Commercial

General Session. Four Decades of Pursuing a Diversified Energy Portfolio at MIKE KOTARA. Senior Vice President

Utah Conservation and Respect Report 2014

Nuclear Power Economics and Preservation. Presentation Prepared for NARUC Subcommittee on Accounting and Finance Michael Purdie March 29, 2017

NEW JERSEY STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION NEW JERSEY ADMINISTRATIVE CODE TITLE 7 CHAPTER 27 SUBCHAPTER 10. Sulfur in Solid Fuels

Majuba Underground Coal Gasification

INFRASTRUCTURE FOR CARBON CAPTURE: TECHNOLOGY, POLICY, AND ECONOMICS. CO2 EOR State Deployment Work Group Presentation to NARUC Webinar May 15, 2017

Advanced Coal Technologies for Power Generation

Natural Gas Demand Abstract which should not be con- sidered a projection, 253

EU Climate Change & Energy Policy and Nuclear Fission Research

NCSL Utility Business Model Session

Availability and Costs of Supply-Side Electricity Options

Greenhouse Gas Regulation (new Federal)

1. Find and summarize 3 environmentally related news articles from your hometown.

Pacific Northwest Low Carbon Scenario Analysis

Climate Change and Renewable Energy: The Technology Challenges and Opportunities. National Renewable Energy Laboratory What Makes Us Unique?

Breaking the Climate Deadlock the future of clean power generation. Vinod Khosla Khosla Ventures Nov 2008

Sharing knowledge across Mediterranean Jordan. Cost factors of nuclear electriciy. Jean-Jacques GAUTROT Special Advisor to the AREVA CEO

Review of Xcel Energy's Metropolitan Emission Reduction Alternative Project

INTEGRATED RESOURCE PLAN

Clean Coal Technology Roadmap CURC/EPRI/DOE Consensus Roadmap

POWER CHOICES Pathways to carbon-neutral electricity in Europe by 2050 Nicola Rega Advisor Environment and Sustainable Development Policy

Fuel cells do not depend on wind or sunshine, and generate more electricity per unit of fuel than almost any other distributed energy source.

Generation Technology Assessment & Production Cost Analysis

Maryland Clean Air Progress Report

Greenhouse Gas Emission Factors Info Sheet

Potential Impacts of a Renewable and Energy Efficiency Portfolio Standard in Kentucky

Carbon Footprint Study

Renewable Portfolio Standard Analysis for the State of North Carolina

FACT SHEET MERCURY AND AIR TOXICS STANDARDS FOR POWER PLANTS

Equal Energy Access: The Power of Coal September 14, Gregory H. Boyce Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Peabody Energy

Environmental Responsibility Report

Directed Reading. Section: Global Change. than in the rest of the United States. b. In the United States and Canada, many lakes are dying as their ph

Action on Climate Change and Air Pollution

The Effect of CO2 Emissions Reduction on the U.S. Electricity Sector

PJM Interconnection Economic Analysis of the EPA Clean Power Plan Proposal

GE Energy Meeting Global Demands

COAL WATER SLURRY FUEL Alternate Fuel for Thailand

Fuel Cells: Technical and Economic Assessment

Water Use, Electric Power, and Nuclear Energy: Environmental Stewardship. William Skaff Nuclear Energy Institute September 15, 2009

Chapter 3 Coal-Based Electricity Generation

Transcription:

The Importance of Coal for Electricity Generation N C S L L e g i s l a t i v e S u m m i t A u g u s t 1 1, 2 0 1 3 Jeff Bloczynski, Associate Vice President of Economic Analysis American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity

T o p i c s Coal facts Generating economics Mitigating electricity price volatility Electric reliability Cleaner coal Greenhouse gas regulations What next? 2

C o a l F a c t s Nationally, the amount of coal-fueled generating capacity is second only to natural gas, yet more electricity is produced from coal than any other source. 3 Source: SNL Energy and U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Electric Power Monthly.

G e n e r a t i n g E c o n o m i c s The relative cost of electricity from coal and natural gas change with the market cost of fuel. All-In Generating Cost by Technology and Fuel Coal cheaper than gas Gas cheaper than coal Coal and gas in competition 4 Source: Fuel commodity and delivery prices from SNL Energy, Fixed and Variable O&M costs from EPA, assumes 85% capacity factor, 7,000 Btu/kWh heat rate for Natural Gas CCGT and 10,000 Btu/kWh heat rate for Coal.

