Cec 500 2009 084

Arnold Schwarzenegger
Governor
Prepared For:
California Energy Commission

Public Interest Energy Research Program
PIER INTERIM PROJECT REPORT
RENEWABLE ENERGY
COST OF GENERATION UPDATE
Prepared By:
KEMA, Inc.
August 2009
CEC-500-2009-084

Prepared By:
KEMA, Inc.
Charles ODonnell, Pete Baumstark, Valerie Nibler, Karin Corfee, and
Kevin Sullivan
Oakland, CA 94612
Commission Contract No. 500-06-014
Commission Work Authorization No: KEMA-06-020-P-R
Prepared For:
Public Interest Energy Research (PIER)
California Energy Commission

Cathy Turner
Contract Manager
John Hingtgen, M.S.
Project Manager
Energy Generation Research Office
Kenneth Koyama
Office Manager
Energy Generation Research Office
Thom Kelly
Deputy Director
ENERGY RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT DIVISION
Deputy Director
Melissa Jones
Executive Director
DISCLAIMER
This report was prepared as the result of work sponsored by the California Energy Commission. It does not necessarily represent the views of the
Energy Commission, its employees or the State of California. The Energy Commission, the State of California, its employees, contractors and
subcontractors make no warrant, express or implied, and assume no legal liability for the information in this report; nor does any party represent
that the uses of this information will not infringe upon privately owned rights. This report has not been approved or disapproved by the California
Energy Commission nor has the California Energy Commission passed upon the accuracy or adequacy of the information in this report.
Preface
TheCaliforniaEnergyCommissionsPublicInterestEnergyResearch(PIER)Programsupports
publicinterestenergyresearchanddevelopmentthatwillhelpimprovethequalityoflifein
Californiabybringingenvironmentallysafe,affordable,andreliableenergyservicesand
productstothemarketplace.
ThePIERProgramconductspublicinterestresearch,development,anddemonstration(RD&D)
projectstobenefitCalifornia.
ThePIERProgramstrivestoconductthemostpromisingpublicinterestenergyresearchby
partneringwithRD&Dentities,includingindividuals,businesses,utilities,andpublicor
privateresearchinstitutions.
PIERfundingeffortsarefocusedonthefollowingRD&Dprogramareas:
BuildingsEndUseEnergyEfficiency
EnergyInnovationsSmallGrants
EnergyRelatedEnvironmentalResearch
EnergySystemsIntegration
EnvironmentallyPreferredAdvancedGeneration
Industrial/Agricultural/WaterEndUseEnergyEfficiency
RenewableEnergyTechnologies
Transportation
RenewableEnergyCostofGenerationUpdateistheinterimreportfortheRenewableEnergyCost
ofGenerationUpdateproject(ContractNumber50006014,workauthorizationnumber
KEMA06020PR)conductedbyKEMA,Inc.Theinformationfromthisprojectcontributesto
PIERsRenewableEnergyTechnologiesProgram.
FormoreinformationaboutthePIERProgram,pleasevisittheEnergyCommissionswebsiteat
www.energy.ca.gov/research/orcontacttheEnergyCommissionat9166544878.
Acknowledgement
GerryBraun,PIERtechnicalconsultant,isacknowledgedforhisinvaluabletechnicalguidance
andreviewofthisproject.
Pleaseusethefollowingcitationforthisreport:
ODonnell,Charles,PeteBaumstark,ValerieNibler,KarinCorfee,andKevinSullivan(KEMA).
2009.RenewableEnergyCostofGenerationUpdate,PIERInterimProjectReport.CaliforniaEnergy
Commission.CEC5002009084.
ii
Table of Contents
ExecutiveSummary...........................................................................................................................1
1.0
Introduction..........................................................................................................................3
2.0
ProjectApproach.................................................................................................................5
2.1.
Task1:Technologies.....................................................................................................5
2.2.
Task2:CostDrivers......................................................................................................6
2.3.
Task3:CurrentCosts....................................................................................................6
2.4.
Task4:ExpectedCostTrajectories..............................................................................7
2.4.1.
Method.......................................................................................................................9
2.5.
Task5:Price/CostReconciliation.................................................................................10
2.6.
Task6:CommunityandBuildingScaleRenewableEnergyCosts........................11
3.0
ProjectOutcomes.................................................................................................................13
3.1.
Technologies...................................................................................................................13
3.1.1.
TechnicalandAnalyticalCritiqueofReferenceDocuments..............................13
3.1.2.
MethodforSelectingTechnologies........................................................................22
3.1.3.
UtilityScaleTechnologies.......................................................................................23
3.1.4.
CommunityScaleTechnologies.............................................................................24
3.1.5.
BuildingScaleTechnologies....................................................................................24
3.2.
Biomass............................................................................................................................24
3.2.1.
TechnologyOverview..............................................................................................24
3.2.2.
BiomassCombustionFluidizedBedBoiler........................................................27
3.2.3.
BiomassCombustionStokerBoiler.....................................................................35
3.2.4.
BiomassCofiring.......................................................................................................42
3.2.5.
BiomassCoGasificationIGCC...............................................................................47
3.3.
Geothermal......................................................................................................................52
3.3.1.
3.3.2.
GeothermalBinary.................................................................................................59
3.3.3.
GeothermalFlash...................................................................................................68
3.4.
Hydropower....................................................................................................................72
3.4.1.
3.4.2.
HydroDevelopedSitesWithoutPower.............................................................75
3.4.3.
HydroCapacityUpgradeforDevelopedSitesWithPower............................80
3.5.
Solar..................................................................................................................................84
iii

3.5.1.
3.5.2.
SolarParabolicTrough..........................................................................................86
3.5.3.
SolarPhotovoltaic(SingleAxis)..........................................................................96
3.6.
Wind.................................................................................................................................102
3.6.1.
3.6.2.
OnshoreWindClass5...........................................................................................106
3.6.3.
OnshoreWindClass3/4........................................................................................117
3.6.4.
OffshoreWindClass5...........................................................................................117
3.7.
Wave................................................................................................................................123
3.7.1.
3.7.2.
OceanWave...............................................................................................................125
3.8.
IntegratedGasificationCombinedCycle...................................................................127
3.8.1.
3.8.2.
IGCCWithoutCarbonCapture(SingleorMultiple300MWTrains)...............130
3.8.3.
CarbonCaptureandSequestration........................................................................136
3.9.
AdvancedNuclear.........................................................................................................138
3.9.1.
3.9.2.
WESTINGHOUSEAP1000...................................................................................143
4.0
ConclusionsandRecommendations.................................................................................157
5.0
References.............................................................................................................................159
6.0
Glossary................................................................................................................................167
AppendixA
CostData
AppendixB
ResponsestoWorkshopComments
List of Figures
Figure1.Utilityscalefluidizedbedgasifier........................................................................................25
Figure2.BiomassIGCCplantrepresentation......................................................................................26
Figure3.SchematicdiagramofbiomassIGCCprocess.....................................................................26
Figure4.Utilityscalebiomassfluidizedbedgasifier.........................................................................27
Figure5.Circulatingfluidizedbedschematicdiagram.....................................................................28
Figure6.Bubblingfluidizedbedboiler................................................................................................30
iv

Figure7.Stokerboilerschematicdiagram...........................................................................................35
Figure8.Flowschematicforastokerboilerconfiguration................................................................37
Figure9.Biomasscofiringschematicforapulverizedcoalboilersystem......................................42
Figure10.Primarybiomasscofiringlocations.....................................................................................44
Figure11.ProcessflowdiagramforbiomassgasificationandconditioningforIGCCapplication
............................................................................................................................................................49
Figure12.Binarypowerplant................................................................................................................58
Figure13.Flashpowerplant..................................................................................................................58
Figure14.Financialimpactofdelayonexplorationcosts.................................................................62
Figure15.Specificcostofpowerplantequipmentvs.resourcetemperature.................................61
Figure16.Economiesofscale.................................................................................................................63
Figure17.Impoundmenthydropower.................................................................................................73
Figure18.Diversionhydropowerfacility............................................................................................74
Figure19.Runofriverhydropowerfacility........................................................................................75
Figure20.Hydropowercostsfordevelopedsiteswithoutpower....................................................78
Figure21.Hydropowercostsforincreasingcapacity.........................................................................82
Figure22.Solarparabolictroughelectricgeneratingsystem............................................................84
Figure23.Simplifiedmoltensaltstorageprocessdiagram...............................................................85
Figure24.NellisAirForceBasePVinstallation..................................................................................86
Figure25.Majorcostcategoriesforparabolictroughplant..............................................................91
Figure26Capitalcostcomparison........................................................................................................94
Figure27.LevelizedO&Mcostcomparison........................................................................................95
Figure28.Solarmoduleretail/priceindex,125wattsandhigher.....................................................99
Figure29.Solarpowergenerationplantsince2006over20%cheaper..........................................100
Figure30.Typicalturnkeysystemprice.............................................................................................101
Figure31.Amodern1.5MWwindturbineinstalledinawindpowerplant...............................102
Figure32.Californiawindresourcemap...........................................................................................103
Figure33.WindresourcemapofNorthernCalifornia.....................................................................104
Figure34.WindresourcemapofSouthernCalifornia.....................................................................105
v

Figure35.CapacityfactortrendsofCaliforniautilitywindsites...................................................106
Figure36.Installedwindprojectcostsovertime..............................................................................109
Figure37.MetalpricesJan.2002Sept.2007(LondonMetalExchange).....................................111
Figure38.U.S.dollarvs.euro,Jan.1999throughApril2009(EuropeanCentralBank).............112
Figure39.2007Projectcapacityfactorsbycommercialoperationdate.........................................112
Figure40.Onshorecapacityfactorbyinstalledyearandclass.......................................................113
Figure41.AnnualandcumulativegrowthinU.S.windpowercapacity.....................................114
Figure42.Averagecumulativewindandwholesalepowerpricesovertime..............................114
Figure43.Installedwindprojectcostsasafunctionofprojectsize:20062007projects.............115
Figure44.Europeanoffshorewindinstallations...............................................................................118
Figure45.Europeanoffshorewindgrowthandprojections...........................................................120
Figure46.Offshorecapacityfactorbyinstalledyear........................................................................122
Figure47.Pointabsorber......................................................................................................................124
Figure48.Oscillatingwatercolumn...................................................................................................124
Figure49.Overtopping.........................................................................................................................124
Figure50.Attenuator.............................................................................................................................125
Figure51.TypicaloxygenblownIGCCprocess...............................................................................128
Figure 52. Actual installation (Buggenum, The Netherlands) with typical technological
componentsindicated...................................................................................................................129
Figure53.BureauofReclamationconstructioncosttrends.............................................................134
Figure54.Actualvs.PredictedNuclearReactorCapitalCosts......................................................139
Figure55:PowerCapitalCostIndexNuclearandNonNuclearConstruction.........................141
Figure56.Generationsofnuclearenergy...........................................................................................149
List of Tables
Table1.RecentCalifornialegislationthatmayaffectcostofgeneration..........................................1
Table2.Costdriveranalysisworksheetexample.................................................................................9
Table3.Comparisonbetween2009KEMAanalysisand2007IEPR................................................16
vi

Table4.Comparisonof2009analysiswiththeCPUCGHGmodeldata........................................18
Table5.Comparisonbetween2009analysiswiththeRETI1AData...............................................20
Table6.CentralplanttechnologylistforCOGmodelingproject.....................................................23
Table7.InstalledCFBboilercapacitybycountry...............................................................................29
Table8.Recentcarbonsteelpricing......................................................................................................31
Table9.Recentcarbonsteelpricing......................................................................................................38
Table10.Biomassstokerinstalledcostranges2009dollarsperkWinstalled.............................41
Table11.Coalfiredgenerationplantswithbiomasscofiring...........................................................43
Table12.PotentialbinarygeothermalplantdevelopmentinCalifornia(mostlikelysources)....64
Table13.CaliforniaandNevadaexistingbinaryplantswithcapacityfactor................................65
Table14.FixedandvariableO&Mforbinarygeothermalpowerplants........................................66
Table15.PotentialflashgeothermalplantdevelopmentinCalifornia(mostlikelysources).......69
Table16.CaliforniaandNevadaexistingflashplantswithcapacityfactor...................................70
Table17.FixedandvariableO&Mforflashgeothermalpowerplants...........................................71
Table18.Parabolictroughcostcomparison.........................................................................................89
Table19.Assessmentofparabolictroughandpowertowersolartechnology..............................91
Table20.Comparisonoftotalinvestmentcostestimates($/kWe):SunLabvs.S&L.....................94
Table21.CSPplantcapitalcostbreakdowns,2005.............................................................................95
Table22.AnnualCSPO&Mcostbreakdowns,2005..........................................................................96
Table23.Californiautilitywindplantinstallationssince2003.......................................................108
Table24.Sizedistributionandnumberofturbinesovertime........................................................113
Table25.Oceanwaveenergycostdata..............................................................................................127
Table26.GasificationbasedpowerplantprojectsunderconsiderationintheU.S.beyond2010
..........................................................................................................................................................131
Table27.Expectednewnuclearpowerplantapplications..............................................................145
Table28.OperatorsofU.S.reactors....................................................................................................147
Table29.Nucleardecommissioningcosts..........................................................................................154
Table30.Nuclearplantconstructionspendingprofile(%oftotalinstantcostperyear)...........156
vii
viii
Abstract
This2009reportupdatesthecostofgeneratingelectricityfortechnologiesifbuiltinCalifornia.
CaliforniaEnergyCommissionstaffprovidesfactorsthataffectcosts,includingcost
assumptions,for15renewabletechnologies,coalintegratedgasification,combinedcycle,and
nuclearpowergenerationalternativesforutilityscalegenerationtechnologies.Thesecostsare
usefulinevaluatingthefinancialfeasibilityofagenerationtechnologyandforcomparingthe
costsofbuildingandoperatingoneparticularenergytechnologywithanother.Theseestimates
updatethe2007costofgeneration,basedonempiricaldatacollectedfromoperatingfacilities,
researchfromprimarysources,actualcostsandsurveysofexpectedcostsfromexpertsinthe
field,andreferencedocuments.Thisreportdetailsarangeofinstantandinstalledcostswith
projectedcostsbasedontwoyearsofsignificantgrowthinrenewabletechnologies,changesin
materialcosts,andinflation.
Keywords:Renewableenergy,costofgeneration,biomass,geothermal,hydropower,solar,
parabolictrough,photovoltaic,PV,thermalsolar,windenergy,oceanwave,integrated
gasificationcombinedcycle,IGCC,nuclear
ix
Executive Summary
ThisstudyexaminesthecostsofrenewableelectricitygenerationinCaliforniatosupportthe
costofgenerationmodelingworkoftheElectricityAnalysisOffice.Inadditiontorenewable
electricitycostofgenerationassessment,nuclearandintegratedgasificationcombinedcycle
generationarealsoexamined.TheCaliforniaEnergyCommissionistaskedwithdeveloping
robustcostofgenerationestimates,backedbysolidresearchleveragingthefullassessmentof
previousresearchonthecostofgeneration,costdriversandtrends,andexpectedcost
trajectoriesforfuturecosts.AllofthesedataarethenusedbytheEnergyCommissionto
estimatethelevelizedcostofgenerationbytechnology.1
Inthelastseveralyears,Californiahasexperiencedtremendousactivityintherenewable
energymarket,largelydrivenbyseveralkeypiecesoflegislation.Thefollowingtableoutlines
somerecentlegislationthathasbeenadoptedthatislikelytohaveasignificantimpactonthe
costofgenerationforrenewablesaswellasconventionalgeneration.
Table 1. Recent California Legislation That May Affect Cost of Generation
Bill
Author
Year
Passed
Summary
SB1
Murray
(Chapter
132)
2006
SB 107
Simitian
(Chapter
464)
2006
SB
1250
Perata
(Chapter
512)
2006
AB
2189
Blakeslee
(Chapter
747)
2006
SB 1 establishes in statute the California Solar Initiative with a

goal of 3,000 megawatts of new solar produced electricity by
the end of 2016. The California Solar Initiative Program has a
$3.35 billion budget that will be administered by the California
Public Utilities Commission, Energy Commission, and publicly
owned utilities.
SB 107 accelerates Californias Renewables Portfolio
Standard targets by requiring Californias retail sellers of
electricity to increase renewable energy purchases by at least
1 percent per year with a target of 20 percent renewable
energy by 2010. It also requires the publicly owned utilities to
file reports with the Energy Commission that outline their
specific Renewables Portfolio Standard goals and progress
towards the goals.
SB 1250, combined with SB 107, continues the authorization
of the Energy Commissions ongoing use of public goods
charge funds for the period of 2007-2012 for the continued
operation of the Energy Commissions Renewable Energy
Program.
AB 2189 modifies the Renewables Portfolio Standard
eligibility requirements for small hydroelectric generation
facilities regarding efficiency improvements that result in
increased capacity.
1Levelizedcostistheconstantannualcostthatisequivalentonapresentvaluebasistotheactualannual
costs,whicharethemselvesvariable.

Bill
Author
Year
Passed
Summary
AB 32
Nez
2006
Global Warming Solutions Act sets mandatory targets for

greenhouse gas emission reductions. Commits to reducing
greenhouse gas emissions to 2000 levels by 2010 (11 percent
below business as usual), to 1990 levels by 2020 (25 percent
below business as usual), and 80 percent below 1990 levels
by 2050. Requires the California Air Resources Board and
the Energy Commission to determine baselines and create
systems to track greenhouse gas emissions.
Source: California Energy Commission
TheambitiousgoalsaRenewablesPortfolioStandardof20percentby2010and33percentby
2020,3,000megawatts(MW)ofphotovoltaicsinstalledwithinadecade,andan11percent
reductioningreenhousegasemissionsby2010areambitiousbutachievable.
TheEnergyCommissionsworkinthepreviousintegratedenergypolicyreportsconfirmthat
thetechnicalpotentialforrenewablesinCaliforniaandtheWesternElectricityCoordinating
Councilregiondwarfsthesegoals.Inaddition,developersofrenewableenergypowerplants
andthesolarphotovoltaicindustryhaverespondedtoincreaseddemandforrenewableenergy
withenthusiasm.TheEnergyCommissionintendstobridgetheestablishedpolicybackdrop
andthesurgingrenewablemarkettoconverttechnicalpotentialintoreality.
KEMA,Inc.(KEMA)performedadetailedassessmentofthegenerationtechnologiesthatmight
beavailableinthenext20years.Foreachtechnology,KEMAassessedcostdriversandtrends
todevelopinputvariablesfortheEnergyCommissionslevelizedcostmodel.Toprovidethis
information,researchersperformedthefollowing:
Literaturereviewandidentificationofrenewableenergyandtwononrenewableenergy
technologieslikelytobedeployedinCaliforniaoverthenext20years,alongwith
identificationofthescaleatwhichtheyarelikelytobedeployed.
Costdriversandtrendanalysisforeachlikelycontributingtechnologyandanalysisof
factorsthatdeterminetherange(high,average,andlow)ofexpectedcosts.
Costmodelinputforutilityscaletechnologies,includingcurrentnominalcostsand
plausibleminimumandmaximumcostsforeachutilityscaletechnology,brokendown
intoinputvariablesthatareusedintheEnergyCommissionslevelizedcostanalysis.
Expectedpathsforfuturecostsforutilityscalegenerationtechnologies,plusa
discussionoffactorsthatdeterminethesecosts,asthebasisforcalculatinglevelized
energycosts.
Thefourtopicslistedaboveareaddressedforutilityscaletechnologiesintheinterimproject
report.Thefinalprojectreportwillalsoaddresscommunityandbuildingscaletechnologiesas
wellassummarizekeyfindingsandrecommendations.
1.0 Introduction
RenewableenergydeploymentinCaliforniaisexpectedtoaccelerateintheneartermin
responsetolegislationidentifyingsupplyportfoliotargetsandclimatemitigationtargets.
Relatedpolicydevelopmentmustbebasedonthebestpossibleeconomicinformation,
especiallythecostofbulkrenewableenergyelectricitygeneration.Inaddition,twonon
renewableenergytechnologiesareexaminedinsupportofthecostofgenerationmodeling
workoftheElectricityAnalysisOfficeandascomparisonstotherenewableenergy
technologies.Thetwononrenewableenergytechnologiesincludedinthisreportarenuclear
andintegratedgasificationcombinedcycle(IGCC).Toprovidethisinformation,four
fundamentaltopicswereaddressed:
Literaturereviewandidentificationofrenewableenergyandtwononrenewableenergy
technologieslikelytobedeployedinCaliforniaoverthenext20years,alongwith
identificationoftheinfrastructurescalesatwhichtheyarelikelytobedeployed.
Costdriversandtrendanalysisforeachlikelycontributingtechnologyandquantitative
analysisoffactorsthatdeterminetherangeofexpectedcosts.
Costmodelinputforutilityscaletechnologies,includingcurrentnominalcostsand
plausibleminimumandmaximumcostsforeachutilityscaletechnology,brokendown
intocategoriesthatareusedinCaliforniaEnergyCommission(EnergyCommission)
levelizedcostanalysis.
Expectedpathsforfuturecostsforutilityscalegenerationtechnologies,plus
quantitativediscussionoffactorsthatdeterminethesecosts,asthebasisforcalculating
levelizedenergycosts.
Thefourtopicslistedaboveareaddressedforutilityscaletechnologiesintheinterimproject
report.Thefinalprojectreportwillalsoaddresscommunityandbuildingscaletechnologies
andthefollowingtwotopics:
Reconciliationofcurrentlyquotedforwardenergypricesandcurrentlyestimated
levelizedcosts,discussingtherelativeimpactofvariousfactorsotherthanovernight
constructioncostthatdeterminepricing.Reconciliationherereferstoexplainingthe
differencesbetweenpricesandcosts,identifyingthefactorsthataccountforthe
differences,andprovidingestimatesofthesizesofthesefactors.
Costsandcosttrajectoriesforcommunityandbuildingscalerenewableenergy
technologies,alongwithminimumandmaximumcostsandtrajectoriesforthesescales.
Theprojectwasundertakentoachievethefollowingobjectives:
Criticallyreview,adjustandaugmentthecontentofAppendixBofEnergyCommission
Report#CEC2002007011SF,December2007(ComparativeCostsofCaliforniaCentral

StationElectricityGenerationTechnologies,KleinandRednam)inordertocreate
comparableinformationforthe2009IntegratedEnergyPolicyReport(IEPR).
UpdaterenewableenergyandnonrenewableenergyinputsforuseintheEnergy
CommissionsCostofGenerationModel,usedinpreparingthe2009IEPR.
Reconcilepriceandcostinformationforrepresentativeutilityscalepowerpurchases.
Estimatecostsandtrajectoriesforcommunityandbuildingscaletechnologies.
Thefollowingsectiondescribestheprojectapproachfollowedbyasectiononprojectoutcomes.
TheProjectOutcomessectionofthereportincludesanintroductiontothetechnologiesthat
wereselectedwiththesectionsfollowingorganizedbytechnology.
2.0 Project Approach
Thissectiondiscussesthetaskstheresearchteamundertookandwhattheteamdidto
accomplishtheprojectobjectives.
2.1. Task 1: Technologies

Theresearchteamundertookthefollowingactivities:
Conductedatechnicalandanalyticalcritiqueofreferencedocuments,including:
ComparativeCostsofCaliforniaCentralStationElectricityGeneration
Technologies2publishedbytheCaliforniaEnergyCommissioninDecember
2007.
CostsandsupplycurvesgeneratedinsupportofCaliforniaPublicUtilities
Commission(CPUC)GreenhouseGas(GHG)ModelingProject.Finalresultsand
GHGCalculatorv2bfromE3.3
CostsestimatesfoundandusedintheRETIPhase1Aand1BreportsbyBlack&
VeatchinRenewableEnergyTransmissionInitiativePhase1A.4
RecommendedutilityscaleREtechnologiesforcostanalysiswithtechnicalandmarket
justification.UtilityscaleREtechnologiesaregenerallydefinedasthoseover20MW.
Identifiedtheprimaryexistingcommercialembodimentofeachutilityscaletechnology
inCalifornia.Thetermcommercialembodimentisintendedtodescribethemost
prevalentcommerciallyavailableapplicationofatechnology.Asanexample,inthecase
ofsolarthermalpower,theprimaryexistingapplicationisconcentratingparabolic
troughcollectors,augmentedbynaturalgasfiredboilersandsupplyingheattosteam
Rankinepowerplantsinthe50MWto80MWsizerange.
Identifiedtheexpectedprimarycommercialembodimentin2018.
TheresearchteamwillrevisitTask1forthecommunityandbuildingscaletechnologiesinthe
secondphaseoftheprojectandincludefindingsinthefinalprojectreport.
2Klein,JoelandAnithaRednam.ComparativeCostsofCaliforniaCentralStationElectricityGeneration
Technologies.CaliforniaEnergyCommission,ElectricitySupplyAnalysisDivision,CEC2002007011,
December2007.http://www.energy.ca.gov/2007publications/CEC2002007011/CEC2002007011
SF.PDF.
3GHGCalculatorv2b,updatedon5/13/08.http://www.ethree.com/CPUC_GHG_Model.html.
4Black&Veatch.RenewableEnergyTransmissionInitiativePhase1A(DraftReport).Black&Veatch,RETI
StakeholderSteeringCommittee,ProjectNumber149148.0010,March2008.
http://www.energy.ca.gov/2008publications/RETI10002008001/RETI10002008001D.PDF.

Pleasealsonotethatthisstudyprovidesestimatesforcostofgenerationtechnologiesbutdoes
notprovidelevelizedlifecyclecostestimatesforthevariousenergytechnologies.5
2.2. Task 2: Cost Drivers

ForeachoftheutilityscaletechnologiesidentifiedinTask1,theresearchteamidentified:
MarketandindustrychangessinceAugust2007thathavemateriallyaffectedcosts.
Currenttrendsthatwillmateriallyaffectfuturecosts.
PrimarygeneralandCaliforniaspecificcostdrivers(e.g.,plantscale,globalindustry
manufacturingscale,resourcequality,plantlocation,capacityfactorincaseofstorage
coupledplants,overnightcost).
2.3. Task 3: Current Costs

ForeachoftheutilityscaletechnologiesidentifiedinTask1,theresearchteamidentified:
Nominal2009costsintheformatrequiredfortheEnergyCommissionslevelizedCost
ofGenerationmodel.
Plausibleminimum,average,andmaximumcostswithtechnicaljustification.Tothe
extentpossible,plausiblemaximumisdefinedasacostmorethanonecompetitive
playerwouldbewillingtopay,andplausibleminimumisdefinedasistheleastcost
recordedabsenthiddensubsidies.Insomecases,uniquesitecharacteristicswerealso
considered.
Theprocessforcompilingdataoftheplausibleminimum,average,andmaximumcostcases
wasdiscussedbetweentheresearchteamandEnergyCommissionstaff.Establishingranges
betweenminimum,average,andmaximumcostscircumscribestherangeofmarketcoststhat
wouldreasonablybeencounteredintheactualdevelopment,construction,andoperation
withineachtechnology.
Foreachtechnology,sizerangeswereidentifiedfortotalplantcapacitytodetermineminimum,
average,andmaximumplantcapacitiesinmegawatts(MW).Plantcapacityfactorsandforced
outagerateswerealsodefinedusingminimum,average,andmaximumvalues,reflectingthe
rangesidentifiedthroughresearchedvalues.NorthAmericanEnergyReliabilityCorporation
(NERC)/GeneratingAvailabilityDataSystem(GADS)fleetreliabilitydatawereusedfor
technologieswheredatawasavailable,andinthecaseofwind,solar,andbiomasstechnologies,
otherresearchsourceswereidentified.Plantheatratesandfuelusagedataweresimilarly
modeledforlow/average/highcases,basedonactualoperatingplantcharacteristics;datawas
compiledforeachfossiltechnologyfuelusagereflectinginservicevaluesforgeneratingplants.
5Levelizedlifecyclecostestimatesincludethetotalcostofaprojectfromconstructiontoretirementand
decommissioning.Theresearchteamscostestimatesfornuclearenergydonotincludenuclearplant
decommissioningandwastedisposalcosts.

Fuelcostestimateswerederivedwithrangesforeachfueltypebasedonpublishedstudiesand
datafromcoal,naturalgas,uranium,andbiomass.
Overnightandinstalledcapitalcostvaluesforminimum,average,andmaximumcostswere
definedthroughtwoapproaches.Forovernightcosts,capitalcostrangesweredeveloped
throughdocumentedplantcosthistoriesandadjustedforcapacityscalingeffects,notingthat
theovernightcostperkilowattdependsonthetotalcapacityoftheplant.Furtheradjustments
toovernightcostweremadetoreflectthecostdriveranalysis,showinglearningeffectsof
cumulativegeneration.Theseexperiencecurveeffectswerereflectedontheyeartoyear
overnightcostswithinthegenerationtechnologydataset.
Forinstalledcapitalcostvalues,thelow/average/highcasesweredevelopedprimarilythrough
theuseofdifferingconstructiontimedurationswheresuchdatacouldbeverifiedbythe
researchteam.Thisdatareflectstheuncertaintyinconcepttocompletiontimeforeach
technologyandresultsincostimpactduetoadditionalinterestcostsandallowanceforfunds
usedduringconstructioncharges(AFUDC).
Theuseandapplicationofrenewableenergyandothertaxincentiveswerealsoconsideredand
modeledwiththeinputdatasettodeveloplow/average/highcostdatavalues.Thesetax
incentiveswereappliedforeachtechnology,basedontheircurrentvalidityandspecific
applicationforeachtechnology.
Thedatasetcontainscellsforlow/average/highvaluesforeachinputtothecostofgeneration
model,andeachspecificinputismodeledwithitsownlow/average/highcostrange.Onemay
notdrawtheconclusionthatthesecostsarespecifictoaparticularsizeprojectforexample,
thelowplantcapacityautomaticallygeneratesthehighestoperatingcost.Instead,thedatasets
werecompiledsothateachtechnologydimension(e.g.,capacity,forcedoutagerate,heatrate,
overnightcost)hasitsownlow/average/highrangeandisnotassociatedwitharelative
capacityorsizeproject.Inthatway,thedataismodeledsuchthattherangeofinputsdefining
low/average/highcostsreflectboundariesforeachtechnology;andtheminimumcost
representsthelowestplausiblerangeofcost,andthemaximumcostrepresentsthehighest
plausiblerangeofcostforeachtechnology.
2.4. Task 4: Expected Cost Trajectories

Theresearchteamdevelopedaspreadsheetmodelusingcostdriverinformationtoestimate
futurecosttrajectories(costsexpectedineachyearfrom20092029)oftherecommendedutility
scaletechnologiesidentifiedinTask1.
Thespreadsheetmodeltodevelopexpectedcosttrajectoriesforeachtechnologywasdeveloped
usingtheconceptoflearningeffectsandtheexperiencecurve.Experiencecurvesareusedin
developingtechnologypolicybecausetheyshowthemarketeffectsofincreasedcumulative
production.Asthemarketadoptsanewenergytechnology,manufacturersgaineconomiesof
scaleduetoincreasedproduction,andtheylearnhowtoimprovethetechnology.Bothofthese
factorsovertimecanlowerunitcostsofproduction.

Theprimarydefinitionofexperiencecurveeffectsiscapturedinwhatistermedtheprogress
ratioforatechnology.Simplyput,theprogressratioistheexpectedpercentagedecreasein
unitcost,basedonadoublingofcumulativeoutputofthattechnology.Asanexample,a
technologythathasaprogressratioof0.90wouldindicatethatadoublingofinstalledunitsfor
thattechnologychoicewouldresultina10%unitcostreduction.6
Energytechnologiesgenerallyhavetechnologyprogressratiosintherangefrom0.70to1.00,
withthelowernumberindicatingarapidlearningrateandloweringofunitcostsovertime
(newtechnologydeployment)andprogressratiosclosetounityreflectingextremelymature
technologieswithonlysmall,incrementallearningeffects.
Theresearchteamnotedthatitispossiblefortechnologiestoexhibitchangesinprogressratios
overtime,duetoseveralfactors:
DisruptiveTechnologyAdvancesbreakthroughdevelopmentsinatechnologythat
significantlyaffectunitcostand/orpaceoflearningforamanufacturer.
PriceSubsidiesArtificialpricesubsidiescanalterthebalancebetweenexperienceand
learning,andmitigatelearningeffects,sincethepricesignalisnotatruecompetitive
marketsignal.
ChangesinMacroeconomicFundamentalsTheycanaffectsupply/demandbalance
andadoptionratesoftechnologies,enhancingorinhibitinglearningeffectsofadditional
production.
Thesechangesovertimedemonstratethatonevalueforprogressratioandexperienceeffectsis
generallynotsuitableformodelingtheexperiencecurveovertime,especiallyforthose
technologieswithhighlearningeffects.Theresearchteamthusmodeledarangeoflearning
effects,withdocumentedprogressratiosforeachtechnologymodifiedthroughtheuseofkey
costdriversthatwereidentifiedforeachtechnologychoice.
Inthemodelingoftheselearningeffects,thetechnologyprogressratioandexperienceeffects,
whichtypicallyrangefrom0.70to1.00,weremodifiedthroughtheuseofcostdriverratesof
changeratios.Thesecostdriverratiosbeginatunity(1.00)asabasecase,whichreflectsthe
normal,expectedexperiencecurve,andtheratioscanbeweightedasgreaterthanunity,which
implyalesserlearningeffect,orlessthanunity,whichimplyagreater,acceleratedlearning
effectthanthenormalexperiencecurve.
Costdriversweresubjectivelyevaluatedbasedontwofactors:importanceweighting(how
importantthedriveristothetechnologycostimprovement)andlow/highrangestoreflectthe
subjectivevariationinlearningeffect.Foreachtechnologyandtheresearchedtechnology
6InternationalEnergyAgency.ExperienceCurvesforEnergyTechnologyPolicy.OrganizationofEconomic
CooperationandDevelopment(OECD),2000.

progressratio,eachcostdriverwasmodeledatunityfortheaveragecaseandthenmodifiedfor
thelow/highcasesbasedontheresearchteamtechnicalfindingsandjudgment.
Amodifiedprogressratio,calculatedastheproductoftheexpectedtechnologyexperience
curve(shownasTechnologyProgressRatiointheexamplebelow)andtheweightedaverage
costdrivereffect,combinestheeffectsofthebaselinetechnologyexperiencecurveand
identifiedcostdriversthatmighteitheraccelerateordeceleratethecostimprovements
associatedwithanincreaseinthecumulativeinstalledbaseforeachtechnology.Thismodified
progressratioisusedforfinalcostmodelingforeachtechnology.
Theweightedaveragecasesforlow/average/highcostdrivereffectsusingthemodified
progressratiowerethenmodeledusingthestandardexperiencecurveequationandyearover
yearpricechangesidentified.Thesepricechangeswereusedtodeveloptheforecasted
overnightcostsforeachtechnology.
2.4.1. Method
Theexperiencecurveeffectsandcostdriversweredevelopedforeachtechnologybycombining
theexpectedvariabilityinidentifiedcostdriverswiththepublisheddatareflectingtheexpected
learningcurveeffectsforeachrenewableenergytechnology,aspublishedbytheU.S.
DepartmentofEnergy(DOE)andotherindustrysources.Theresearchteammodifiedthe
experiencecurveeffectsbytheweightedimpacteachcostdrivercouldhaveonthetechnology
anditscosttrajectory.
AmodelwasdevelopedtocalculatetheseimpactsandisshownbelowinTable2:
Table 2. Cost Driver Analysis Worksheet Example
Cost Driver Analysis
Technology:
Onshore Wind
Technology Progress Ratio:
0.900
7
Rate of Change
1
2
3
4
5
Cost Driver
Turbine Costs
Reliability
Permitting/Site Selection
Land Acquisition
Transmission Costs
Total and Averages:
Modified Progress Ratio:
Percentage
75.0%
10.0%
5.0%
5.0%
5.0%
100.0%
Low
Average
0.95
1.00
0.97
1.00
0.98
1.00
0.99
1.00
0.97
1.00
0.96
1.00
0.86
0.90
High
1.10
1.04
1.02
1.01
1.10
1.09
0.98
Source: KEMA
Forexample,theabovesheetshowsthecalculationsmadefortheonshorewindrenewable
technology.Thetechnologyprogressratioforonshorewindisidentifiedas0.90asabaseline

fromindustrypublisheddata.7Thisbaselinevalueforexperiencecurveeffectsisthen
subjectivelyadjustedbyeachcostdriverratio,andthenaweightedaverageistakenthattakes
thesubjectiveeffectsofthesecostdriversintoaccount.
Thecalculatedweightedaverageisthenshownasthemodifiedprogressratio,ortheexpected
rangeinlearningcurveeffectswithadditionalcumulativecapacityovertime.Inthecase
above,theexpectedrangeinmodifiedprogressratioisfromalowvalueof0.86toahighvalue
of0.98,whichimpliesthatwithadoublingofoverallinstalledcapacity,theexpecteddecrease
incostswouldbebetween2%and14%,withanaverageexpecteddecreaseof10%.
Thenextstepincomputingexperiencecurveeffectsandoverallcosttrajectoriesisdeveloping
reliableestimatesforcumulativeinstalledcapacityforeachtechnology.Thiswasdonethrough
twoprimaryresearchsources:theEnergyInformationAdministrations(EIA)AnnualEnergy
Outlookfor20098andEuropeanWindEnergyAssociations(EWEA)PurePowerreport,9
whichprovidesglobaldataforoffshorewindtechnologyadoption.Cumulativeinstalled
capacityforecastswerecompiledforeachtechnologyusingthisreferencesourcedata.
Theoverallcosttrajectorydevelopedinayearoveryearfashionwascomputedusingthe
standardexperiencecurveformula:
Cumulative _ GenerationY
Modified _ Pr ogress _ Ratio
Cost _ Ratio
^ln
2
Cumulative _ GenerationY 1
Thiscostratiowasdevelopedinthecostdriverdataworksheetsforeachtechnologyandthen
usedtoadjusttheforecastedyearlycostsforeachtechnology.
2.5. Task 5: Price/Cost Reconciliation

Inalaterphaseoftheproject,theresearchteamwill:
AnalyzepubliclyavailablepricinginformationforrepresentativeutilityscaleREpower
purchasesinCalifornia.
Reconcilerepresentativepricesandestimatedlevelizedlifecyclecosts,includingthe
relativeimpactoffactorsotherthancostthatdeterminepricing,e.g.,stateandfederal
incentivesandtaxpolicies,financingassumptions,andthecostofcredit.
TheprojectoutcomesfromtheresearchteamsanalysisforTask5willbepresentedinthefinal
projectreport.
7U.S.DOE.EnergyInformationAdministration.LearningCurveEffectsforNewTechnologies.
8U.S.DepartmentofEnergy.EnergyInformationAdministration.AnnualEnergyOutlook2009
(AEO2009).DOE/EIA0383(2009),March2009.
9Zervos,Arthourous,ChristianKjaer,.PurePower:WindEnergyScenariosupto2030.EuropeanWind
EnergyAssociation,March2008.
10
2.6. Task 6: Community and Building Scale Renewable Energy

Costs
Inalaterphaseoftheproject,theresearchteamwill:
IdentifysourcesofrelevantU.S.costinformationforrenewableenergyheatingand
coolingtechnologies.
Estimatenominalcostsandexpectedcosttrajectoriesforrecommendedcommunityand
buildingscaleREtechnologies.
Presentplausibleminimumandmaximumcostsandcosttrajectoriesforsame,with
explanationoffactorsthatvaryandcausecoststovary.
TheprojectoutcomesfromtheresearchteamsanalysisforTask6willbepresentedinthefinal
projectreport.
11
12
3.0 Project Outcomes
Thissectionpresentstheresearchresults.ThetechnologiesselectedinTask1arepresentedin
Section3.1alongwithadescriptionofthemethodforselectingthetechnologies.Notethatthe
communityandbuildingscaletechnologieswillbeincludedinthefinalprojectreport.The
sectionsfollowing3.1areorganizedbytechnologyandincludeoutcomesfromTasks2,3,and4.
3.1. Technologies
Theresearchteamconductedatechnicalandanalyticalcritiqueofreferencedocumentsinorder
torecommendtechnologiesforcostanalysis.Theinterimprojectreportincludestheresearch
teamsrecommendationsforutilityscaletechnologies(i.e.,>20MW).Thefinalprojectreport
willincluderecommendedcommunityscaleREtechnologies(i.e.,120MW)andbuilding
scaleREtechnologies(i.e.,<1MW).
3.1.1. Technical and Analytical Critique of Reference Documents

Tosetthefoundationfortheresearchefforts,KEMAperformedatechnicalandanalytical
critiqueofthefollowingkeyreferencedocuments:
ComparativeCostsofCaliforniaCentralStationElectricityGenerationTechnologies10
publishedbytheCaliforniaEnergyCommissioninDecember2007.
CostsandsupplycurvesgeneratedinsupportofCaliforniaPublicUtilitiesCommission
(CPUC)GreenhouseGas(GHG)ModelingProject.FinalresultsandGHGCalculator
v2bfromE3.11
CostsestimatesfoundandusedintheRETIPhase1Aand1BreportsbyBlack&Veatch
inRenewableEnergyTransmissionInitiativePhase1A.12
Allofthesestudieshavepublishedassumptionsaboutthecostofgenerationforrenewable
technologies,nuclear,andIGCC.KEMAsreviewofthestudiesindicatesthatfourbroad
categoriesofbenefitsandcostsareassessed,including:
Generationcosts
10Klein,JoelandAnithaRednam.ComparativeCostsofCaliforniaCentralStationElectricityGeneration
Technologies.CaliforniaEnergyCommission,ElectricitySupplyAnalysisDivision,CEC2002007011,
December2007.http://www.energy.ca.gov/2007publications/CEC2002007011/CEC2002007011
SF.PDF.
11GHGCalculatorv2b,updated5/13/08.http://www.ethree.com/CPUC_GHG_Model.html.
12Black&Veatch.RenewableEnergyTransmissionInitiativePhase1A(DraftReport).Black&Veatch,RETI
StakeholderSteeringCommittee,ProjectNumber149148.0010,March2008.
http://www.energy.ca.gov/2008publications/RETI10002008001/RETI10002008001D.PDF.
13
Transmissioncosts
Integrationcosts
Environmentalbenefitsandotherexternalities
Generationcostsarealwaysconsideredsincetheygenerallyformthebasisofcostestimation.
Treatmentoftransmissioncosts,integrationcosts,andenvironmentalbenefitsisnotconsistent
andtreatmentofexternalitiesisevenlesscommon.
Thethreestudiesarebrieflydescribedbelowfollowedbycomparisontablesofkeyinput
assumptions.
2007 Cost of Generation Report
TheEnergyCommissionsCostofGenerationReport(COG)provideslevelizedcostestimates
forvariouscentralstationgenerationtechnologiesinCalifornia.Thelevelizedcostestimates
weredevelopedusingtheEnergyCommissionsCostofGenerationModelwhichwasinitially
developedtosupportthe2003IntegratedEnergyPolicyReport(IEPR).The2007Costof
GenerationReportusedanewlyrefinedCostofGenerationModeltoestimatethelevelized
costsofenergyforthreeclassesofdevelopers:investorownedutilities,publiclyownedutilities,
andmerchantplants.Thereportsummarizesthelevelizedcostestimatesinaclearandconcise
mannerforeightconventionaltechnologiesandtwentyrenewabletechnologiesforthethree
classesofdevelopers.Italsodocumentskeyinputassumptionsandcomparesthe2007input
assumptionstothoseusedinthe2003IEPRforecastandEIAestimates.Ageneraldescription
oftheEnergyCommissionsModelandmethodisprovidedaswellasuserinstructionsand
explanationofthescreeningandsensitivityanalysiscomponentsoftheModel.
CPUC 2008 GHG Modeling Project
ThecostandsupplycurvesgeneratedbytheCaliforniaPublicUtilitiesCommission(CPUC)
GHGModelingProjectin2008provideabenchmarkforwhichtocomparethekeyassumptions
andlevelizedcostestimatesprovidedinthisstudy.TheanalysisusedaGHGcalculator
developedbyE3andreviewedthroughthestakeholderprocessundertheCPUCGHGdocket
R.0604009.
TheCPUCisscheduledtocompletethefirstphaseoftheimplementationanalysisinearly2009.
Theintentistoconductarenewablepenetrationbarrieranalysisandtodevelopplausible
resourceportfoliosforCaliforniaIndependentSystemOperator(CaliforniaISO)toanalyze
further.13Inaddition,theanalysiswillestimatenetcostandrateimpacts,lookingatcostand
rateimpactsofthe33%RenewablesPortfolioStandard(RPS)portfoliorelativetoa20%RPS
referencecasebaseline.ThoughtheresultsoftheCPUC2009analysisarenotyetavailable,
KEMAassessedthestudybasedonpubliclyavailablepresentations.14AccordingtoaCPUC
13Thestudydoesnotrecommendoptimalrenewableresourceportfolios.
14CPUC,Aspen,E3,andPlexos.33%ImplementationAnalysisWorkingGroupMeeting.CPUC,2008.
14