G e n e r a t i n g E c o n o m i c s Coal prices have a history of stability relative to natural gas prices, which have nearly doubled from the historic lows of 2012. Market Price for Commodity Fuels 5 Source: SNL Energy.

G e n e r a t i n g E c o n o m i c s Natural gas prices are among the most volatile of any commodity. Based on the current market, gas prices that were $3.62 per MMBtu in July 2013 are as likely to rise to $6.08 as fall to $2.46 in August 2014. 6

C o a l m i t i g a t e s h i g h e n e r g y p r i c e s Coal reduces the risk of high electricity prices by reducing exposure to volatile natural gas prices. Coal generates more when gas prices rise, and less when they fall. Monthly Electricity Generation and Fuel Cost by Source 7 Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration.

C o a l s u p p o r t s g r i d r e l i a b i l i t y Coal-fired power plants typically maintain over two months of fuel on-site, while natural gas generators receive fuel just-in-time. Most natural gas power plants do not have firm fuel supply agreements, opting for the cheaper interruptible rates that may leave them without fuel during periods of high demand. The mismatch between the gas day and the power day in energy markets can require natural gas generators to estimate how much fuel they will need up to two days in advance. Increasing amounts of intermittent generation (solar, wind) can require quick-response from natural gas peaking power plants if they are suddenly unavailable, further taxing the gas supply infrastructure. 8

C l e a n e r C o a l Emissions per kilowatt-hour of sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ), nitrogen oxides (NO x ), and particulate matter (PM) from coal-fueled power plants have been reduced by 89.5 percent over the period 1970-2012. Approximately $110 billion has been invested through 2012 to achieve these emission reductions. By 2015, over 90 percent of U.S. coal-fueled electric generating capacity will have installed clean coal technologies and other advanced emission controls to reduce emissions of SO 2, NO x, PM, mercury, acid gases, and non-mercury metals. 9

N e w S o u r c e P e r f o r m a n c e S t a n d a r d s f o r G r e e n h o u s e G a s e s In 2012, EPA proposed NSPS limits for greenhouse gas emissions of 1,000 lbs. CO 2 per MWh, applicable to both new coal and new natural gas power plants. New coal plants cannot achieve this rate without carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) technology. The President directed EPA to re-propose NSPS by Sept. 20, 2013. ACCCE commissioned a study to determine emissions rates that could be achieved by efficient new coal-fueled power plants. Achievable Emission Rates For New Coal Units 10 Subcategory Supercritical (bituminous and subbituminous) Supercritical (lignite) Ultra-Supercritical [Emissions rate subject to change] IGCC CO 2 Emissions Rate ~1,915 lb/mwh ~2,150 lb/mwh [~1,900 lb/mwh] ~1,915 lb/mwh

11 C C S S t a t u s There currently are no commercial-scale CCS deployments for coal-fueled power plants. The first CCS-enabled power plant is scheduled to come online in 2014 (Mississippi Power s Kemper County IGCC). Financed in part with $270 million from U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) as a CCS demonstration project. CCS R&D funding has dwindled. In 2009, DOE invested $692M for the coal program which focuses on CCS, with an additional $3.4B in stimulus funding which supported CCS demonstration projects primarily. In the President s 2014 budget, no money has been requested for CCS demonstrations. CCS is projected to be expensive to build and operate. Estimates range from $43-$95 per tonne CO 2 (raising generating costs by 36% - 84%).

W h a t n e x t? If NSPS requires CCS for new coal units, the industry might face a catch-22: CCS will not develop into a viable, proven technology until new coal plants demonstrate its effectiveness through trial-and-error, but new coal plants will not be built if they are required to commit to an unproven technology. A regulation seemingly intended to spur CCS deployment may have the unintended consequence of stalling it. A NSPS standard that requires CCS amounts to a ban on new coal power plants. 12

W h a t c a n y o u d o? EPA is expected to re-propose the greenhouse gas NSPS on September 20, and has promised to consult with states in finalizing the rule. If the rule requires CCS for new coal units, you can: Contact state environmental agencies and utility commissions to voice concerns about the implications for electricity cost and reliability. Talk to EPA and the Administration. Tell them that EPA should not set NSPS based on CCS because that would ban new coal plants and kill CCS. File comments with EPA on its re-proposal. 13