presentation,RETIprovidedusefulinputsforthe2008CPUCGHGModelingProjectandthe
pendingCPUC33%ImplementationAnalysis.
TheE3calculatorconsidersfactorssuchasintegrationcostsandrenewableimpactonwholesale
prices.Thestudyperformedasensitivityanalysisthatdeterminedfourkeydriversofresultsin
theelectricitysector:
Loadgrowthassumptions.
Fuelprices.
EEachievements.
Carbondioxide(CO2)marketcosts.
InclusionofCO2marketcostshasbecomeincreasinglyimportantforplanningpurposesin
California.AccordingtoE3,CO2costsaretreatedasanexogenousinputtothemodel.The
analystusingtheGHGcalculatorinputsaCO2price,aswellasanyassumptionsaboutoffset
prices,andwhetherCO2permitsareauctionedorallocated,amongotherCO2marketdesign
questions.CO2costsarethencalculatedandallocatedtoloadservingentitiesdifferentlybased
ontheselectedscenario.CO2costsaretrackedonlyforretailprovidersandCO2coststo
existinggeneratorsarenottracked.
RETI 1A 2008 and IB 2009 Studies
AccordingtotheRETIReport,RETIsgoalistoidentifytransmissionfacilitieslikelytobe
requiredtomeeta33%RPSrequirementbytheyear2020.TheRETIIB2009studydeveloped
informationforrankingpotentialrenewableresourcesgroupedbygeographicproximity,
developmenttimeframe,sharedtransmissionconstraints,andeconomicbenefits.Italso
estimatedthevalueofenergybyconsideringtimeofdayandcapacityvalueofresource
(contributiontosystemreliability).Itthenconductedahighlevelscreeninganalysisranking
therenewablezonesbycosteffectiveness,environmentalconcerns,developmentandschedule
uncertainty,andotherfactors.Therenewablesresourcesrankingbygroupingisintendedto
assistintransmissionplanning.
TheRETIanalysishasnotyetincludedintegratedcostsinitsmethod.However,itappearsthat
thereisaplantoincludethesecostsmaybeincludedinfutureRETIanalysesshouldthe
informationbedevelopedinanappropriatemannerthatitwarrantsinclusioninthecost
estimates.Forinstance,furtherinformationonintegrationcostsareneededtosupport
estimatesonthecosttointegrateintermittentwindandsolarresources.
TransmissioncostscalculatedbyBlack&VeatchandusedinthePhase1economicranking
assumesimultaneousdeliveryofthefullnameplategeneratingcapacityofeverycompetitive
renewableenergyzone(CREZ).Thisconservativeapproachisappropriateforahighlevel
screeninganalysisyetwithoutdoubtoverstatestheamountandcostofthetransmission
facilitiesnecessarytomeetcurrentstateGHGandrenewableenergygoals.
15

ThemethodemployedbytheRETIteamincludesscenarioanalysistoanalyzetheeffectsof
differentpolicyscenarios,resourceportfoliosandtechnologyoptionsandcosts.Thismethod
allowedtheRETIanalysistoassesstheimpactsofuncertaintyontherankingprocess.TheRETI
analysisalsoappearstoincludecarboncostsbasedonaGHGadder.
Comparison of 2009 Analysis With the 2007 IEPR Data
Thefollowingtableprovidesacomparisonofthekeyassumptionspresentedinthe2007IEPR
andKEMAs2009analysis.
Table 3. Comparison between 2009 KEMA analysis and 2007 IEPR

Technology
Gross
Capacity
(MW)
Capacity
Factor (%)
Instant Cost
($/KW)
Fixed O&M
($/kW-Yr)
Variable O&M
($/MWh)
2009
2007
2009
2007
2009
2007
2009
2007
2009
2007
KEMA
IEPR
KEMA
IEPR
KEMA
IEPR
KEMA
IEPR
KEMA
IEPR
28
25
85%
85%
$3,200
$3,156
$99.50
$150.26
$4.47
$3.11
38
25
85%
85%
$2,600
$2,899
$160.00
$134.72
$6.98
$3.11
Biomass Cofiring
20
N/A
90%
N/A
$500
N/A
$15.00
N/A
$1.27
N/A
Biomass - IGCC
30
21.25
75%
85%
$2,950
$3,121
$150.00
155.44
$4.00
3.11
Geothermal - Binary
15
50
90%
95%
$4,046
$3,093
$47.44
$72.54
$4.55
$4.66
Geothermal - Flash
30
50
94%
93%
$3,676
$2,866
$58.38
$82.90
$5.06
$4.58
15
10
30%
52%
$1,730
$4,125
$17.57
$13.47
$3.48
$3.11
80
N/A
30%
N/A
$771
N/A
$12.59
N/A
$2.39
N/A
250
63.5
27%
27%
$3,687
$4,021
$68.00
$62.18
$0.00
$0.00
250
N/A
65%
N/A
$5,406
N/A
$68.00
N/A
$10.30
N/A
25
27%
22%
$4,550
$9,611
$68.00
$24.87
$0.00
$0.00
100
N/A
42%
N/A
$1,990
N/A
$13.70
N/A
$5.50
N/A
50
50
37%
34%
$1,990
$1,959
$13.70
$31.09
$5.50
$0.00
100
N/A
45%
N/A
$5,588
N/A
$27.40
N/A
$11.00
N/A
40
0.75
26%
15%
$2,587
$7,203
$36.00
$31.09
$12.00
$25.91
300
575
80%
60%
$2,250
$2,198
$41.70
$36.27
$6.67
$3.11
960
1000
86%
85%
$4,000
$2,950
$147.70
$140.00
$5.27
$5.00
Biomass Combustion Fluidized Bed Boiler

Biomass Combustion Stoker Boiler
Hydro Small Scale or

Developed Sites
Hydro Capacity
Upgrade
Solar - Parabolic Trough
with Storage
Solar - Photovoltaic
(Single Axis)
Onshore Wind - Class 5
Onshore Wind
Class 3/4
Offshore Wind - Class 5
(2018 start date)
Ocean Wave (2018 start
date)
Coal - IGCC
Nuclear: WestinghouseAP1000
Source: KEMA and 2007 Integrated Energy Policy Report
16

NotestoTable:IfN/Aislisted,nodatawasavailable.Thehydrodevelopedsitescategoryisanalogoustothe
hydrosmallscalecategoryusedinthe2007IEPR.Grosscapacityreferstothegrosselectricalgenerationoutput,
Capacityfactorreferstothefullloadequivalentoperationalpercentageforaunit,andinstantcostreferstothe
costtobuildaunitimmediately(withoutconstructioninterestorescalationeffects).Theinstantcostfornuclear
energydoesnotincludedecommissioningornuclearwastedisposalcosts.
Keyobservationsinclude:
Thehydroelectricfordevelopedsiteswithoutpowerdiscrepancyininstantcostsis
primarilyduetoestimatedlicensingandmitigationcosts.KEMAexaminedtheIdaho
NationalLaboratory(INL)databaseofpotentialsitesandfoundthattheaverage
mitigationcostsweresubstantiallylessthanwhatwasestimatedin2007.
Thecapacityfactorforthehydrowasdeterminedthroughananalysisofexisting
hydroelectricplantsinCalifornia.Throughthisanalysis,theaveragecapacityfactorwas
foundtobemuchlowerthanthe2007IEPRestimate.
Solarphotovoltaic(PV)singleaxisinstantcostshavedecreasedsubstantiallysincethe
2007IEPR.Thesedecreasingcosttrendsareconsistentwithseveralresearchand
financialsourcesaswellassignificanteconomiesofscaleassociatedwiththechange
froma1megawatt(MW)unittoa25MWinstallation.Section3.5.3providesfurther
documentationofKEMAsassumptionsandsourcedocuments.
Oceanwaveisanewtechnologyresourcecategoryatthecentralscaleprojectlevelthat
isscheduledtobecomeaviableresourceinthe2018timeframe.Theinstantcostsarenot
directlycomparablebetweena40MWsystemandthe0.75MWpilotprojectthatwas
includedinthe2007IEPRanalysis.
The2007IEPRanalysisdidnotcoverClass5windspecifically.Rather,theyincluded
onebroadwindcategorythatalignscloselywithClass3and4.Thedataalignsquite
nicelybetweenthetwostudies.Costsperunitofcapacityandenergyareexpectedto
declineasmachinesizeandoutputperunitincreases.
Offshorewindisanewcategoryinthe2009analysisandisscheduledtocomeonlineinthe
2018timeframe.Offshorewindinstantcostsareestimatedtobeapproximatelytwicethatof
onshorewind.
ThecoalIGCCcapacityfactorissubstantiallyhigherintheKEMA2009analysis.Thischangeis
basedonactualplantdataandwarrantedbecauseastechnologiesmaturecapacityfactorstend
toincrease.
Theinstantcostofnuclearishigherinthe2009analysisversusthe2007IEPRestimate.The
KEMAdataisbasedontheWestinghouseAP1000system,and,asdiscussedinSection3.8of
thisreport,thenucleardataiswellsubstantiatedbyseveralresearchandfinancialsources.In
addition,theinformationisconsistentwithdataavailablefrommajoroperatorssuchasFlorida
PowerandLight,GeorgiaPower,andSouthCarolinaElectricandGasCompany.
The2009IEPRcostofgenerationreportwilladdtothepreviousanalysesofrenewable
resourcesinthefollowingmanner:
17
Thecostestimateswillbepresentedasarange(high,mid,low)ofestimatestoreflectthe
uncertaintyandotherfactorsthataffectprojectcosts.
Installedcostshavebeenaddedthatincludethecarryingcostofcapitalduringthe
averageconstructionperiods.
Includeexplicitlycosttrajectoriesaffectedbyspecificinfluencesintothefuture.
Clearlyincludingfinancingandotherconstructionrelatedcostsbeyondengineering
estimates.
Providingexplicitreferencedocumentationforrenewabletechnologies.
Assessingofcostsforcommunityorbuildingscaletechnologies.
Comparison of 2009 Analysis With the CPUC GHG Modeling Project

KEMAs2009analysisiscomparedtothedatathatwaspresentedintheCPUCGHGmodeling
projectinthefollowingtable.
Table 4. Comparison of 2009 analysis with the CPUC GHG model data
Technology
Gross Capacity
(MW)*
2009
KEMA
Biomass1
CPUC
E3 Data
2008$
Capacity
Factor (%)
2009
KEMA
CPUC
E3
Data
2008$
Instant Cost
($/KW)
2009
KEMA
85%
CPUC
E3
Data
2008$
Fixed O&M
($/kW-Yr)
2009
KEMA
$3,737
CPUC
E3 Data
2008$
Variable O&M
($/MWh)
2009
KEMA
$107.50
$0.01
Biomass
Combustion Fluidized Bed Boiler
28
85%
$3,200
$ 99.50
$ 4.47
Biomass
Combustion - Stoker
Boiler
38
85%
$2,600
$160.00
$ 6.98
Biomass Cofiring
20
90%
$500
$ 15.00
$ 1.27
Biomass - IGCC
30
75%
$2,950
$150.00
$ 4.00
Geothermal
90%
$3,011
CPUC
E3
Data
2008$
$154.92
Geothermal - Binary
15
90%
$4,046
$47.44
$ 4.55
Geothermal - Flash
30
94%
$3,676
$58.38
$ 5.06
Hydro - Small Scale

or Developed Sites
15
30%
50%
$1,730
$2,402
$17.57
$13.40
$ 3.48
$3.30
Hydro Capacity
Upgrade
80
N/A
30%
N/A
$771
N/A
$12.59
N/A
$2.39
N/A
Solar - Parabolic
Trough
250
27%
40%
$3,687
$2,696
$68.00
$49.63
Solar - Parabolic
Trough with Storage
250
N/A
65%
N/A
$5,406
N/A
$68.00
N/A
18
$10.30
N/A
Technology
(Single Axis)
Gross Capacity
(MW)*
25
Capacity
Factor (%)
27%
Wind3
Instant Cost
($/KW)
$4,550
37%
Fixed O&M
($/kW-Yr)
$68.00
$1,931
Variable O&M
($/MWh)
$
$ 28.51
Onshore Wind Class 5
100
42%
$1,990
$13.70
$ 5.50
Onshore Wind Class 3/4
50
37%
$1,990
$13.70
$ 5.50
Offshore Wind Class 5 (2018 start

date)
100
N/A
45%
N/A
$5,588
N/A
$27.40
N/A
$11.00
N/A
Ocean Wave (2018

start date)
40
N/A
26%
N/A
$2,587
N/A
$36.00
N/A
$12.00
N/A
Coal - IGCC
300
80%
85%
$2,250
$2,388
$41.70
$ 36.36
$ 6.67
$2.75
Nuclear:
Westinghouse AP1000
960
86%
85%
$4,000
$3,333
$147.70
$ 63.88
$ 5.27
$0.47
Notes: Source for CPUC E3 data is GHG Calculator v2b (May 2008).15
1) Biomass is listed as generic category in the CPUC GHG Model
2) Geothermal is listed as generic category in the CPUC GHG Model
3) Wind is listed as a generic category (no Class is listed)
* Capacity MW was listed as 1 MW in all cases
Source: KEMA and CPUC
Keyobservationsinclude:
CostcharacterizationsandheatratesintheGHGmodelcomeprimarilyfromtheEIA
2007AnnualEnergyOutlookReport.16
Directcomparisonofdataisdifficultduetolackofdataonunitsizeassumptions.
TheCPUCdatadoesnotincludesolarsingleaxisPVsystems,despiterecent
announcementsinCaliforniaforlargerscalecentralizedPVsystemapplications.
TheCPUCsolarthermalinstantcostestimatesaresubstantiallylowerthanthe2007
IEPR,a2006NationalRenewableEnergyLaboratory(NREL)studyandKEMAs2009
estimateforreasonsthatarenoteasytoidentify.KEMAscostdataisbasedona2006
NREL/Black&Veatchstudyandindependentresearchoncapitalcostsofprojectsin
SpainandtheUnitedStates.Costestimatesanddiscussionofmajormarketdriversare
includedinSection3.5.2.
15http://www.ethree.com/CPUC_GHG_Model.html.E3GHGCalculatorv2b,May2008.
16U.S.DOE.EnergyInformationAdministration.AssumptionstotheAnnualEnergyOutlook.2007.
19
KEMAsClass3and4winddataalignscloselywiththeCPUCdata.E3benchmarked
windcoststoarecentAmericanWindEnergyAssociation(AWEA)study.
AllcostsintheGHGmodelwereinflatedby25%peryearfortwoyearstoreflectthe
recentrapidinflationinconstructioncosts.Giventherecentdownturnintheeconomy,
thisassumptionmaynolongerbeappropriate.
TheCPUCGHGmodelincludessitespecifictransmissioninterconnectiondistancesfor
geothermal,solarthermal,windandhydro.Conversely,KEMAs2009assessment
includestransmissioncostsandvoltageconversionfromthegenerationplanttothe
localfirstpointofinterconnectiontothetransmissionordistributionnetwork.
TheCPUCdataincludeswindandsmallhydroincludefirmingresourcecostsbasedon
costofCTsneededtoreach90%availabilityonpeak.KEMAsassessmentdoesnot
includefirmingresourcecosts.
Comparison of 2009 Analysis With the RETI Project (Phase 1A and 1B)
The2009analysisiscomparedtothedatathatwaspresentedinRETI1Areportinthefollowing
table.
Table 5. Comparison between 2009 Analysis with the RETI 1A Data
Technology
Gross
Capacity
(MW)
2009
Solid Biomass1
Biomass Combustion Fluidized Bed Boiler*
Biomass Combustion Stoker Boiler*
RETI
Capacity
Factor (%)
2009
RETI
Instant Cost
($/KW)
2009
RETI
Fixed O&M
($/kW-Yr)
2009
RETI
Variable O&M
($/MWh)
2009
RETI
1A
1A
1A
1A
1A
35
80%
$4,000
$83
$11.00
28
85%
$3,200
$99.50
$4.47
38
85%
$2,600
$160.00
$6.98
Biomass Cofiring
20
35
90%
85%
$500
$400
$15.00
$10
$1.27
$0.00
Biomass - IGCC
30
N/A
75%
N/A
$2,950
N/A
$150.00
N/A
$4.00
N/A
Geothermal2
30
80%
$4,000
$0
$27.50
Geothermal Binary
15
90%
$4,046
$47.44
$4.55
Geothermal - Flash
30
94%
$3,676
$58.38
$5.06
Hydro - Developed Sites

or New as listed in RETI
Hydro Capacity Upgrade
or Incremental in RETI
15
<50
30%
50%
$1,730
$3,250
$17.57
$15
$3.48
$6.00
80
300
30%
50%
$771
$1800
$12.59
$15
$2.39
$4.75
250
200
27%
28%
$3,687
$3,900
$68.00
$66
$0.00
$0.00
20

Technology

with Storage
(Single Axis)
Gross
Capacity
(MW)
Capacity
Factor (%)
Instant Cost
($/KW)
Fixed O&M
($/kW-Yr)
Variable O&M
($/MWh)
250
N/A
65%
N/A
$5,406
N/A
$68.00
N/A
$10.30
N/A
25
20
27%
28%
$4,550
$7,000
$68.00
$35
$0.00
$0.00
Wind3
100
32%
$2,150
$50
$0.00
Onshore Wind - Class 5**
100
42%
$1,990
$13.70
$5.50
Onshore Wind - Class 3/4
50
37%
$1,990
$13.70
$5.50
100
200
45%
40%
$5,588
$5,500
$27.40
$88.00
$11.00
$0
Ocean Wave
40
100
26%
35%
$2,587
$4,000
$36.00
$210
$12.00
$11.00
Coal IGCC
300
N/A
80%
N/A
$2,250
N/A
$41.70
N/A
$6.67
N/A
N/A
$147.70
N/A
$5.27
N/A
Nuclear: Westinghouse -
960
N/A
86%
N/A
$4,000
AP1000
Notes:
1) RETI 1A Solid Biomass.
2) Only one category of geothermal is listed in the RETI 1A Report.
3) Only one category of onshore wind is listed in the RETI 1A Report.
If ranges were presented in RETI 1A data, midpoints are listed in the table
Source: KEMA, Black & Veatch RETI 1A Report, 2008
Keyobservationsincludethefollowing:
Forthemostpart,theKEMAanalysisisfairlyconsistentwiththeRETIdata.
InformationonunderlyingassumptionsinRETIreportonthetwohydrocategoriesis
limited.Therefore,itisdifficulttoassesswhycostestimatesvarybetweenKEMA2009
dataandtheRETIIAdata.
TheRETIIAinstantcostdataforsolarparabolictroughappearstoalignnicelywith
KEMAsdata.
TheinstantcostforsolarPVsingleaxissystemsissignificantlylowerintheKEMA
studythantheRETIanalysis.TheKEMAdataisstronglysupportedbyrecentdeclining
pricetrendsasdiscussedinSection3.5.3.
21

Summary
MoreandmorestudiesthatassesscostofachievingRPSgoalsaretakingmacroeconomicand
externalitybenefitsintoaccount.Forinstance,somestudiesarenowassessingmacroeconomic
benefitsofrenewablegenerationincludingbenefitsassociatedwithgrowthintheclean
technologyindustryandemployment.Externalitiesshouldalsopotentiallybeexaminedeither
onaqualitativeorquantitativebasis.Forinstance,thebenefitassociatedwithrenewablesin
helpingtoserveasahedgeagainstthepriceoffossilfuelcouldpotentiallybequantified.
Futurestudiesshouldconsiderincluding:
CO2abatementcosts.
Qualitativeorquantitativeassessmentofotherkeyissuesthatmayinfluencecostsof
generationincluding:
Environmentalsensitivity.
Landuseconstraints.
Permittingrisk.
Transmissionconstraintsandequityissuesrelatedtowhobearsthecostofnew
transmission.
Systemintegrationcosts.
Systemdiversity.
Taxcreditavailabilityandstructure.
Financingavailability.
Macroeconomicbenefits(jobscreation,security,fueldiversity,etc.).
Naturalgaspriceandwholesalepriceeffectsassociatedwithincreased
penetrationofrenewables.
Otherriskfactors.
3.1.2. Method for Selecting Technologies

Theresearchteamusedthefollowingscreeningcriteriatoselectthemajorityoftechnologiesfor
costanalysis:
Isthetechnologycommerciallyavailableandinuseonanylevelotherthana
demonstrationphase?
ArethereanumberofprojectsinuseintheUnitedStatesorabroadthatusethis
technology?
IsthisaviabletechnologyforuseinCaliforniaorinneighboringstates?Ifso,whatis
theproductionpotential?
ArethereanyregulatoryissuesorotherrestrictionsforuseinCalifornia?
22
Isthereanyactualcostdataavailablefortheexistinginstallationsthatcanbeusedinthe
study?
Costanalysisforthetechnologiesthatpassedthesescreeningtechnologieswasconductedto
providedatastartingin2009(i.e.,currentstartdata).Inseveralcases,technologiesthatarenot
currentlycommerciallyavailablewereselectedforcostanalysis.Thesetechnologieswere
includedbecausethereissubstantialdemonstrationprojectactivityorsufficientinterestinthese
technologiestoexpectthatthesetechnologiescouldbecommerciallyavailableanddominantin
10yearstime.Sincenocostdatafromcommercialinstallationsisreadilyavailableforthese
technologies,theauthorsexpectgreateruncertaintyaroundthecosts.Theauthorshave
identifiedthesetechnologiesinthetablebelowwithadatastartdateof2018.Theutilityscale
technologiesfallingintothiscategoryareBiomassCoGasificationIGCC,OffshoreWind(Class
5),andOceanWave.
3.1.3. Utility-Scale Technologies

TheutilityscaletechnologiesrecommendedforcostanalysisareshowninTable6below.
Table 6. Central plant technology list for COG modeling project
Technology List
Biomass
Biomass Combustion - Fluidized Bed Boiler
Biomass Combustion - Stoker Boiler
Biomass Cofiring
Biomass Co-Gasification IGCC
Geothermal
Geothermal - Binary
Geothermal - Flash
Hydropower
Hydro - Small Scale (developed sites without power)
Hydro - Capacity upgrade for developed sites with
power
Solar
Solar - Photovoltaic (Single Axis)
Wind
Wave
Ocean Wave
Integrated Gasification Combined-Cycle
IGCC without carbon capture
Nuclear
23
Gross Capacity
(MW)
Data Start Date
28
38
20
30
Current
Current
Current
2018
15
30
Current
Current
15
80
Current
Current
250
25
Current
Current
100
50
100
Current
Current
2018
40
2018
300
Current

Technology List
Gross Capacity
(MW)
960
Westinghouse - AP1000
Data Start Date

Current
Source: KEMA
3.1.4. Community-Scale Technologies

Communityscaletechnologieswillbediscussedinthefinalprojectreport.
3.1.5. Building-Scale Technologies

Buildingscaletechnologieswillbediscussedinthefinalprojectreport.
3.2. Biomass
3.2.1. Technology Overview
Theuseofbiomasstechnologyhasbeenapartoftheenergylandscapeforcenturiesandhas
becomeatechnologyofincreasingimportanceinthecurrentenergymix,bothinCalifornia,the
UnitedStates,andtherestoftheworld.
Biomass,ortheuseofplantbasedhemicellulosematerial,agriculturalvegetation,or
agriculturalwastesasfuel,hasthreeprimarytechnologypathways:
Pyrolysistransformationofbiomassfeedstockmaterialsintofuel(oftenliquidbiofuel)
byapplyingheatinthepresenceofacatalyst.
Combustiontransformationofbiomassfeedstockmaterialsintoenergythroughthe
directburningofthosefeedstocksusingavarietyofburner/boilertechnologiesalsoused
toburnmaterialssuchascoal,oilandnaturalgas.
Gasificationtransformationofbiomassfeedstockmaterialsintosyntheticgasthrough
thepartialoxidationanddecompositionofthosefeedstocksinareactorvesseland
oxidationprocess.
Ofthesetechnologypathways,thetwoprimaryembodimentsofelectricityproduction
technologyarefoundinthedirectcombustionandgasificationapproachestobiomass
combustionintoelectricityandenergy.Activeresearchintopyrolysisforbiofuelproductionis
activeandongoingbutisnotyetatcommercialscale.
Combustiontechnologiesarewidespread,andincludethefollowinggeneralapproaches:
StokerBoilerCombustionusessimilartechnologyforcoalfiredstokerboilersto
combustbiomassmaterials,eitherusingatravelinggrateoravibratingbed.Whilea
verymature,centuryoldtechnology,stokerboilerdesignshaveseentechnology
improvementsrecentlytoimprovebiomasscombustion,particularlyemissions
reductionsandincreasedcombustionefficiencies.
24
BiomassCofiringusesbiomassfuelburnedwithcoalproductsincurrenttechnology
pulverizedcoalboilersusedinutilityscaleelectricityproduction.Biomasscofiringisa
maturetechnologyinEuropeandisincreasinglybeingadoptedintheUnitedStates,
sinceitcansignificantlyenhancetheuseofbiomass,reducenetcarbonemissionsin
powergeneration,andhasshowngoodreliabilityinservice.
FluidizedBed(FB)Combustionusesaspecialformofcombustionwherethebiomass
fuelissuspendedinamixofsilicaandlimestonethroughtheapplicationofairthrough
thesilica/limestonebed.Fluidizedbedcombustionboilersareclassifiedeitheras
bubblingbed(FB)orcirculatingfluidizedbed(CFB)units.
Figure 1. Utility-scale fluidized bed gasifier

Source: Energy Products of Idaho
Gasificationtechnologies,whilerelativelyrecentintheirevolution,aregrowinginscopeand
scaleastheyareincreasinglybeingdevelopedandusedthroughouttheworld.Several
differentformsofgasificationtechnologiesexisttoday:
BiomassIntegratedGasificationCombinedCycle(IGCC)similartothecoalbased
IGCCprocess,exceptthebiomassfuelisgasifiedinareactorvesselpriortoits
25

introductionandcombustioninagasturbinegeneratorset.Gasturbinesdevelopedfor
coalbasedIGCCarewellsuitedforbiomassIGCCbecausebothgasifiedfuelsareof
sufficientBTUheatingvaluecontent.BiomassIGCCplantsarenowbeingintroducedas
technologydemonstrationunits.
Figure 2. Biomass IGCC plant representation

Source: KEMA
Figure 3. Schematic diagram of biomass IGCC process

Source: U.S. Department of Energy
(www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/powersystems/gasification/howgasificationworks.html)
26
BiomassfluidizedbedgasificationusingaFBorCFBgasificationreactortoconvert
biomassfeedstocksintosyntheticfuelgas,whichisthenburnedinaconventionalcoal
ornaturalgasfiredutilityboiler.Thistechnologyisnotbeingadoptedforthecostof
generationstudybecausethecurrentcommercialembodimentisdirectfluidizedbed
combustionofbiomassforelectricalpowergeneration.
Figure 4. Utility-scale biomass fluidized bed gasifier

Source : Foster Wheeler
3.2.2. Biomass Combustion Fluidized Bed Boiler

Technical and Market Justification
Forbiomassfuels,fluidizedbedcombustionisrapidlyemergingasasystemofchoiceformany
powergenerationapplications.Theinherentfuelversatilityoffluidizedbedsystemsprovidesa
plantoperatortheabilitytoburnmanydifferentbiomassresourcetypes,includingthose
feedstockswithsignificantmoisturevariations.Themajorreasonforthisisthatthefluidized
bedcarryingmedium(typicallyamixofsilicasandand/oralumina)providesathermalflywheel
27

effectthatmaintainsconstantheatoutputandfluegasqualityevenwhenburningfuelsof
varyingmoisturecontent.17
Fluidizedbedboilersarecharacterizedaseitherbubblingbed(FB)orcirculatingfluidizedbed
(CFB),andthisisbasedonhowthebedmaterialisusedwithintheboiler.Inabubblingbed
(FB)unit,thebedmaterialstayswithinafixedzoneintheboiler,whileinacirculatingfluidized
bed(CFB)unit,thematerialissuspendedaboveanairzoneandiscirculatedthroughareturn
loopbacktothecombustionzonebymeansofamassorcyclonicseparator.
Figure 5. Circulating fluidized bed schematic diagram

Source: Babcock & Wilcox Image (www.babcock.com/products/boilers/images/cfb.gif)
ForbothFBandCFBunits,duetothehighqualitycombustionandnearcompletecarbon
burnout(99100%)ofbiomassfuelsources,ashiscarriedoverintothefluegasstream,requiring
theadditionofpostcombustionashremovalequipmentsuchascyclonesandbaghouses.The
17Overend,R.P.BiomassConversionTechnologies.Golden,CO:NationalRenewableEnergyLaboratory,
2002.
28

postcombustioncontrolsallowparticulateremovaltoNewSourcePerformanceStandards
(NSPS)forPM10.
Fluidizedbedboilertechnologyhaslongbeenincommercialuse,withmuchmorewidespread
adoptioninEuropethanintheUnitedStates,duetoseveralreasons.18First,fuelresourcesin
Europecanvarywidelyinqualityandprocessing,andtheabilityoffluidizedbedboilersto
handlewidelyvaryingfuelsisofadvantage.Second,fluidizedbedboilersexhibitsuperior
emissionsperformance,especiallynitrogenoxide(NOx)emissions,duetotheinherentlylow
firingtemperatureoftheboiler.Third,forcoalbasedfuels,theabilitytodirectlyinject
limestoneasasorbentprovidesexcellentsulfurandsulfurdioxide(SOx)reductionswithoutthe
needforexpensivepostcombustionscrubbingequipmentandsystems.
Marketadoptionoffluidizedbedboilertechnologyforbiomasshaslongbeenacommercial
reality,withbothbubblingbedandCFBunitsbeingusedforbiomasscogenerationthroughout
theUnitedStates,particularlyintheforestproductsandpaperindustry.AdoptionofCFB
technologyforutilityscalecoalandbiomasspowergenerationhasreachedworldwidegeneral
industryadoption,asshownbelow:
Table 7. Installed CFB boiler capacity by country19
Country
Installed Capacity (MW)

10,000
1,400
1,800
3,310
1,200
8,800
China
Czech Republic
Germany
Poland
India
United States
Source: Tavoulareas, Stratos. Advanced Power Generation Technologies An Overview
TechnologySelectionCriteria
Fluidizedbedcombustiontechnologyforgeneratingelectricpowerusingbiomassfuelwas
selectedforthecostofgenerationstudybytheresearchteambecauseofthefollowingfactors:
CommercialscaleBothbubblingbedandcirculatingfluidizedbedtechnologieshave
beendevelopedtoutilityscale,andcurrentcommercializedunitsfitwellwithinthe
overallsupplycurveconstraintsforbiomassthatcanlimitoverallgeneratingunitsize
potential.
18U.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency.CombinedHeatandPowerPartnership.BiomassCombined
HeatandPowerCatalogofTechnologies,September2007.
19Tavoulareas,Stratos.AdvancedPowerGenerationTechnologiesAnOverview.U.S.Agencyfor
InternationalDevelopment.ECOAsiaCleanDevelopmentProgram,August2008.
29
FuelflexibilityBiomasscombustioninfluidizedbedboilershasbeenwelldocumented
foravarietyofbiomassfuelfeedstocks.Theinherentstabilityinfluidizedbedboilers
whileburningfuelsofvaryingqualityisakeyadvantagewhenevaluatingchanging
biomassfuelsourcesoverthelifeofthegeneratingplant.
ReliabilityFluidizedbedcombustionisreliableandprovenoverdecadesofservice.
Whilerelativelynewintechnologywhencomparedtostokerortraditionalfired
boilers,thereisrapidandgrowingadoptionoffluidizedbedboilertechnologyformid
sizedunits.
EmissionsperformanceFluidizedbedcombustionperformswellinreducingNOx
emissionsbecauseofthelowcombustiontemperaturesusedintheprocess.Inaddition,
thenearcompleteconversionofavailablecarbonresultsinlowercarbonmonoxide(CO)
emissions.Particulateemissionsaremanagedthroughpostcombustioncontrols,as
withtraditionalfiredunitsburningsolidfuels.
Figure 6. Bubbling fluidized bed boiler

Source: Energy Products of Idaho
30

Primary Commercial Embodiment
Today,theprimarycommercialembodimentofcirculatingfluidizedbedboilertechnologyisin
EuropeandChinaandgainingmomentumintheUnitedStatesForover20years,the
developmentofcirculatingandbubblingfluidizedbedtechnologyhasprogressedinEuropeto
thepointwherecirculatingfluidizedbedboilersareastandard,utilityscaletechnologytoday.
IntheUnitedStates,severalcompanieshaveprogressedwithstandardizeddesignsof
circulatingfluidizedbedboilerscombustingavarietyoffuels,frombiomasstocoaland
petroleumcoke.
InCalifornia,currentcommercialembodimentislimited,mainlybecauseofthelimitedability
topermitsolidfuelcombustionfacilities.However,thereiscurrentinterestinthecogeneration
andforestproductsindustrialbasetoexaminefluidizedbedcombustiontechnologyfor
repoweringexistingsolidfuelcombustionfacilitiestobiomassfuelconversion.20
Theresearchteambelievesthatfluidizedbedtechnologywillbecomecommerciallyembodied
inCaliforniatoenablethestatetoachieveitsbiomassenergygoalsby2018.Theinherentlyfuel
flexiblenatureoffluidizedbedcombustion,theintegrationofprimarypollutioncontrolsinto
thecombustionprocess,andthesmallfootprintareenablersofthistechnologyinCalifornia,as
beingdemonstratednowinEuropeandChina.
Cost Drivers
MarketandIndustryChanges
MarketandindustrychangessinceAugust2007havenotsignificantlyaffectedcostsfor
circulatingfluidizedbedboilertechnology.Materialcostincreaseshaveabatedduetothe
currenteconomicrecession,especiallyincarbonsteelandstainlesssteelcosts,whicharethe
primarycostcomponentsofcirculatingfluidizedbedboilermanufacturing.
CarbonsteelcostshavechangedsignificantlysinceAugust2007,butthenetchangeisnot
significant.Theattachedtablehighlightstherapidriseandthenfallofcarbonsteelpricing:21
Table 8. Recent carbon steel pricing
Year
2007
2008
2009 (April 2009 average annual price)
Average Carbon Steel Price ($/Ton)

$717
$1,004
$736
Source: Purchasing Magazine
20KEMASources:PersonalCommunicationwithEPI,FosterWheeler,March2009.
21PurchasingStaff.Steelplatepriceshaveplunged50%frommid2008peak.PurchasingMagazine.
April2009.www.purchasing.com/article/CA6654110.html?industryid=48389.
31

CurrentTrends
Currenttrendsthatwillmateriallyaffectfuturecostsare:
GlobaleconomicdownturnThebreadthanddepthofthecurrentrecessionhascaused
asignificantreductioninthenumberofnewboilerordersforbothpowergeneration
andindustrialmanufacturingcapacity.Thelengthofthecurrentrecessionandthepace
ofrecoverywilldeterminetheescalationrateinrawmaterials,theuseofboiler
manufacturingcapacity,andthusfuturecosts.
SteelpriceabatementCurrentameliorationofworldwidesteelprices,bothforcarbon
andstainlesssteel,willhaveapricemoderatingeffectonstokerboilerpricesbothnow
andinthenearfuture.Longtermsteelcommoditypricesarecurrentlydifficultto
predict.
IndustrialproductionandeconomicgrowthinChinaByNovember2008,Chinalost
over30millionmanufacturingjobsinGuangzhouProvinceduetotheglobalrecession,
significantlycurtailingChineseeconomicgrossdomesticproduct(GDP)growth.
Enoughoftheglobaloutputforsteelandotherrawmaterials,usedincirculating
fluidizedbedboilerproduction,werebeingusedinChinathatsignificantescalationof
pricesresulted.ThepaceoftheeconomicrecoveryandstimulusinChinawill
determinerawmaterialpriceescalationandthuswillimpactcirculatingfluidizedbed
boilercosts.
EconomicstimulusBecausestimuluspackagesaredesignedtosupportenergy
technologies,suchascombinedheatandpower,cogeneration,andbiomass,stimulus
supportintheUnitedStatescouldhaveanescalatingeffectonbothmaterialsand
demandforcirculatingfluidizedbedboilers.
CostDrivers
Costdriversforbiomasscirculatingfluidizedbedboilertechnologiesareasfollows:
BiomassfueltypeanduniformityThetypeanduniformityofdeliveredbiomassfuel
supplyisaprimarycostdriverforanybiomasstechnology.Becauseofthevaried
natureofbiomassfuelfeedstocks,theirdeliveredmoisturecontentandheatingvalue
variations,andfuelprocessingissues,thehandlingandprocessingcostsofbiomass
fuelscanvarygreatly.Asaresult,thetypeandnatureofbiomassfuelscombustedcan
haveamaterialimpactonthecapitalcostoftheboilerislanddesign,aswellasthe
overallfuelhandlingandoperationscost.
Supplycurveforbiomassfuel,fueltransportandhandlingcostsTheavailabilityof
adequateandsufficientbiomassfuelresourceswithina100mileradiusoftheplant
locationisacriticaldriverforoperatingcost.Mostbiomassfuelistransportedbytruck
transporttoaplantsite,whichlimitstheeffectiveeconomicradiusfromtheplant
locationtoaggregatefuelsupplyatcommerciallyreasonableprices.Thevariednature
ofbiomassfuelfeedstocksalsonecessitatesspecialhandlingequipmentandlarger
32

numbersofdedicatedstaffthanforcoalfiredcombustionpowerplantsofequivalent
size.
BoilerislandcostCapitalcostoftheboilerislandisacriticalcostdriverthatcanentail
approximately4060%oftheoverallplantcost,dependingonthetypeofbiomass
combustedandtheneedforpostcombustionpollutioncontrols.22Thedesignbasisfor
thetypeoffuelstobecombustedisanimportantcostdriver.Inaddition,theescalation
trendsforrawmaterialsusedinmanufactureoftheboilerisland,primarilysteelcost,
arefactorsthatcaninfluencedeliveredboilerislandcost.
LongtermfuelsupplycontractavailabilityMostcurrentbiomassfuelsupplycontracts
areofshorttermdurationandforfuelofsometimesvaryingquality.Akeycostdriver
topromotingbiomasscirculatingbedcombustioninCaliforniaistheabilitytodevelop
andachieveperformanceonlongterm(e.g.,fiveyearsdurationandlonger)fuelsupply
contractsforavailablefuelsources.
PlantscaleCurrentCFBtechnologyhasbeenproventoutilityscaleapplicationsofup
to300MW,withtheprimarycommercialembodimentinsizesfrom30100MW.
Developmentof800MWclasssupercriticalCFBcyclesisnowbeingstudiedfor
applicationsinChina,andtheoutcomeofthatresearcheffortwouldmateriallyaffectthe
capitalcostprofileandscaleofCFBtechnologyapplicationsforbiomass.23
EmissionscontrolcostsCostsespeciallyofpostcombustionemissionscontrol
technologies,suchasSCR/SNCRtechnologiesforNOxcontrol,andadditional
particulatemattercontrols,areimportantcostdriversthatcansignificantlyincreasethe
capitalandoperatingcostsofacommercialfluidizedbedboilercombustingbiomass.
Retrofitversusgreenfield/newsiteFormanybiomassfluidizedbedapplications,
repoweringisacommerciallyviableoptionthatcansave2040%ofthecapitalcostofa
newgreenfieldsitewhereallbalanceofplantsystemswouldneedtobeconstructed.
O&McapitalizationTheextenttowhichthelongtermoperationsandmaintenanceof
abiomassfluidizedbedfacilityiscapitalizedthroughalongtermmaintenancecontract
withanOEMsupplierisacostdriver.Theselongtermmaintenancecontractstraderisk
formaintenancecostpredictabilityandcanslightlychangetheoperatingcostprofileofa
commercialbiomassfluidizedbedboilerplant.
22KEMASources:PersonalCommunicationwithEnergyProductsofIdaho,CoeurdAlene,ID,March
2009.
23Tavoulareas,Stratos.AdvancedPowerGenerationTechnologiesAnOverview.U.S.Agencyfor
33

Current Costs
Currentcostsforbiomasscirculatingfluidizedbedboilerplantswereprimarilyderivedfrom
threesources:
Primarywrittenresearch,reviewingthecommercialembodimentofthetechnologies,
andtheirinstantandinstalledcostprofiles.
Researchteamdirectcommunicationwithcurrenttechnologymanufacturersand
developersofbiomassCFBandbubblingbedplants.
ResearchteamdirectexperienceinbiomassandCFBplantdevelopment,construction,
andoperations,bothintheUnitedStatesandEurope.
Thecostdatagainedthroughthesethreemethodsallowedforthecomparisonandcontrastof
capitalandoperatingplantdataandprovidedadetailedcostcomparisonforlow/average/high
costcasedevelopment.
Plantcapacitiesforbiomassfluidizedbedboilerswereestablishedinarangeof1570MW,with
28MWbeingtheaverageplantcapacity.Thecapacityrangeisprimarilysetbytheeffective
biomassfuelsupplyrange,alongwiththecommercialembodimentofmostbiomassCFB
designstoday.
Capacityfactorsweremodeledintherangeof7590%,with85%beingtheaveragevalue.These
capacityfactorsareconsistentwithoperationalCFBboilersincommercialservice.
InstantcostrangesforbiomassCFBplantsrangedfromalowcaseof$1,600perkilowatt(kW)
toahighcaseof$4,800/kW,withanaverageCFBplantcostof$3,200/kW.Theseinstantcosts
canvarywidelyduetoanumberoffactors:typeoffuelandfuelmixburned,size/scaleofthe
plant,whetherthesiteisabrownfieldredevelopmentoragreenfieldsite,andtheamountof
postcombustionpollutioncontrolsneededtosatisfyairqualityandpermittingrequirements.
Typically,theboilerislandcomprises4060%ofthetotalinstantplantcost.
Heatratesaresimilartothoseofothersolidfueltechnologies,rangingfrom9,800British
thermalunits(Btu)perkilowatthour(kWh)to11,000Btu/kWh,with11,500Btu/kWhbeingused
astheaverage.HeatratescanvaryforbiomassCFBsystemsduetofuelmoisturecontentand
heatingvalue.
Expected Cost Trajectories
Costtrajectoriesforbiomassfluidizedbedboilertechnologyweredevelopedthrough
examinationofseveralfactors.
Capitalcostandinstallationdurationforafluidizedbedplantprovidethelargesttrajectory
difference.Inallcases,theresearchteamassumedabiomassfluidizedbedplantisdeveloped
byamerchantgenerator,astherearefewapplicationsworldwidethathavebeendevelopedfor
cogenerationpurposes,eitherintheforest/paperindustries,theMSWindustries,orfor
34

enhancedoil/gasrecovery.24Constructionperiodsweresetforeitheratwoorthreeyear
constructioncycle,mostlydependentonpermittingapprovalsandreceiptofairquality
approvals.
Determinationofinstalledcostswerederivedfromexamininginterestcostsduring
construction,plustherangeinexpectedconstructioncostsforthelow,average,andhighcases.
Nosignificantexperiencecurveeffectsorlearningeffectsaretakenintoconsiderationinthe
analysis,asCFBtechnologyisconsideredamaturetechnology.Costdriversshouldnothavea
significantimpactonthelongtermlevelizedcostvalues,absentadisruptiveshiftinthecurrent
technologyandapproachtobiomassCFBcombustion.
3.2.3. Biomass Combustion Stoker Boiler

Stokerboilershavebeenusedforsolidfuelcombustionandpowergenerationforovera
century.Generallyusedforsmallscalepowergenerationunder100MWinsize,theprimary
stokerboilertechnologytypesforbiomassaremovinggrateandencompasstravelinggrate,
vibratinggrate,andspreaderstokervariantsofthetechnology.
Figure 7. Stoker boiler schematic diagram

Source: Boilermech, (www.boilermech.com)
24CaliforniaBiomassCollaborative.CaliforniaBiomassFacilitiesReportingSystem,March2009.
http://biomass.ucdavis.edu/tools.html.
35

Biomassfiredstokerboilertechnologyhasevolvedtoprovidereliable,efficientcombustionand
energygeneration.Today,modernbiomassstokercombustionsystemsprovideanefficient,
stablecombustionprocesswhilesupplyingthedesiredboilerheatinputwithlowemissions:
EfficientcombustionProducesefficientuseofthebiomassfeedstockfuelsupply
throughburningwithlowcarbonmonoxide(CO)emissionsandlowunburnedcarbon
(UBC),whichisanindicatorofcombustionefficiency.
StablecombustionProducesstableandconsistentcombustiontomaintainconsistent
designparametersandboilerperformance,evenwithchangingbiomassfuelsupply
mix.
HeatinputGeneratestheheatinputtosupportthepowergenerationcycle.
LowemissionsProduceslowcarbonmonoxide,lowunburnedcarbon(UBC),andlow
nitrogenoxides(NOx).25
Modernstokerdesignshaveimprovedsignificantlyovervintageboilersinstalledpre1965,
whenthemajorityofcommercialstokerboilerswereinstalled.26Todaysbiomassstokerboilers
haveimprovementsthatenhancetheirabilitytoburnbiomassfeedstocksofvaryingqualityand
type:
ImprovedfuelfeedcontrolsanddistributionofbiomassacrossthegrateProvidemore
uniformheatreleaseintheboiler,improvingconsistencyandreliabilityofoperation.
ImprovedcombustionairdistributionImprovesefficiencyandemissionsperformance,
particularlyNOxandCOemissions.
AdvancedoverfireairsystemsCompletecombustion,improvingefficiencyand
emissionsperformanceandreducesunburnedcarbonandcharwhenburningbiomass
fuels.
ReducedexcessairrequirementsImprovecombustionefficiency.
Improvedfuel/airmixingthroughbetterfurnacegaspathdesignanduseofgrate
oscillationImprovesefficiencyandreliabilityoffurnaceparts.25
25Abrams,RichardF.andKevinToupin.EfficientandLowEmissionStokerFiredBiomassBoiler
TechnologyinTodaysMarketplace.POWERGENRenewableConferenceTechnicalPublication,
March2007.
26GasResearchInstitute(GRI).AnalysisoftheIndustrialBoilerPopulation.EnergyandEnvironmental
Analysis,Inc.,June1996.
36
Figure 8. Flow schematic for a stoker boiler configuration

Source: DeFusco, McKenzie and Fick, Bubbling Fluidized Bed or Stoker.
27

Currently,Californiahasapproximately30solidfuelbiomassfacilitiesinthestate,totaling640
MWofgeneration.Thevastmajorityoftheseplantsarestokerboilers,installedinthe1970s
and1980safterthePublicUtilityRegulatoryPoliciesAct(PURPA)cameintoeffect,andserve
primarilytheforestproducts,pulpandpaper,andwastetoenergycogenerationmarkets.
Theseplantsoperatereliablyandeffectively,althoughCaliforniahasseenadeclineinthe
numberofsolidfuelbiomassplantsduetotworeasons:costofbiomassfuelsuppliesandmore
stringentemissionslegislationinthestate.
Theprimarycommercialembodimentofthestokerboilertechnologyisnotexpectedtochange
significantlyby2018,buttheresearchteamexpectscontinuingimprovementsinfuel
combustiontechnologytoreduceemissionsandincreasefuelflexibility.Inaddition,the
researchteamfoundimprovedpostcombustionemissionscontrols,suchasselectivecatalytic
reduction(SCR),andRileysselectivecatalyticreduction(RSCR)acombinationofa
regenerativethermaloxidizerandSCR.RSCRtechnologyissignificantlymorethermally
efficientthanstandardSCRtechnologies,providingNOxremovalatmuchlowerannualfuel
costs.28
27DeFusco,John,PhillipMcKenzie,andMichaelFick.BubblingFluidizedBedorStokerWhichisthe
RightChoiceforYourRenewableEnergyProject.CIBOFluidBedCombustionXXConference,May
2007.
March2007.
37

Cost Drivers
MarketandindustrychangessinceAugust2007havenotsignificantlyaffectedcostsforstoker
boilertechnology.Materialcostincreaseshaveabatedduetothecurrenteconomicrecession,
especiallyincarbonsteelandstainlesssteelcosts,whicharetheprimarycostcomponentsof
stokerboilermanufacturing.
CarbonsteelcostshavechangedsignificantlysinceAugust2007,butthenetchangeisnot
significant.Theattachedtablehighlightstherapidriseandthenfallofcarbonsteelpricing:29
Table 9. Recent carbon steel pricing
Year
2007
2008
2009 (April 2009 average annual price)
Average Carbon Steel Price ($/Ton)

$717
$1,004
$736
Source: Purchasing Magazine
CurrentTrends
Currenttrendsthatwillmateriallyaffectfuturecostsare:
GlobaleconomicdownturnThebreadthanddepthofthecurrentrecessionhascaused
asignificantreductioninthenumberofnewboilerordersforbothpowergeneration
andindustrialmanufacturingcapacity.Thelengthofthecurrentrecessionandthepace
ofrecoverywilldeterminetheescalationrateinrawmaterials,theuseofboiler
manufacturingcapacity,andthusfuturecosts.
SteelpriceabatementCurrentameliorationofworldwidesteelprices,bothforcarbon
andstainlesssteel,willhaveapricemoderatingeffectonstokerboilerpricesbothnow
andinthenearfuture.Longtermsteelcommoditypricesarecurrentlydifficultto
predict.
IndustrialproductionandeconomicgrowthinChinaByNovember2008,Chinalost
over30millionmanufacturingjobsinGuangzhouProvinceduetotheglobalrecession,
significantlycurtailingChineseeconomicgrossdomesticproduct(GDP)growth.
Enoughoftheglobaloutputforsteelandotherrawmaterialsusedinstokerboiler
productionwasbeingusedinChinathatsignificantescalationofpricesresulted.The
paceoftheeconomicrecoveryandstimulusinChinawilldeterminerawmaterialprice
escalationandthuswillimpactstokerboilercosts.
EconomicstimulusBecausestimuluspackagesaredesignedtosupportenergy
technologiessuchascombinedheatandpower,cogeneration,andbiomass,stimulus
29PurchasingMagazineStaff.SteelPlatePricesHavePlunged50%FromMid2008Peak.Purchasing
Magazine,April2009.www.purchasing.com/article/CA6654110.html?industryid=48389.
38

supportintheUnitedStatescouldhaveanescalatingeffectonbothmaterialsand
demandforstokerboilers.
CostDrivers
Costdriversforstokerfiredbiomasscombustionboilerplantsareasfollows:
haveamaterialimpactonthecapitalcostoftheboilerislanddesign,aswellasthe
overallfuelhandlingandoperationscost.
Supplycurveforbiomassfuel,fueltransport,andhandlingcostsTheavailabilityof
transporttoaplantsite,whichlimitstheeffectiveeconomicradiusfromtheplant
locationtoaggregatefuelsupplyatcommerciallyreasonableprices.Thevariednature
ofbiomassfuelfeedstocksalsonecessitatesspecialhandlingequipmentandlarger
numbersofdedicatedstaffthanforcoalfiredcombustionpowerplantsofequivalent
size.
BoilerislandcostCapitalcostoftheboilerislandisacriticalcostdriverthatcanentail
approximately4060%oftheoverallplantcost,dependingonthetypeofbiomass
combustedandtheneedforpostcombustionpollutioncontrols.30Thedesignbasisfor
thetypeoffuelstobecombustedisanimportantcostdriver.Inaddition,theescalation
trendsforrawmaterialsusedinmanufactureoftheboilerisland,primarilysteelcost,
arefactorsthatcaninfluencedeliveredboilerislandcost.
areofshorttermdurationandforfuelofsometimesvaryingquality.Akeycostdriver
topromotingbiomasscombustioninCaliforniaistheabilitytodevelopandachieve
performanceonlongterm(e.g.,fiveyearsdurationandlonger)fuelsupplycontractsfor
availablefuelsources.
EmissionscontrolcostsCostsespeciallyofemissionscontroltechnologies,suchas
advancedoverfireairorSCR/SNCRtechnologiesforNOxcontrolandadditional
2009.
39

particulatemattercontrols,areimportantcostdriversthatcansignificantlychangethe
capitalandoperatingcostsofacommercialstokerboilercombustingbiomass.31
Retrofitversusgreenfield/newsiteFormanybiomassfluidizedbedapplications,
repoweringisacommerciallyviableoptionthatcansave2040%ofthecapitalcostofa
newgreenfieldsitewhereallbalanceofplantsystemswouldneedtobeconstructed.
Current Costs
Currentcostprofilesforstokerboilerbiomasscombustiontechnologyweredevelopedusing
threeprimaryresearchmethods:
Primarywrittenresearch,reviewingthecommercialembodimentofthetechnologies
andtheirinstantandinstalledcostprofiles.
Researchteamdirectcommunicationwithcurrenttechnologymanufacturersand
developersofbiomassfiredstokerboilerplants.
Researchteamdirectexperienceinbiomassstokercombustionplantdevelopment,
construction,andoperations,specificallyreferencingastokerboilerbiomassplantinSt.
Paul,Minnesota.
Stokerboilertechnologyisconsideredamaturetechnology,withstokerdesignshaving
changedlittleinbasicdesignorcostprofileoveraperiodof40years.Mostofthedesign
innovationbeingperformedtodayinstokertechnologyistoupgradetheperformanceofstoker
boilerstocombustawiderangeofbiomassfuels(formerly,biomassfuelsbeingcombustedina
stokerboilerhadtoberelativelyuniformintypeandheat/moisturecontent),andtoimprove
emissionscontrolperformance.32
Capitalcostsandsizesforstokerboilersweredevelopedthroughdirectcommunicationwith
manufacturers,includingRileyandEnergyProductsofIdaho.Inaddition,thesecostswere
verifiedandcontrastedwiththeBiomassCombinedHeatandPowerCatalogofTechnologies
referencedocument,compiledbytheU.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency(EPA)Combined
HeatandPowerPartnership.33
Netcapacityfactorsforstokerboilerscanvarydependingonthetypeoffuelsourceused,the
variationinthefuel,andoperatingrequirementsoftheplant.Ingeneral,stokerboilersburning
March2007.
32PowerEngineering,EfficientandLowEmissionStokerFiredBiomassBoilerTechnologyinTodays
Marketplace.PowerEngineering,March2007.
40

biomasshavefewercapacityfactorsthaniftheboilerswereusingcoalasfuel,withtheprimary
reasonbeingthelargervariationinbiomassfuelpropertiesgoingtothestokergrateandthe
variationofthebiomassfuelsourceovertime.Capacityfactorsof75%,85%,and90%were
usedbasedonfleetexperienceforthehighcost,averagecost,andlowcostcases,respectively.
Plantcapitalcostdatawasexaminedthroughtheconstructionofanaveragesized38MWplant,
andscaledaccordinglyforthehighandlowcostcases,basedonexperienceandactualplant
data.Forthelowcostcase,referencedatafromapriorretrofitsitewasused,andforthehigh
costcase,scalingfactorsfrommanufacturersdetailingtherangeincostestimateswereused.34
Plantheatratesweremodeledusinganaverage4050%moisturewoodybiomassfuelfeedstock
andcurrentstokertechnology.Heatraterangesarefrom10,25013,000Btu/kWh,withan
averageheatrateof11,000Btu/kWhmodeled.Theresearchteamnotesthatperformance,
ultimatecapacity,andheatratearestronglydependentonthebiomassfueltypeselected,its
variationincombustionandmoisturepropertiesovertime,andthemixingofbiomassfuel
sources.Moisture,forinstance,isakeyvariableindeterminingbiomassstokerperformance
becausetheenergyusedinheatingandvaporizingthemoisturecontentinthefuelisnot
recoveredfullyandthusnegativelyimpactsoverallperformance.
Costtrajectoriesforbiomassstokerboilertechnologyweredevelopedthroughexaminationof
severalfactors.
Capitalcostandinstallationdurationforastokerplantprovidesthefirstandlargesttrajectory
difference.Inallcases,theresearchteamassumedabiomassstokerplant,developedbya
merchantgenerator,asthevastmajorityofstokerapplicationsaredevelopedforcogeneration
purposesinCalifornia,eitherintheforest/paperindustries,theMSWindustries,orfor
enhancedoil/gasrecovery.35Constructionperiodsweresetforeitheratwoorthreeyear
constructioncycle,mostlydependentonpermittingapprovalsandreceiptofairquality
approvals.
Determinationofinstalledcostswerefoundthroughtheinterestcostsduringconstruction,plus
therangeinexpectedconstructioncostsforthelow,average,andhighcases.Expectedinstalled
costsfor2009forthelow,average,andhighcasesare:
Table 10. Biomass stoker installed cost ranges 2009 dollars per kW installed
Low Case
$ 1,914 /kW
Average Case
$ 2,909 /kW
High Case
$4,050/kW
Source: KEMA
34KEMACommunicationwithEnergyProductsofIdaho,anddirectexperiencewithMarketStreet
Energyproject,St.Paul,MN,March2009.
35CaliforniaBiomassCollaborative.CaliforniaBiomassFacilitiesReportingSystem,March2009
(http://biomass.ucdavis.edu/tools.html).
41

Verylittleexperiencecurvelearningeffectsweremodeledintheexpectedcosttrajectories.The
U.S.DepartmentofEnergyshowsstokercombustiontechnologyasaverymaturetechnology
andwithlittleincrementalimprovementforeseenthrough2030.36Amaximumlearningrateof
5%through2030wasmodeled,alongwithalowcaseratereflectingnolearningthrough2030
wasmodeledforthehighcase.
3.2.4. Biomass Cofiring

Oneofthemostattractiveandeasilyimplementedrenewableenergysourcesisderivedfrom
cofiringofbiomassinexistingcoalfiredboilers.Inbiomasscofiring,upto20%30%ofthecoal
canbedisplacedbybiomass.Thebiomassandcoalarecombustedsimultaneously.Theterm
biomassreferstomaterialsderivedfromplantmattersuchastrees,grasses,andagricultural
crops.Thesematerials,grownusingenergyfromsunlight,canberenewableenergysourcesfor
fuelingmanyoftodaysenergyneeds.Cofiringprojectsreplaceaportionofthenonrenewable
fuelcoalwitharenewablefuelbiomass.
Figure 9. Biomass cofiring schematic for a pulverized coal boiler system

Source: U. S. Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
36U.S.DepartmentofEnergy.EnergyInformationAdministration.OfficeofIntegratedAnalysisand
Forecasting.LearningParametersforNewGenerationTechnologyComponents.
42

Whenitisusedasasupplementalfuelinanexistingcoalboiler,biomasscanprovidethe
followingbenefits:lowerfuelcosts,morefuelflexibility,avoidanceofwastetolandfillsand
theirassociatedcosts,andreductionsinsulfuroxide,nitrogenoxide,andgreenhousegas
emissions.Otherbenefitssuchasdecreasesinfluegasopacityhavealsobeendocumented.
Cofiringisaproventechnology.Overthepast15years,theresearchteamhasfoundextensive
experiencewithdirectandindirectcofiringofseveraltypesofbiomassfuels.KEMAhastested
cofiringmixturesofcoalandseveralbiomassfuelsuptoabout25%(onanenergybasis)in
KEMAs1MWtestboilerandhasbeeninvolvedinover50fullscalecommercialand
demonstrationprojectsincoalfiredpowerplants.Inaddition,manyutilitieshavecofiring
biomassincoalfiredgenerationplants,asnotedinthefollowingtable:37
Table 11. Coal-fired generation plants with biomass cofiring
Facility Name
6th Street
Bay Front
Colbert
Gadsden 2
Greenridge
C.D. Mcintosh, Jr.
Tacoma Steam
Plant
Willow Island 2
Yates 6 and 7
Company
City/County
State
Capacity
(MW)
Alliant Energy
Xcel Energy
TVA
Alabama
Power
AES
City of
Lakeland
Tacoma Public
Utilities
Allegheny
Power
Georgia Power
Cedar Rapids
Ashland
Tuscumbia
Gadsden
IA
WI
AL
AL
85
76
190
70
Heat Input from

Biomass (Percent of
Total)
7.7
40.3
1.5
<1.0
Dresden
Polk
NY
FL
161
350
6.8
<1.0
Tacoma
WA
35
44.0
Pleasants
WV
188
1.2
Newnan
GA
150
<1.0
Source: Haq, Zia. Biomass for Electricity Generation
TheElectricPowerResearchInstitute(EPRI)beganresearchandtestingofbiomasscofiringin
utilityboilersin1992,andwithsuccesscofiringbiomasspercentagesofupto40%offuel
requirements.InEurope,theNetherlandshasundertakenextensivestudiesofbiomasscofiring
ofupto30%ofboilerfuelrequirements.Biomasscofiringiscurrentlyavalidcommercial
technologyforcoalfiredutilityscalepowerplants,havingbeentestedinawiderangeofboiler
types,includingcyclone,stoker,pulverizedcoal,andfluidizedbedboilers.38
37Haq,Zia,BiomassforElectricityGeneration.U.S.DepartmentofEnergy.EnergyInformation
Administration,2002.
43

Biomasscofiringtechnologyisversatileandcanbeaccomplishedinseveralways,depending
onthepercentageofbiomasstobecofiredwithcoal,andthedesignofthespecificboiler
system.Ingeneral,therearefourmainroutestosuccessfullyaccomplishcofiring,asshownin
thediagrambelow:
Comillingofbiomasswithcoal.
Separatemilling,injectioninpflines,combustionincoalburners.
Separatemilling,combustionindedicatedbiomassburners.
Biomassgasification,syngascombustedinfurnaceboiler.
Coal
Mills
Burners
Boiler
Flue Gas
Treatment
Pretreatment
Biomass
Stack
Gasifier
Steam
Turbine
Mills
Figure 10. Primary biomass cofiring locations

Source: KEMA, Inc.
Comillingofbiomasswithcoal,andseparatemillingandinjection/combustionintothecoal
burnersarethemostcommonrouteforbiomasscofiringwhentheoverallpercentageof
biomasstocoalisrelativelysmall(<15%).Intheseapplications,thebiomassblendswellwitha
predominantlycoalmixture,andiscombustedintheboilerwithlittleoperationalimpact.
Forlargerpercentagesofcofiringwithbiomass,typicalapplicationswillrequiretheadditionof
separatefeedstreamsofthebiomass,alongwiththeadditionofdedicatedbiomassburners.
Theseboilermodificationsareneededbecauseofthedifferingcharacteristicsandheating
valuesofthefuel(biomass9000Btu/lb,versuscoal12,000Btu/lb),andthevaryingfeedstock
qualitythatcanoftenbefoundinbiomassfuelsupply.
Inaddition,afourthroutetocofiringbiomassistogasifyit,usuallyinafluidizedbedgasifier,
andthencombustthesyntheticgasinthefurnacewithdedicatedgasburners.Thisapproachis
increasinglygainingmarketacceptance,particularlywiththesuccessfulcommercialoperation
44

offluidizedbedgasifiers,andisadrivingtechnologybehindtheretrofitofoldertechnology
biomassstokerplants.39
TheprimarycommercialembodimentofbiomasscofiringtechnologyinCaliforniaisfoundin
twoforms:
Additionofbiomasscofiringtothesmallnumberofremainingutilityscalecoalboilers
inCalifornia,typicallyupto30%cofiring.Inaddition,biomasscofiringisfeasibleinthe
WECCregioncoalfiredplantsthatcurrentlyexportgenerationandenergyto
California.
Additionofbiomasscofiringtotheexistingsmallutilityscalecoalboilersinoperation
(2050MW),ofwhichthereareapproximately30plantsthatcurrentlyexist,and
approximately66plantsfeasibleifcurrentlyclosedbiomassfacilitiesarerepowered.
By2018,theprimarycommercialembodimentispredictedbytheresearchteamtobesimilarto
thecurrentstate,withincrementaloperatingimprovementsgainedbyadditionalcofiring
experience.Theresearchteamnotesthatseveralcompaniesarelookingattheircurrentbiomass
cofiringexperiencetobeaninterimsteptowardscompletefuelswitchingfromcoalto100%
biomassfuel,asclimatechangelegislationappearsmorelikelybefore2018.
Cost Drivers
SinceAugust,2007,therehasbeenadditionalindustryexperiencewithcofiringbiomassdueto
emissionslegislationintheUnitedStates,pluscontinuedemphasisonbiomasscofiring
implementationintheEuropeanUnion.Theseindustrychangeshavehelpedcofiringgain
additionalmomentumasausefulgenerationtechnologyadditionforcarbonreductionand
climatechangemitigationstrategies.Asofthisreport,theseindustrychangeshavenothada
discernableimpactonmarketpricesforcofiringadoption.
CurrentTrends
Currently,biomasscofiringisoneofthemostinexpensivewaystoincreaseuseofbiomass
feedstocksandfuelsources.Requiringonlyafractionoftheinvestmentcapitalfornewplant,
theresearchteambelievesitisatechnologywithsignificantpotentialtohelpbiomassbecome
competitiveintheenergylandscape.
CostDrivers
Costdriversforbiomasscirculatingfluidizedbedboilertechnologiesareasfollows:
39EnergyProductsofIdaho,CurdAlene,ID.
45
haveamaterialimpactonthecapitalcostoftheboilercofiringupgrades,aswellasthe
overallfuelhandlingandoperationscost.Forbiomasscofiring,theamountofbiomass
cofiringanduniformityofthefuelcanaffecttheoperatingcombustionandtemperature
profilesintheboiler,andthustheoverallcostofboilerimprovements.40
Supplycurveforbiomassfuel,fueltransport,andhandlingcostsTheavailabilityof
toaplantsite,whichlimitstheeffectiveeconomicradiusfromtheplantlocationto
aggregatefuelsupplyatcommerciallyreasonableprices.Thevariednatureofbiomass
fuelfeedstocksalsonecessitatesspecialhandlingequipmentandlargernumbersoffuel
handlingpersonnelthanforasimilarlysizedcoalfiredplant.
BoilerislandcapitalupgradecostCapitalcostofnecessaryboilermodifications,
dependingonthecofiringfuelinjectionpointisacriticalcostdriverthatcanentail
approximately50%oftheoverallcapitalupgradecost,dependingonthetypeof
biomasscombustedandthelocationofthebiomasscofiringinjectionpoint.41In
addition,theescalationtrendsforrawmaterialsusedinmanufactureoftheboilerfuel
feedandpressureparts,primarilysteelcost,arefactorsthatcaninfluencethefinal
installedcostofcofiringupgradestotheboiler.
areofshorttermdurationandforfuelofsometimesvaryingquality.Theabilityto
writeandachieveperformanceonlongterm(e.g.,fiveyearsdurationandlonger)fuel
supplycontractsforavailablefuelsourcesisakeycostdrivertosecuringadditional
biomasscofiringgeneration.
O&McapitalizationTheextenttowhichthelongtermoperationsandmaintenanceof
boilerupgradesrequiredtosupportahigh(>10%biomasscofiring)levelofbiomass
cofiringiscapitalizedthroughalongtermmaintenancecontractwithanOEMsupplier
isacostdriver.Theselongtermmaintenancecontractstraderiskformaintenancecost
predictability,andcanslightlychangetheoperatingcostprofileofacommercialboiler
plantcofiringbothcoalandbiomassfuels.
40DaytonDavid,ASummaryofNOxEmissionsReductionFromBiomassCofiring.NationalRenewable
EnergyLaboratory,May2002.
2009.
46

Current Costs
Currentcostsweredevelopedbyexaminingthebiomasscofiringtechnologywithinthecontext
ofoperationofcurrentcoalfiredutilityscaleboilertechnology,coupledwiththeexperience
baseofcofiringbiomassbothinEuropeandintheUnitedStates.Plantscalewasdevelopedby
usingthe530%generalcofiringrangesseenincurrentapplications,andespeciallythose
successfullydemonstratedintheUnitedStates.42Capacitiesusedinthemodelrangedfrom10
40MWgrosscapacityduetobiomasscofiring,andincrementaltothenominalcoalfiredoutput
oftheboilerplant.
Capacityfactorsmodeledwerefrom8595%,reflectingcurrenttestburnandoperational
experienceshowingthatthereisnotadetrimentalavailabilityimpactcausedbycofiring
biomasswithinthenominal530%ranges.
Efficiencyandheatraterangeswerealsochosenbasedonnominalincreasestoheatratedueto
moisturecontentofthefuel,butotherwisetrackedcurrentcoalplantindustryheatrates.Heat
raterangedfrom9,800Btu/kWhto12,000Btu/kWh,withanaverageheatratemodeledat10,500
Btu/kWh.
Capitalrequirementsforthecofiringtechnologywerebasedonbothcurrentindustry
experiencecombinedwiththeresearchteamexperiencebaseincofiringbiomassinthe
Netherlands.Instant(overnight)capitalcostrangesweremodeledbetween400700$/kW,
withanaverageof$500/kW.Allboilermodificationsforcofiringtechnologyareassumedtobe
constructedwithinoneyear.
Thetypeofboilermodificationsandtechnologiesinvolvedinbiomasscofiringareextremely
maturetechnologiesinvolvingburnermodifications,injectionpointrework,andfuelhandling
systems.Basedonthematurityofthesetechnologies,verylittleexperiencecurveeffectsare
anticipated,andonlysmallincrementalimprovementsincostperformanceareforeseenbythe
researchteam.Atechnologyprogressratioforbiomasscofiringof0.990wasassignedtothis
technologybasedonthesimilaritiesofcofiringtechnologiestoestablishedsolidfuelcofiring
andtestburntechnologyapplications.Theprogressratioindicatesthat,withadoublingofthe
installedbiomasscofiringcapacity,onewouldexpecta1%improvementincostperformance
overtime.
Theoverallcostperformanceofbiomasscofiringtechnologiesisexpectedtotracktherateof
inflationoverthelongrun.
3.2.5. Biomass Co-Gasification IGCC

BiomasscogasificationIGCCisauniquetechnologythathasmanycommercialutilityscale
applications.BiomassIGCCdrawsuponthetechnologybaseusedtodevelopand
42Blume,Grant,RonaldMeijer,andKevinSullivan,CofiringofBiomassintheUS.RenewableEnergy
WorldConferencePresentation,March2009.
47

commercializecoalbasedIGCCplantsbeginningwiththefirstcommercialscaleutilityunitat
DukeEnergysWabashRiverGeneratingStationin1995.Sincethattime,bothcoaland
biomassbasedIGCChasbeencommercializedasaviablegeneratingtechnology,withkey
advantages:
FeedstockflexibilityBecausethecombinedcycleunitisfiredwithsyntheticgasfrom
thegasifierunits,avarietyoffuelfeedstocks,fromcoaltopetroleumcokeandbiomass,
canbeused.
LowemissionsSimilartoanaturalgasfiredcombinedcycleunitandmuchlowerthan
solidfueledcoalunits.
CarboncaptureIGCCcyclesareparticularlysuitableforcarboncaptureand
sequestration,sincecarbondioxideisemittedinseparatestreamsthatmaybecaptured
anddisposedinanormalprocesscycle.
ThekeyapproachtotheIGCCcycleapplicationforbiomassfuelsistheabilityofcurrent
generationgasturbinestoacceptandburnlowBTUcontentgasstreams.Thistechnologyshift
hashappenedoverthelast15years,andnowmostmoderngasturbineengineswillcombust
biomassbasedsyngasinturbinesizerangessuitableformostbiomassdevelopmentplant
scales.43
ThefirstsuccessfuldemonstrationprojectforbiomasscogasificationIGCCwasinVarnamo,
Sweden,andranfrom1992through2000at18MWcombinedheatandpoweroutput.44
Asof2007,thebiomassgasificationmarketcounted13activebiomassgasifiersfromcompanies
worldwide,encompassingfourmajortechnologytypes:45
AtmosphericpressurecirculatingfluidizedbedgasifierIncommercialoperationat
Lahti,Finland,producing42MWesince1998,andusingbiofuels,RDF(refusederived
fuel),andwoodwasteasbiomassfeedstocks.
Pressurizedcirculatingfluidizedbedgasifier(PCFB)DemonstratedatVarnamo,
Sweden,through2000,andproducing6MWeusingwood,RDFandstrawasbiomass
feedstocks.
PlasmagasifierDemonstratedatUtashinai,Japan,in2003,producing8MWein
commercialoperation,usingadownwardmovingbedandplasmabottomtorch.
43Overend,RalphP.BiomassConversionTechnologies.Golden,CO:NationalRenewableEnergy
Laboratory,March2002.
44Stahl,Krister,LarsWaldheim,MichaelMorris,UlfJohnsson,andLennartGrdmark.BiomassIGCC
atVarnamo,SwedenPastandFuture.GCEPEnergyWorkshop,April2004.
45Cobb,JamesT.SurveyofCommercialBiomassGasifiers.UniversityofPittsburgh,AIChEAnnual
Meeting,November2007.
48
Drafttypeoriginaltechnology,andnotgenerallysuitableforgasturbineapplications
becauseoftarcarryover.
Figure 11. Process flow diagram for biomass gasification and conditioning for IGCC
application
Source: Rhodes and Keith, Engineering economic analysis of biomass IGCC.
46

Currently,thereisnoprimarycommercialembodimentinCalifornia,astheuseofbiomass
IGCChasnotyetbeencommercialized.However,thebasicpremiseofcoalbasedIGCCisa
commercialtechnology,andintheUnitedStates,utilityscalecoalbasedIGCCplantsarebeing
developedwiththecapabilitytocofirebiomassfeedstocksinlimitedpercentages(<15%).
By2018,theresearchteamexpectsthebiomassIGCCtechnologytobecomecommercialized,
withCFBgasifiertechnologyastheleadingapproachforbiomassIGCCdevelopment.
46Rhodes,JamesS.andDavidW.Keith.EngineeringEconomicAnalysisofBiomassIGCCWithCarbon
CaptureandStorage.BiomassandBioenergy29(2005):440450.
49

Cost Drivers
MarketandindustrychangessinceAugust2007havefavoredtherapiddevelopmentofutility
scalebiomassIGCCplants.Thefirstchangeinthemarketispendingclimatechangelegislation
thatwillimposeacapandtradesystemforcarbondioxideandotherGHGemissions.This
changewilldrivetechnologydevelopmenttothoseapproachesthatcancaptureandsequester
carbon,aswellascarbonneutralapproachestopowergeneration.BiomassIGCC,becauseof
thenearzerocarbonemissionprofileofbiomassfuels,coupledwiththeabilitytocapture
carbondioxide,isanidealtechnologyforacarbonconstrainedpowergenerationmarket.
Second,theincreaseddeploymentofcoalfiredIGCCunits,suchastherecentlyannounced
repoweringprojectatDukeEnergysEdwardsportstationinIndiana,willfurtherthe
developmentofgasificationreactortechnology.Gasifiertrainswillbetestedandtechnology
developedtoreliablygasifybiomassfeedstocksalongwithcoal.
Third,activeresearchinbiomassgasificationandcogasificationwithcoalisbeingconductedin
Europe,particularlyintheNetherlands,wherebiomasscogasificationexperimentsofupto
50%biomassbyweightarebeingconductedattwopowerstations.47
CurrentTrends
Futurecostsforbiomasscogasificationwillbedrivenbythedevelopmentofcommercial
gasifiertrainsthatareabletohandlewidevariationsinbiomassfeedstockmaterials.Asthese
technologiesbecomemoremature,experienceeffectswilldrivedowntheoverallcapitalcostof
theseplants.
Costdriversforbiomassintegratedgasificationcombinedcycleplanttechnologiesareas
follows:
supplyareprimarycostdriversforanybiomasstechnology.Becauseofthevaried
haveamaterialimpactonthecapitalcostofthefuelhandlingsystemsandthegasifier
processtrains.Fuelvariabilityinthegasificationprocesscanalterprocessproperties,
andresultinchangestotherequiredgasifiersize.48
Supplycurveforbiomassfuel,fueltransportandhandlingcostsTheavailabilityof
47KEMAsourcesandresearch.
48MurphyMichael,RepoweringOptions:RetrofitofCoalFiredBoilersWithFluidizedBedBiomass
Gasification.EnergyProductsofIdaho,2001.
50

toaplantsite,whichlimitstheeffectiveeconomicradiusfromtheplantlocationto
aggregatefuelsupplyatcommerciallyreasonableprices.Thevariednatureofbiomass
fuelfeedstocksalsonecessitatesspecialhandlingequipmentandlargernumbersoffuel
handlingpersonnelthanforasimilarlysizedcoalfiredplant.
Boiler/gasifiercapitalcostsandtrajectoryTheprimarydriverindeterminingoverall
costsisthecapitalcostsandlongruncosttrajectoriesforthegasifiertrainsrequiredto
gasifybiomassfuelfeedstocks.Afterseveraldecadesofcommercialdevelopmentand
embodimentofthetechnologyincoalgasificationapplications,thetechnologyis
consideredrelativelymature,andfewscaleeffectsareanticipated.Inaddition,the
escalationtrendsforrawmaterialsusedinmanufactureofthegasifierplant,primarily
steelandalloysteelcost,arefactorsthatcaninfluencethefinalinstalledcostofinstalling
biomassgasificationtechnology.
areofshorttermdurationandforfuelofsometimesvaryingquality.Theabilityto
writeandachieveperformanceonlongterm(e.g.fiveyearsdurationandlonger)fuel
supplycontractsforavailablefuelsourcesisakeycostdrivertosecuringfinancingfor
moreexpensivebiomassgasificationprojects.
Current Costs
Grosscapacityrangesbetween2540MWweremodeledforbiomassgasificationcombined
cycleunits,primarilyreflectingtheeffectivesizerangeandfuelsupplyradiusforsourcing
biomassfuelfeedstocks.Theserangesalsoembodycurrentprojectsizesnowunder
developmentinCalifornia,thoughnotyetbuilt,andtheyalsofallreadilywithincurrently
availablefluidizedbedgasificationtechnologies.
Netcapacityfactorsaremodeledasbetween6580%,reflectingtheonstreamexpectedtimesof
gasifiertrainunitsprocessingbiomassfuel,coupledwiththeexpectedavailabilityofthegas
turbinecombinedcyclegenerationunits.
Instantcostsweremodeledbasedondirectconversationswithactivedevelopersreviewing
projectsinCalifornia,combinedwithindustrycostsforfluidizedbedgasifiertrainssupporting
between2540MWclassplants,andexistingindustrycombustionturbinecombinedcycledata.
Thesecostsintotalaverage$2,950/kW,withahighrangeof$3,688/kWandalowrangeof
$2,655/kWmodeled.Highcasecostsreflectadditionalcapitalcostforbiomassfuelvariation
characteristics,andlowcasecostsreflectsimplerfuelprocessingandhandlingcosts.
Constructiondurationsfortotalinstalledcostcalculationsrangefromonetothreeyears
duration,withtheaverageplantconstructedwithinatwoyeartimehorizon.
Plantefficiencyandheatrateweremodeledbasedontheoverallexpectedperformanceofthe
gasturbinecombinedcyclecoupledwiththegasifiertrainoperatingasafluidizedbedunit.
Overallheatratesbetween10,00011,000Btu/kWhweremodeledbytheresearchteam,with
anaverageexpectedheatrateof10,500Btu/kWh.
51

ExpectedcosttrajectoriesforbiomassIGCCdevelopmentwilltrackcloselythetechnology
progressforcoalbasedintegratedgasificationtechnologies.Thosetechnologiesareconsidered
matureafterovertwodecadesofcommercialdevelopmentandembodiment,andsignificant
experiencecurveeffectsarenotanticipatedtoreduceoverallinstalledcostbase.
Theresearchteamusedamodifiedtechnologyprogressratiorangeof0.98to1.00tomodel
biomassintegratedgasificationcombinedcycleexperiencecurvetrajectories,asthistechnology
hasmaturedinthecoalbasedenvironmentinwhichithasdeveloped.Somesources
characterizeadditionallearningcurveeffectswiththegasifiertraindevelopment,ofuptoa10%
learningcurveimprovementintheperiodafter2020,buttheresearchteamdidnotincorporate
thisviewintotheanalysisforcosttrajectorydevelopment.49Therationaleisthattheexpected
embodimentofthistechnologyinCaliforniawillbeprimarilybubblingandcirculating
fluidizedbedgasifiertrains,andthistechnologyiswellestablishedforgasifyingbiomassfuels.
Othertechnologiescurrentlyunderdevelopmentforcoalfuelfeedstockswouldneedadditional
developmenttohandlethewidelyvaryingcharacteristicscommontobiomass,andthisresulted
inaselectionofamoreconservativelearningrateforthistechnologybytheresearchteam.
3.3. Geothermal
GeothermalenergyisderivedfromheatfrombeneaththeEarthssurfacethatflowstothe
surfacethroughavarietyofpathwaysfromhotwater,steamreservoirs,orheatedrock
formations.HeatiscarriedcontinuouslyupwardtotheEarthssurfaceassteamorhotwater
whenwaterflowsthroughpermeablerock.Californiahasthelargestgeothermalmegawatt
productionandpotentialofanystate.Currently,onlyafractionofCaliforniasenormous
geothermalresourcesareused.Approximately94%ofallknownUnitedStateshydrothermal
resourcesarelocatedinCalifornia.
CurrentlyintheUnitedStates,geothermalenergyaccountsforapproximately2,850megawatts
ofelectricpower,enoughelectricityfor3.7millionpeople.Thecostofproducingthispower
rangesfrom4to8centsperkWh.Thenationselectricalpowergenerationwasestimatedat80
quadrillionBtu(quads)in1990.Ofthisamount,renewableenergyproduced6.4quadsin1990
or8%ofthenationstotalenergyconsumption.Itisestimatedthatrenewableenergysources
havethepotentialtosupplyasmuchas36.6quadsby2030.Geothermalresourcesarepredicted
tobethelargestshorttermsupplierofrenewableelectricpower,withmorethanatenfold
increaseor3.3quadsprojectedby2010.Thisisapproximately35%ofthecalculatedrenewable
energycontribution.
49U.S.DepartmentofEnergy.EnergyInformationAdministration.LearningCurveEffectsforNew
Technologies.
52

Types of Geothermal Resources
Mostgeothermalresourcesfallintooneofthefollowingcategories:vapordominated,liquid
dominated,geopressure,hotdryrock,andmagma.Geothermalresourcesresultfroma
concentrationoftheEarthsthermalenergywithinregionsofthefoursubsurfacetypes.Ofthese
resources,onlyvaporandliquiddominatedresourceshavebeendevelopedcommerciallyfor
powergeneration.
Vapor-Dominated Resources
Vapordominatedresourcescontainsuperheatedsteamabove200C(382F)andarerarein
nature.Theresourceshavebeenproventobeeconomicaltoexploitforelectricitygeneration.In
Californiatheonlyvapordominatedresource,knownasTheGeysers,islocatedinNorthern
California.TheGeysersisalowpressure,singlephasesystem.
Liquid-Dominated Resources
InCalifornialiquiddominatedgeothermalfieldsaremorecommonthanvapordominated
resources.Ingeneral,inliquiddominatedreservoirsliquidwaterathightemperatureandhigh
pressurefillsfracturedandporousgeologyandmayformasmallsteamcapwithinthe
reservoir.Inthesegeothermalsystems,watermigratesintoawellfromthereservoirbyapath
ofleastresistance.InCalifornia,liquiddominatedresourcesarequiteabundantandfarmore
widespreadthanvapordominatedresources.Over90%ofknowngeothermalresourcesare
liquiddominated.Liquiddominatedresourcesarecharacterizedbythepresenceofeitherhot
waterorsaturatedsteam(amixtureofsteamandhotwater)withreservoirtemperatures
rangingfrom25C(77F)toover315C(599F).
Hightemperatureresources(reservoirswithtemperaturesgreaterthan176C[349F])generally
useflashedsteamortotalflowpowergenerationsystems.Atresourcetemperatureslowerthan
176C,thesetechnologiesbecomeinefficientandeconomicallyunattractive,inwhichcase,the
binarycyclesystemismoreappropriate.Abinarycycleplantcanusemoderatetemperature
resources(reservoirswithtemperaturesbetween104C[219F]and176C)40%to60%more
efficientlythanaflashedsteamfacility.
Earth Energy (Geothermal Heat Pumps and Direct Use)
Earthenergyistheheatcontainedinsoilandrocksatshallowdepths.Thisresourceistapped
bygeothermalheatpumps.Thesoilandnearsurfacerocks,from5to50feetdeep,havea
nearlyconstanttemperature(10C[50F]to70C[10F]dependingonlatitude)fromgeothermal
heating.AccordingtotheU.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency,geothermalheatpumpsare
oneofthenationsmostefficientheating,cooling,andwaterheatingsystemsavailable.In
winter,thesesystemsdrawonearthheattowarmthehouse,andinsummertheytransfer
heatfromthehousetotheearth.Undergroundreservoirsarealsotappedfordirectuse
applications.Intheseinstances,hotwaterischanneledtogreenhouses,spas,fishfarms,and
homesforspaceheatingandhotwater.
Vapor-Dominated Resource Development
Thedevelopmentofvapordominatedgeothermalwasinitiatedin1960atTheGeysersthrough
apartnershipofUnionOilCompanyofCalifornia(Unocal)andMagmaEnergyCompany.
53

ThermalPowerCompanyproducedsteamtothePacificGasandElectricCompany(PG&E)
electricalpowergenerationgrid.Since1960,TheGeysershasdevelopedintotheworldslargest
drysteamresourcewithover2700MWofinstalledelectricalgeneratingcapacity.
TheGeysersisthelargestdevelopedvapordominatedsystemintheworldandtheonlyknown
drysteamresourceintheUnitedStatesInadrysteamsystem,thereservoircontainsdry,
superheatedsteamwithaveragetemperaturesgenerallyexceeding200C(392F).These
resourcesareusedexclusivelyforelectricitygenerationandhaveproventobeeconomical.
PowerplantsoperatinginTheGeysersusedrysteamproducedfromnumerouswells.The
steamispipedtotheturbinegeneratorthroughextensivecollectionsystems.Thesteamexiting
theturbineiscondensedwithcoolingwaterandpumpedtoevaporativecoolingtowers.The
temperatureofthecondensateisfurtherreduced,producingthecooledwaterusedinthe
turbineexhaustcondenser.Theremainingcondensateisinjectedbackintotheground.During
thisprocess,however,80%to85%ofthegeothermalfluidislostthroughevaporation.
Since1960,whencommercialelectricitygenerationfirstbegan,TheGeysershasbecomethe
premiergeothermaldevelopmentintheworld.Sincethemid1980s,TheGeysersreservoirhas
beguntoexhibittheeffectsofheavysteamwithdrawal.Steampressure,particularlyinthe
centralpartofthereservoir,hasdroppedmuchfasterthanwasoriginallyexpected.Inmany
existingwells,steampressurehasdeclinedfromtheinitial500poundspersquareinch(psi)in
1960tolessthan200psi,shorteningtheirusefullifeandhasteningtheneedformakeupwells.
But,inmanyinstances,theadditionalsupplyofsteamprovidedbynewmakeupwellshas
proventobeinsufficienttomaintaintheoriginalsteamoutput.Also,manyofthesteam
developersareencounteringproductioninterference.Thatis,steamthatwouldotherwisebe
producedfromanexistingwellisdivertedtoanewwell.
ThedramaticdeclineinoutputfrommanyoftheplantsatTheGeysersisveryserious.Since
1986,electricityproductionhasfallenbyasmuchas40%.Theproductionforecastsareprojected
tobe11,000MW,nearlyonehalfofthecurrentcapacity.Thissituationmightbereversedif
sufficientwaterisfoundtorechargethereservoirbyinjection.Thisconditionisdueto
cumulativeoverproduction.Currentestimatessuggestthatlessthan5%ofthereservoirheat
hasbeenextractedfromTheGeysers.
TheGeysersistheonlydrysteamfieldthatiscommerciallydevelopedinthenationandhas
successfullyproducedpowersincetheearly1960s.Today,TheGeysersretainsapeakcapability
ofnearly1,100MW,enoughelectricitytosupplyacityofoveramillionCalifornians.
AsTheGeysersresourcewasexpanded,resourceexplorationandresearchinareasoutsideThe
Geysersaccelerated.AtTheGeysers,additionalgeneratingcapacitywasinstalled.Additional
drysteamplantshadconsiderablelargercapacityincreasesandlargerturbines,whichrequired
moreproductionandinjectionwellsthatresultedinmoreexpensivesteamproductionlinesand
greateroperationandmaintenancecosts.
TheGeysersgeothermalfieldreachedmaximumsteamproductionof1,866MWin1988.Since
then,pressureandproductionrateshavedeclined.Steamproductiondeclinehasdemonstrated
54

theimportanceofincreasedwaterinjectiontomaintainreservoirpressure.Whilethereis
continuingresearchtowarddeterminingthebestmethodsforwaterinjection,mitigation
effortssuchastheconstructionoftheSantaRosaandsoutheastGeyserspipelineprojectsto
augmentfluidinjectiontooffsetproductiondeclinesareunderway.Otheractivitiesthathave
beenimplementedincludemodificationstoplantoperationsforincreasingefficiency.In
addition,operationofolder,lessefficientpowerplantshasbeensuspendedandsteamrerouted
tonewerandmoreefficientplants.Plantoperatorshaveinstallednewturbinesdesignedat
lowerturbineinletpressures.Operatorshavealsomodifiedthedesignandoperationsof
existingturbines,condensers,andgashandlingsystemsforlowloadandcycling.These
changesmayextendthelifeoftheresourcebutatahigherprice.
TheGeysersisaresourcethatisnowintensivelymanagedforsteamproduction.Sincethe
steamdeclinebecamenoticeablein1985,approximately200MWofproductionhavebeentaken
offlineorsuspended.Thegeothermalelectricitygenerationindustryhaswatchedthe
unfoldingofeventsatTheGeysersandhasrespondedbyconstructingclosedcyclesystemsthat
reinjectvirtuallyeverythingextractedoutoftheground.Reinjectionofspentsteamhasbeen
successfulinslowingreservoirsteamdeclinesbuthasnotproventoincreasesteamproduction.
Geothermalresourcesdevelopmentsarenowbeingplannedwithmorecautionthanbefore,to
avoidascenariosimilartotheoneatTheGeysers.Theeliminationofcompetitionbetween
steamproducersandplantoperatorshaseasedasaresultofownershipconsolidationand
changingauctionstrategies.Reservoirmanagementactivitiessuchasfurtherspacingof
productionandinjectionwells,aswellasmonitoringwaterresourcesforflow,quantity,
chemistry,andtendenciestowardbrineandscalingarealsobeingimplemented.Asaresult,
binaryandliquiddominatedflashextractionsystemsaretheonlyonesbeinginstalledtoday.
Liquid-dominated Resource Development
GeothermalexplorationofliquiddominatedresourcesinCaliforniabeganin1967,whenboth
UnocalandMortonSaltCompanydeployedsmall,experimentalgeothermalturbinesoperating
attheSaltonSeafield.However,problemswithsilicascalingandhighsaltconcentrations
preventedcommercialdevelopmentoftheresourceatthattime.Indevelopingliquid
dominatedresourcesduringthe1970s,developershadtoconsiderthedegreeofrisk,greater
capitalcosts,anadverseregulatoryclimate,andrelativeimmaturityoftheexploration,drilling,
andproductiontechnology,whichimpededthedevelopmentofliquiddominatedresources.
Theseimpedimentsweremitigatedsignificantlywhenthefederalandstategovernment
respondedtotheoilcrisisof1973.Toencourageexploitationofgeothermalresourcesand
associatedtechnologies,theEnergyCommissionandtheDOEprovidedfinancialassistance
programstosupportR&Dintheseareas.
Developmentofliquiddominatedresourceswasfurtherfacilitatedin1975,whentheU.S.
GeologicalSurvey(USGS)concludedanationwidegeothermalresourceassessment.TheUSGS
assessmentdocumentwasinstrumentalinexpandinginterestindevelopingliquiddominated
resourcesintheSouthwesternstates.
55

Severalyearslater,theFederalEnergyRegulatoryCommission(FERC)encouraged
developmentofgeothermalresourcesbyprovidingenergytaxcreditsandloanguaranties
whileestablishingamoreprogressiveregulatoryprocessthroughpassageofthePublicUtility
RegulatoryPolicyAct(PURPA)of1978.By1979,FERChadformulatedregulationsfor
implementationofPURPA.Inessence,FERCdirectedstateregulatorstorequirethatutilities
purchasepowerfromindependentpowerproducers(IPPs)attheutilitysfullavoidedcostand
tomaketheutilitystransmissionsystemavailabletodeliverthepowertomarket.TheFERC
decisionthatutilitiescouldberequiredtopaythequalityfactor,acapacitychargeaswellasan
energychargewassignificanttothegeothermalindustry.Thelogicforthecapacitychargewas
that,becauseofthebaseloadnatureofgeothermalpower,itssaletotheutilitydirectly
displacedcapacitythatutilitieswouldotherwisehavetobuildinthefuture.
ThisactionledtotheEnergyCommissionrequiringutilitiestoissueStandardOfferNumber
Four(SO4)contractsforpurchaseofpowerfromIPPs.Thisresultedinthesigningoflongterm
contracts,settingpricesattheutilitysfullavoidedcostfornewbaseloadcapacity.Theresultof
theseregulatoryandfinancialincentivesresultedinashiftfromutilitydevelopmentofadry
steamresourcetoindependentdevelopmentofliquiddominatedresourcesatmultiple
locationsthroughoutthestate.ThistrendestablishedtheIPPsegmentoftheindustryand
increaseditspowergeneratingcapacityfromzerotoapproximatelyonethirdofthetotalMW
production.Productionfromliquiddominatedresourcesisalsoapproximatelyonethirdof
totalproduction.
Theinitialelectricalpowerdevelopmentofaliquiddominatedgeothermalresourceoccurredin
November1979attheEastMesafieldinImperialCounty.Theelectricalgenerationplant
consistedofabinaryapplicationusingisobutaneasthesecondaryworkingfluidtoturnout
13.4MWofelectricalpower.
InJune1980,SouthernCaliforniaEdison(SCE)beganoperationofa10MWexperimental
powerplantattheBrawleygeothermalfieldwithsteamproducedbyUnocal.However,SCE
andUnocalceasedfurtherdevelopmentofthefieldafterafewyearsofoperationdueto
corrosion,reservoiruncertainties,andthehighsalinitybrinesthattypicallyproducedsaltsby
massthatrangedbetween5%and25%.
Inthemid1970s,Unocal,inconjunctionwiththeDOE,spearheadedresearchanddevelopment
andplantoperationactivitiesattheGeothermalLoopExperimentalFacilityattheSaltonSea
geothermalfield.Unocaltooktheleadroleindevelopingandresolvingproblemsthatwere
encounteredinprocessingthehighsalinitybrines,whichweretypicallyover20%saltbymass.
TheGeothermalLoopFacilitywascompletedin1976andwasdesignedtodeterminethe
technicalfeasibilityofremovingsaltsthatformedwhensteamwasflashedfromthebrine.Asa
resultofthiscooperativeindustry/governmenteffort,acrystallizerclarifier,abrinetreatment
process,wasdevelopedanddemonstrated.Thisprocesswascriticalinprovingthatcommercial
powergenerationwastechnicallyandeconomicallyfeasiblefromtheSaltonSeageothermal
field.
56

UnocalinitiatedelectricalpowergenerationfromtheSaltonSeageothermalresourceinJune
1982fromits12MWplant.In1982,Unocaladdedtwoadditionalgenerationunitsforatotal
grosselectricalgenerationof83MW.
Inlate1985,MagmaPowerCompanycommencedcontinuousproductionfromitsfirst40MW
powerplantattheSaltonSeafield.Withinacoupleyears,Magmaaddedthreemoregenerating
unitsthatbroughtitstotalto145MW.Today,theentireSaltonSeafieldoperationofeight
powerplantswith288MWcapacityisoperatedbyCalEnergyCorporation,whichboughtout
UnocalsandMagmasoperations.InJanuary1999,CalEnergyOperatingCorporationunveiled
a$400millionexpansionoftheirgeothermalpowercomplexattheSaltonSea.
Togenerateelectricityeconomicallyusingliquiddominatedresources,reservoirtemperatures
generallymustexceed104.4C(220F).ThereareseveralareaswithinCaliforniawhereliquid
dominatedresourcesabovethistemperaturearebeingdeveloped.TheseincludetheImperial
Valley,CosoHotSprings,MonoLongValley,andWendelAmadee.Otherareasthatexhibit
temperaturesabovethisminimumandwhereexplorationhasbegunincludeGlassMountain,
Lassen,andSurpriseValley.Sincethetemperatureandqualityoftheseresourcesvary
significantlyfromsitetosite,differenttypesofgeneratingsystemsareneeded,dependingon
thespecificcircumstances.IntheImperialValley,thereare16plantsoperatingwithacombined
capacityof527.3MW.AttheCosoHotSpringsresourcethereareninedualflashoperating
plantswithacombinedgrossratingcapacityof229.5MW.
Inaflashedsteamsystems,geothermalbrine,typicallybetween104Cand176C,isbroughtto
thesurfaceandpipedtoaseparationtankwherethepressureisreduced,causingthefluidto
flashintosteam.Inasingleflashsystem,fluidisallowedtoboilatthesurfaceinonestage
productionseparation.Afractionofthehotwaterflashestosteamwhenexposedtothelower
pressurewithintheseparator.Thesteamisthenpassedthroughaturbinetogeneratepower.
Typically,theliquidfractionistheninjectedbackintothereservoir.Duringthisprocessas
muchas60%oftheusableheatextractedfromthereservoirmaybelost.Toimproveefficiency,
dualflashsystemsareusedinwhichthegeothermalfluidisflashedtwice,increasingthe
amountofsteamtotheturbine.Dualflashtechnologyimposesasecondstageseparatorontoa
singleflashsystem.Thissecondstagesteamhasalowerpressureandiseitherputintoalater
stageofahighpressureturbineorasecondlowerpressureturbine.Thesteamexitingthe
turbineiscondensedinmuchthesamemanneraswithdrysteamplants.However,lessofthe
resourceislostduringevaporativecoolingsincelessthanhalfofthegeothermalwaterthatis
producedactuallyflashestosteam.Doubleflashtechnologyisintherangeof10%to20%more
efficientthansingleflashtechnology.
Thisstudyincludestwotypesofgeothermalpowerplants:
BinaryPowerPlants(Figure12).
FlashPowerPlants(Figure13).
57

Drysteamplantsarenotincludedinthiscostofgenerationstudysincetheyareonlyapplicable
tooneresourceinthewesternUnitedStates(TheGeysers).Forthepurposesofcostsmodeling,
resourcesapplicabletoawidergeographywerechosen.
Figure 12. Binary power plant

Source: Idaho National Laboratory
Figure 13. Flash power plant

Source: Idaho National Laboratory
58
3.3.2. Geothermal Binary

CurrentCaliforniabinarygeothermalinstallationstotal140MW.50Anadditional240MW
potentialdevelopment51islikelyusingbinarytechnology.
Binarycyclegeothermalpowerplantspassmoderatelyhotgeothermalwater(calledbrine)bya
secondaryfluidwithamuchlowerboilingpointthanwater.Thiscausesthesecondaryfluidto
flashtovapor,whichthendrivestheturbines.Californiabinaryplantsrangeinsizefrom0.7to
47.8MWwithmostbetween20and30MW.Eachoftheseplantscanhaveseveralgenerators.
TheaveragegeneratorsizeinuseinCaliforniaisapproximately4MW.
Thetypicalbinarygeothermalpowerplantin2018isforeseentobesimilarinfunctionandsize
tothecurrentinstallations.
Cost Drivers
Muchoftheinformationoncostdriversiscommontobothbinaryandflashgeothermalplants.
Commoninformationbetweenthetwotechnologiesisnotrepeatedintheflashgeothermal
section.
TherehavebeennomarketandindustrychangessinceAugust2007thathavematerially
affectedgeothermaltechnologies.
CurrentTrends
BinarygeothermalisamaturetechnologywithplantsinCaliforniasincethemid1980s.A
numberofspecificsiteshavebeenidentifiedinCaliforniasuitableforbinaryplant
development.Shouldthesesitesbedeveloped,thelessexpensivesites(greatestreturnon
investment)wouldbefirst,withthemoreexpensivesitestofollow.Anylearningcurvein
developmentwouldmostlikelybeacostavoidanceratherthanacostsaving.Thereforeany
costreductiontrendsareunlikelytobeseen.
CostDrivers
Geothermalplantsincludethefollowingkeycostdrivers:52
50Source:http://geoheat.oit.edu/directuse/power.htm
51SisonLebrilla,Elaine,ValentinoTiangco.GeothermalStrategicValueAnalysis.CEC5002005105SD,
June2005.
52Kagel,Alyssa.AHandbookontheExternalities,Employment,andEconomicsofGeothermalEnergy.
GeothermalEnergyAssociation,October2006.
59
ExplorationIncludesdefiningthegeothermalresource.
ConfirmationSeekstoconfirmtheenergypotentialofaresourcebydrilling
productionwellsandtestingtheirflowratesuntilabout25%oftheresourcecapacity
neededbytheprojectisconfirmed.
SitedevelopmentCoversallremainingactivitiesthatbringapowerplantonline.
DrillingThesuccessratefordrillingproductionwellsduringsitedevelopment
average70%to80%.Thesizeofthewellandthedepthtothegeothermal
reservoirarethemostimportantfactorsindeterminingthedrillingcost.
ProjectleasingandpermittingLikeallpowerprojects,geothermalmustcomply
withaseriesoflegislatedrequirementsrelatedtoenvironmentalconcernsand
constructioncriteria.
PipingnetworkThenetworkofpipesconnectingthepowerplantwith
productionandinjectionwells.Productionwellsbringthegeothermalfluid(or
brine)tothesurfacetobeusedforpowergeneration,whileinjectionwellsreturn
theusedfluidbacktothegeothermalsystemtobeusedagain.
PowerplantdesignandconstructionIndesigningapowerplant,developers
mustbalancesizeandtechnologyofplantmaterialswithefficiencyandcost
effectiveness.Thepowerplantdesignandconstructiondependontypeofplant
(binaryorflash)aswellasthetypeofcoolingcycleused(wateroraircooling).
TransmissionIncludesthecoststoincludetheconstructionofnewlines,
upgradestoexistinglines,ornewtransformersandsubstations.
Anotherimportantfactorisoperationandmaintenance(O&M),whichconsistofallcosts
incurredduringtheoperationalphaseofthepowerplant.Belowisabriefdescription:53
Operationcostsconsistoflabor,spendingforconsumablegoods,taxesandroyalties,
andothermiscellaneouscharges.
Maintenancecostsconsistofkeepingequipmentingoodworkingstatusandsteamfield
maintenance.Besidesmaintainingtheproductioninjectionwells(pipelines,roads,etc.),
expensesrelatedtosteamfieldmaintenancemainlyinvolvemakeupdrillingactivities.
Makeupdrillingaimstocompensateforthenaturalproductivitydeclineoftheproject
startupwellsbydrillingadditionalproductionwells.
Costdriversarenotconstantforeverysinglegeothermalsitedevelopment.Eachoftheabove
driverscanvarysignificantlybasedonspecificsitecharacteristics.Otherkeyvariablefactors
thatdrivecostsforgeothermalplants(notmentioneddirectlyabovesincetheyarehighly
projectspecific)areprojectdelays,temperatureoftheresource,andplantsize.
53Hance,CedricFactorsAffectingCostsofGeothermalPowerDevelopment.GeothermalEnergyAssociation,
August2005.
60

Projectdelayscansignificantlyimpacttheexplorationcostofgeothermaldevelopment.Figure
14showsanestimationofthiscostimpact.53
Figure 14. Specific cost of power plant equipment vs. resource temperature
Source: Hance, Factors Affecting Costs of Geothermal Power Development.
Thetemperatureoftheresourceisanessentialparameterinfluencingthecostofthepower
plantequipment.Eachpowerplantisdesignedtooptimizetheuseoftheheatsuppliedbythe
geothermalfluid.Thesizeandthuscostofvariouscomponents(e.g.,heatexchangers)are
determinedbytheresourcestemperature.Asthetemperatureoftheresourcegoesup,the
efficiencyofthepowersystemincreases,andthespecificcostofequipmentdecreases(more
energybeingproducedwithsimilarequipment).Sincebinarysystemsuselowerresource
operatingtemperaturesthanflashsteamsystems,binarycostscanbeexpectedtobehigher.
Figure15givesestimatesforcostvarianceduetoresourcetemperature.
61
Figure 15. Financial impact of delay on exploration costs

Economiesofscalemightsignificantlydecreasethespecificcostofsomecomponents.One
source(Hance2005)givesanestimationforcapitalcostsofgeothermalprojectswithcapacity
rangesof5to150MWdecliningexponentiallywiththeircapacityaccordingtothefollowing
relationship:CC=2500e^0.0025(P5),whereCCrepresentscapitalcostsandPtheprojects
powercapacityasshowninFigure16.
62
Figure 16. Economies of scale

Current Costs
Severalsourcesprovideestimatedcostsforgeothermaldevelopment.Basedonananalysisof
thecostdriversgivenabove,itisdifficulttousegeneralaveragecostswithoutexamining
specificpotentialprojectsites.
InJuly2002,theEnergyCommissionexecutedaPIERcontractwiththeHetchHetchyWater
andPowerDivisionoftheSanFranciscoPublicUtilitiesCommission(HetchHetchy/SFPUC)to
fundstudiesandprojectsrelatingtorenewableenergy.GeothermEx,Inc.(GeothermEx)was
retainedbyHetchHetchy/SFPUCtoprovideageothermalresourceassessmentforCalifornia
andwesternNevada.ThissectionsummarizesthefindingsofGeothermExontheresource
assessmentforCalifornia.
GeothermExusedpriorresearch,exploration,anddevelopmentresultsavailableinthepublic
domain.Italsouseddataandinformationreleasedbysomedevelopersintothepublicdomain
forthisstudy.Threebaselineconditionswereusedtodeterminethegeothermalresourceareas
includedinthisassessment:geographiclocation,resourcetemperature,andevidenceofa
discreteresource.InCalifornia,22geothermalresourceareaswereincludedintheassessment.
Amongthevariousgeothermalresourceareas,theamountandqualityoftechnicaldataare
extremelyvariable.Auniformsetofrequiredresourcecriteriathereforeneededtobequantified
todeterminecommercialfeasibilityforeachresourcearea.Foreachselectedreservoirvaluesfor
thefollowingcriteriawereobtainedorreasonablyestimated:temperature,area,thickness,
porosity,andresourcerecoveryfactor.
Tobettercapturetheuncertaintyofeachresource,theminimum,mostlikelyandmaximum
values,wereusedforeachcriterion.Thesevalueswerethenusedinprobabilisticsimulation,
(basedonMonteCarlorandomnumbersampling,)tocalculateestimatedgenerationcapacity
basedonaccessibleheatattheresourcearea.Becausethegenerationcapacityisestimatedbased
oncalculatedheatinplace,thereisnoguaranteethatsufficientpermeabilityexiststoallow
commercialproductionforthoseresourceswherelittleornotestdrillinghasoccurred.
63

Asummaryofthisanalysis,withdevelopmentcostsforspecificsitessuitableforbinaryplant
development,isshowninTable12.54
Table 12. Potential binary geothermal plant development in California (most likely sources)
Geothermal Resource Area
County
Resource
Type
Potential
Development
(MW)
Estimated
Cost
($2004/kW)
Estimated
Cost
($2009/kW)
Dunes
Imperial
Binary
11
$4,085
$4,726
East Mesa
Imperial
Binary
74.8
$5,141
$5,948
Glamis
Imperial
Binary
6.4
$4,953
$5,731
Heber
Imperial
Binary
42
$2,706
$3,131
Mount signal
Imperial
Binary
19
$2,746
$3,177
Superstition Mountain
Imperial
Binary
9.5
$3,211
$3,715
Honey Lake (Wendel-Amedee)
Lassen
Binary
1.9
$2,484
$2,874
Mono
Binary
71
$2,034
$2,353
Ventura
Binary
5.3
$4,112
$4,758
High
$5,141
$5,948
Low
$2,034
$2,353
Average
$3,497
$4,046
Long Valley (Mono- Long Valley)

Mammoth Pacific Plants
Sespe Hot Springs
Total
241
Source: Sison-Lebrilla, Elaine and ValentinoTiangco, Geothermal Strategic Value Analysis
Astraightaverageisusedtoestimateaveragecosts.Aweightedaveragewouldyielda
differenceofapproximately2%,whichisconsideredsmallforthepurposesofthecost
modeling.
Anothersource(Kagel2006)providesgeneralcostdataforgeothermalplantsbutdoesnot
separatebetweenbinaryorflashtechnologies.Thatsourceestimates$2,770/kW($2004)astotal
developmentcosts,whichis79%oftheaveragecostsderivedforCaliforniaresourcesinthis
study.Sincebinaryplantsaretypicallymoreexpensivethanflashgeothermalplants,andsince
thevaluespresentedabovearebasedonactualsiteevaluations,the21%discrepancyis
consideredacceptablewhenevaluatingcorroboratingsourcesforcostestimates.
Operationandmaintenancecostscanbeseparatedintofixed($/kWyr)andvariable($/MWh
yr)costs.Whenconsideringvariablecosts,onemustdeterminefacilitycapacityfactor.Actual
installationsinCaliforniaandNevadawereusedinestimatingcapacityfactor.
54SisonLebrilla,Elaine,ValentinoTiangcoGeothermalStrategicValueAnalysis.CEC5002005105SD,
June2005.
64

Table 13. California and Nevada existing binary plants with capacity factor55
Owner
Plant
Wineagle
Wineagle
Location
California
Type
Binary
Year
No. Of
Rating
Capacity
Annual
Units
MW
Factor
Energy
GWh
0.7
80
1985
Development
TG/USEC
Amedee
California
Binary
1988
1.6
80
11
ORMAT
Mammoth/Pacific
California
Binary
1984
10
90
79
ORMAT
ORMESA IE
California
Binary
1988
10
10
90
79
ORMAT
ORMESA IH
California
Binary
1989
12
12
90
95
ORMAT
ORMESA I
California
Binary
1987
26
20
90
158
ORMAT
ORMESA II
California
Binary
1988
20
20
90
158
ORMAT
Mammoth/Pacific
California
Binary
1990
30
90
236
ORMAT
Second Imperial
California
Binary
1993
12
33
80
231
90
38
Project
ORMAT
GEM 1
California
Binary
1979
Retired
SDG&E
Binary Demo.
California
Binary
1985
Retired
Empire Energy
Empire
Nevada
Binary
1987
4.8
Constellation
Soda Lake 1
Nevada
Binary
1987
26.1
90
206
ORMAT
Steamboat I
Nevada
Binary
1986
10.8
95
90
ORMAT
Steamboat 2
Nevada
Binary
1992
47.8
95
398
OESI/CON
SWI
Nevada
Binary
1989
14
21
90
166
Home Stretch
Wabuska I
Nevada
Binary
1984
2.2
90
17
Geothermal
Source: Oregon Institute of Technology: http://geoheat.oit.edu/directuse/power.htm
Actualcapacityfactorsrangefrom80%to95%withmostbeingat90%.
Anotherthingtonoteabouttheexistinginstallationsisthenumberofgenerationunitsforeach
site.Fromthedata,plantsizesrangefrom0.7to47.8MW.Nearlyeveryplantusesmultiple
generators,withgeneratorsizesranginginsizefrom0.35to10MW.
BasedonanevaluationoftheactualinstallationsgiveninTable13,ageneralrangeofplant
sizesisasfollows:
Average:
15MW
High:
50MW
Low:
2MW
Thesevaluesareusedforthecostmodeling.
55Source:OregonInstituteofTechnology:http://geoheat.oit.edu/directuse/power.htm.
65

O&Mvaluesforbinarygeothermalweredeterminedwiththevaluesgivenin$2004/kWyr.56
ThoseapplicabletovariableO&Mwerethenconvertedto$/MWhbasedonhigh,low,and
averagecapacityfactorsusing9.
Equation1:ConversionFactortoVariableO&M
$/MWh=$/kWyr/8.76/CapacityFactor
Allvalueswereadjustedfrom$2004to$2009inproportiontoinflation.Theresultsofthe
analysisareincludedinTable14.
Table 14. Fixed and variable O&M for binary geothermal power plants
Fixed
Variable
Variable
Variable
Average
High
Low
Cost
O&M
O&M
O&M
O&M
Capacity
Capacity
Capacity
($2004 /
($2009 /
($2009 /
($2009 /
($2009 /
Factor
Factor
Factor
kw-yr)
kW-yr)
MWh)
MWh)
MWh)
$24
0.9
$3.52
0.95
$3.34
0.8
$3.96
$6
0.9
$0.88
0.95
$0.83
0.8
$0.99
$1
0.9
$0.15
0.95
$0.14
0.8
$0.17
$41 $47.44
$72 $47.44
$4.55
$4.31
$5.12
Binary Geothermal O&M

Field, General O&M and Rework
Makeup Wells
Relocation Injection Wells
Power Plant O&M
Total
Source: KEMA
ThereisalsosomevariabilityinfixedO&M.Thereferencedreportprovidesonlyaverage
values.Ingeneral,valuesvaryapproximately15%,57whichisusedtoestimatehighandlow
fixedO&Mvalues.
FixedO&MAverage:
$47.44
FixedO&MHigh:
$54.56
FixedO&MLow:
$40.32

Binarygeothermalpowerisaverymaturetechnologywithalimitednumberofsitesavailable
forgeneration.Whilethetechnologycouldhavealearningeffectofupto20%,implyingthat
foradoublingofinstalledcapacitycostswouldbereducedby20%,thesmallnumberofsites
availablefordevelopmentmakesitdifficulttoobtainthoselearningeffects.Basedon
cumulativegeothermalinstalledgenerationin2009at2.4GWto2029expectedcapacityof3
GW,theresearchteamexpectsalearningeffectofnomorethan7%overthatperiod.
Whilecompletingtheinterimprojectreport,theresearchteamwasprovidedwithearlier
researchongeothermalcosttrajectoriesthatpotentiallyconflictswiththeassessmentofthe
June2005.
57Lovekin,James,SubirSanyal,AdilC.Sener,ValentinoTiangco,andPabloGutierrezSantana.
PotentialImprovementstoExistingGeothermalFacilitiesinCalifornia.GRCTransactions30,2006.
66

learningeffectsforgeothermal.58ThepremiseofthisresearchisthatgivenenoughR&D
investment,geothermalprojectscanbecomecostequivalentto,orbetterthan,similarsized
fossilfueledprojects.TheauthorsciteintheirresearchanScurvetechnologyexperiencemodel
thatisessentiallysimilartootherlogarithmicbasedexperiencecurvemodels,includingthe
basicpremisesthattheresearchteamusedinthecomputationoflongruncosttrajectoriesfor
costofgenerationdata.
SchillingandEsmundociteintheirresearchthefactthatgeothermalcostshavesteadily
declinedsince1980,from13.8cents/kWhto2005valuesof4.3cents/kWh.Theirfundamental
conclusionregardinggeothermalcosttrajectoriesisthatwithaR&Dinvestmentof
approximately$7.5billion,geothermalenergyshouldbecomemorecostcompetitivethanthe
fossilfuelpriceofenergy.
TheresearchteamevaluatedtheSchillingandEsmundoconclusionregardinggeothermal
technologycosttrajectory.First,theresearchteamnotesthatSchillingandEsmundocitein
theirpaperthatGeothermalskeydisadvantageisthatgiventhestateoftechnology,itis
currentlyverygeographicallyconstrainedwithonlylimitedareasenablingcostefficientuseof
geothermalenergy.Theprimarydriversinexperiencecurvecosttrajectoryeffectsarethe
learningratesinvolvedinatechnologyandthecumulativeinvestment(installedcapacity)over
time.Ifonecannotobtainsufficientgrowthexpansionsincumulativecapacity,thenexperience
curvecosttrajectoriesaremoderatedandoverallcosttrajectoriesflattened.
TheresearchteamusedthecumulativecapacityadditionestimatesprovidedbytheDOEfor
geothermaltechnologies,thesamedatausedbytheresearchteamtoestimatethecosttrajectory
effectsforalltechnologytypes.Thisdatasetshowsageothermalcurrentcumulativeinstalled
baseof2.4GWin2009,andrisingto3.0GWin2030,orayearoveryearaveragegrowthrateof
1.07%peryear.
Next,takingthepremisefromSchillingandEsmundoofanincrementalR&Dinvestmentof
$7.5billiondollars,assumingthatR&Dgoesintocapacityadditionsattheaverageinstalled
plantcostof$4.6millionperMWinstalledgeneration,theresearchteamcalculatedtheamount
ofcumulativegenerationas16,300MWtoberequiredtoreachthefossilfuelequivalency
projectedbySchillingandEsmundo.That16GWcalculatedrequirementismorethanfive
timestheprojectedincreaseincumulativeinstalledbaseprojectedbyDOE.
Theresearchteamconcludesthatwhilethisresearchprovidedhasvaluableinsights,the
fundamentalissuesregardinggeothermalpowerdevelopmentremainastheystatedintheir
ownresearchthattheavailabilityofsuitablesitesultimatelyprovidesaconstraintinthe
amountofcumulativeinstalledcapacitythatcanbeinstalledinareasonabletimeframe.Also
notedisthatthecosttrajectoryimprovementsforeseeninthiscostofgenerationstudy,onthe
orderof10%overthestudyperiodthrough2030,correspondwelltoDOEsownestimates,
58Schilling,MelissaA.andMelissaEsmundo.TechnologySCurvesinRenewableEnergyAlternatives:
AnalysisandImplicationsforIndustryandGovernment.EnergyPolicy(2009),
doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2009.01.004.
67

whichprojecta10%costimprovementthrough2025.Theresearchteamsjudgmentisthat
geothermalenergydevelopmentisarelativelymaturetechnology,andweanticipatereasonable
learningeffects,butnotthosethatwouldenablefossilfuelcostparity,overthestudyduration.
3.3.3. Geothermal Flash

CurrentCaliforniaflashgeothermalinstallationstotal700MW.59Anadditional2,220MW
potentialdevelopmentislikelyusingflashtechnology.60
Flashsteamplantspulldeep,highpressurehotwaterintolowerpressuretanksandusethe
resultingflashedsteamtodriveturbines.Thisisthemostcommontypeofplantinoperation
today.MostCaliforniaplantsuseonegenerator,butsomeusetwoorthree.Totalplant
capacitiesrangefrom10to52MW,withmostatapproximately30MW.
Thetypicalflashgeothermalpowerplantin2018isforeseentobesimilarinfunctionandsizeto
thecurrentinstallations.
Cost Drivers
Muchoftheinformationoncostdriversiscommontobothbinaryandflashgeothermalplants.
Commoninformationbetweenthetwotechnologiesthatisgiveninthebinarysectionisnot
repeatedinthissection.
affectedflashgeothermaltechnologies.
CurrentTrends
FlashgeothermalisamaturetechnologywithalimitednumberofsitesinCaliforniasuitablefor
itsdevelopment.Theprimarycostdriverisdevelopmentofthesite.Shouldthesesitesbe
developed,thelessexpensivesites(greatestreturnoninvestment)wouldbefirst,withthemore
expensivesitestofollow.Anylearningcurveindevelopmentwouldmostlikelybeacost
avoidanceratherthanacostsaving.Thereforeanycostreductiontrendsareunlikelytobeseen.
CostDrivers
Inadditiontothecostdriverslistedinthebinarysection,forsomeflashplants,acorrosive
geothermalfluidmayrequiretheuseofresistivepipesandcement.Addingatitaniumlinerto
protectthecasingmaysignificantlyincreasethecostofthewell.Thiskindofrequirementis
rare,andintheUnitedStates,limitedtotheSaltonSearesource(Hance2005).
June2005.
68

Current Costs
Thesourcedocumentationandmethodsforestimatingcurrentcostsofflashgeothermalplants
areincludedinthebinarysection.Theresultsspecifictoflashtechnologiesaregivenbelow.
Asummaryoftheresourceanalysis,withdevelopmentcosts,forspecificsitessuitableforflash
plantdevelopment,isshowninTable15.61
Table 15. Potential flash geothermal plant development in California (most likely sources)
Geothermal Resource Area
Salton Sea (including
County
Resource
Potential
Estimated
Estimated
Type
Development
Cost
Cost
(MW)
($2004/kW)
($2009/kW)
Imperial
Flash
1400
$2,250*
$2,603
Imperial
Flash
1400
$4,500*
$5,207
Brawley (North)
Imperial
Flash
135
$2,638
$3,052
Brawley (East)
Imperial
Flash
129
$4,195
$4,854
Brawley (South)
Imperial
Flash
62
$4,606
$5,329
Niland
Imperial
Flash
76
$3,249
$3,759
Coso Hot Springs
Inyo
Flash
55
$3,405
$3,940
Sulfur Bank Field, Clear Lake
Lake
Flash
43
$2,347
$2,715
Napa
Flash
25
$3,403
$3,937
Modoc
Flash
37
$3,146
$3,640
San
Flash
48
$2,615
$3,026
Westmoreland) - Low
Salton Sea (including
Westmoreland) - High
Area
Calistoga
Lake City/Surprise Valley
Randsburg
Bernardi
no/ Kern
Medicine Lake (Fourmile Hill)
Siskiyou
Flash
36
$2,674
$3,094
Medicine Lake (Telephone
Siskiyou
Flash
175
$2,275
$2,632
Flat)
Total
2221
High
175
$4,606
$5,329
Low
25
$2,250
$2,603
Average
75
$3,177
$3,676
* The Salton Sea resource includes high and low cost estimates.
Source: Sison-Lebrilla, Elaine and Valentino Tiangco. Geothermal Strategic Value Analysis.
Anothersource(Kagel2006)providesgeneralcostdataforgeothermalplantsbutdoesnot
separatebetweenbinaryorflashtechnologies.Thatsourceestimates$2,770/kW($2004)astotal
developmentcosts,whichis88%ofthecostsrecommendedinthisstudy.Sincethevalues
June2005.
69

presentedabovearebasedonactualsiteevaluations,the12%discrepancyisconsidered
acceptablewhenevaluatingcorroboratingsourcesforcostestimates.
O&Mcostscanbeseparatedintofixed($/kWyr)andvariable($/MWhyr)costs.When
consideringvariablecosts,onemustdeterminefacilitycapacityfactor.Existinginstallationsin
CaliforniaandNevadawereusedinestimatingcapacityfactor.
Table 16. California and Nevada existing flash plants with capacity factor62
Owner
ORMAT
Plant
Location
Type
Year
No. Of
Rating
Capacity
Annual
Units
MW
Factor
Energy
GWh
92.5
146
GEM 3
California
Double Flash
1989
18.5
ORMAT
Dual-Flash
California
Double Flash
1985
52
90
410
CalEnergy
J.M. Leathers
California
Double Flash
2000
10
104
91
ORMAT
GEM 2
California
Double Flash
1989
18.5
92.5
146
CalEnergy
S. S. 2
California
Double Flash
1990
20
104
182
CECI
Navy 1: Unit 2
California
Double Flash
1988
30
116
305
CECI
Navy 1: Unit 3
California
Double Flash
1988
30
116
305
CECI
Navy 2: Unit 4
California
Double Flash
1989
30
116
305
CECI
Navy 2: Unit 5
California
Double Flash
1989
30
116
305
CECI
Navy 2: Unit 6
California
Double Flash
1989
30
116
305
CECI
BLM 1: Unit 7
California
Double Flash
1988
30
116
305
CECI
BLM 1: Unit 8
California
Double Flash
1988
30
116
305
CECI
BLM 1: Unit 9
California
Double Flash
1989
30
116
305
CECI
Navy 1: Unit 1
California
Double Flash
1987
34
116
345
CalEnergy
Vulcan
California
Double Flash
1985
38
104
346
CalEnergy
J.J. Elmore
California
Double Flash
1989
38
104
346
CalEnergy
J.M. Leathers
California
Double Flash
1989
38
104
346
CalEnergy
S. S. 4
California
Double Flash
1996
40
104
403
Calenergy
A.W. Hoch (Del
California
Double Flash
1989
42
104
383
Ranch)
CalEnergy
S. S. 3
California
Double Flash
1989
50
104
455
CalEnergy
S. S. 5
California
Double Flash
2000
50
104
503
CalEnergy
S. S. 1
California
Single Flash
1982
10
104
91
Caithness
Beowawe
Nevada
Double Flash
1985
16.6
90
131
ORMAT
Brady Hot
Nevada
Double Flash
1992
21.1
98
181
Springs
ORMAT
Desert Peak
Nevada
Double Flash
1985
12.5
98
107
Caithness
Dixie Valley
Nevada
Double Flash
1988
62
90
489
ORMAT
Steamboat
Nevada
Single Flash
1988
14.4
95
120
Hills
Source: http://geoheat.oit.edu/directuse/power.htm
70
ActualcapacityfactorsinCaliforniarangefrom90%to116%andinNevadarangefrom90%to
98%.Forthepurposesofcostmodeling,itsunreasonabletoassumecapacityfactorsator
aboveunity.Arangeof90%to98%wasselectedwiththeaveragebeing94%.
Anotherthingtonoteisthatmostflashgeothermalplantsuseasinglegenerator.Plant
capacitiesrangefrom10to62MW.Generatorcapacitiesrangefrom7to62MW.
BasedonanevaluationoftheactualinstallationsgiveninTable16,ageneralrangeofplant
sizesisasfollows:
Average:
30MW
High:
50MW
Low:
7MW
Thesevaluesareusedforthecostmodeling.
O&Mvaluesforflashgeothermalweredeterminedwiththevaluesgivenin$2004/kWyr.63
ThoseapplicabletovariableO&Mwerethenconvertedto$/MWhbasedonhigh,lowand
averagecapacityfactorsusingEquation2.
Equation2:ConversionFactortoVariableO&M
$/MWh=$/kWyr/8.76/CapacityFactor
Allvalueswereadjustedfrom$2004to$2009inproportiontoinflation.Theresultsofthe
analysisareincludedinTable17.
Table 17. Fixed and variable O&M for flash geothermal power plants
Flash Geothermal O&M
Field, General O&M and Rework
Makeup Wells
Relocation Injection Wells
Power Plant O&M
Total
Fixed
Variable
Variable
Variable
Average
High
Low
Cost
O&M
O&M
O&M
O&M
Capacity
Capacity
Capacity
($2004 /
($2009 /
($2009 /
($2009 /
($2009 /
Factor
Factor
Factor
kw-yr)
kW-yr)
MWh)
MWh)
MWh)
$27
0.94
$3.79
0.98
$3.64
0.9
$3.96
$7
0.94
$0.98
0.98
$0.94
0.9
$1.03
$2
0.94
$0.28
0.98
$0.27
0.9
$0.29
$47 $54.38
$83 $54.38
$5.06
$4.85
$5.28
Source: KEMA
June2005.
71

ThereisalsosomevariabilityinfixedO&M.Thereferencedreportprovidesonlyaverage
values.Ingeneral,valuesvaryapproximately15%,64whichisusedtoestimatehighandlow
fixedO&Mvalues.
FixedO&MAverage:
$58.38
FixedO&MHigh:
$67.14
FixedO&MLow:
$49.62

SeetheBinaryGeothermalsectionforananalysisofexpectedcosttrajectories.
FlashGeothermalEmissions
Unlikemanyrenewabletechnologies,flashgeothermalplantsproduceemissions.Alistingof
emissionsisprovidedbelow(unitsareinlbs/MWh):65,66
CO:
0.058
NOx:
0.191
SO2:
0.026
VOC:
0.011
H2S:
0.092
CO2:
60
3.4. Hydropower
Hydroelectricpowerisgeneratedbycapturingthekineticenergyofwaterasitmovesfroma
higherelevationtoalowerelevationbypassingitthroughaturbine.Theamountofkinetic
energycapturedbyaturbinedependsonthehead(verticalheightthewaterisfalling)andthe
flowrateofthewater.Often,thewaterisraisedtoahigherpotentialenergybyblockingits
naturalflowwithadam.Ifadamisnotfeasible,itispossibletodivertwateroutofthenatural
waterway,throughapenstock,andbacktothewaterway.Suchapplicationsallowfor
64Lovekin,James,SubirSanyal,AdilC.Sener,ValentinoTiangco,andPabloGutierrezSantana.
PotentialImprovementstoExistingGeothermalFacilitiesinCalifornia.GRCTransactions30,2006.
June2005.
66Singleton,Will,WesternGovernorsAssociation,CleanandDiversifiedEnergyInitiative,GeothermalTask
ForceReport.January2006.
72

hydroelectricgenerationwithouttheimpactofdammingthewaterway.Therearethreemain
typesofhydropowerfacilities:
Impoundmenthydropowerusesadamtostorewaterinareservoir.Watercanbe
releasedfromthereservoirtogenerateelectricity.
Runofriverusestheflowofwaterwithinariver,requiringverylittleorno
impoundment.Runofriverhydropoweristypicallydesignedforlargeflowswithlow
headorsmallflowswithhighhead.
Diversionhydropowerdivertsaportionofriverflowsthroughacanalorpenstockto
generateelectricity.
Seetablesforillustrationsofthevarioustypesofhydropowerfacilities.
Figure 17. Impoundment hydropower

Source: U.S. DOE, EERE
73
Figure 18. Diversion hydropower facility

The Tazimina project in Alaska is an example of a diversion hydropower plant. No dam was required.
74
Figure 19. Run-of-river hydropower facility

Chief Joseph Dam near Bridgeport, Washington, is a major run-of-river station without a sizeable reservoir.
Photo Credit: Wikipedia
Twocategorieswereselectedforthisstudyasdefinedbelow:
HydroDevelopedsiteswithoutpower:TherearemanysitesinCaliforniawithdams
orwithdiversionsystemsinplace,butwithouthydroelectricpower.Thiscategory
focusesonthepotentialhydroelectricpotentialofthesesites.
HydroCapacityupgradefordevelopedsiteswithpower:Someexistinghydroelectric
facilitiesinCaliforniaandthesurroundingstatesaredevelopedwithpowergeneration
inplacebutwithpotentialtoincreasegenerationoutput.Thiscanbeaccomplished
throughincreasingreservoirsize,upgradingtotalturbinecapacity,increasingthe
numberofturbines,oranycombinationthereof.
3.4.2. Hydro Developed Sites Without Power

Hydroelectricpowerisawellestablishedtechnology.TheUnitedStateshydroelectricplant
populationiscomposedof2,388licensedplants(notincludingpumpedstorageplants),
accordingtothe1998versionFederalEnergyRegulatoryCommissionsHydroelectricResource
Assessment(HPRA)database(FERC1998).Theseplantsrangeincapacityfromlessthan100
75

kWtoover6,000MWandhaveatotalcapacityof74,872MW.Theplantsareownedby1,134
owners,includingownersinthepublicandprivatesectors.67
DevelopedwaterwayswithoutpowerinCaliforniainclude274siteswithatotalnameplate
potentialof4,812MW.68Capacityestimatesrangefrom1.5MWto300MWwiththeaverage
beingapproximately15MW.
HydroelectricpowerisamajorsourceofCaliforniaselectricity.In2007,hydroelectricpower
plantsproduced43,625gigawatthours(GWh)ofelectricity,or14.5%ofthetotal.Hydro
facilitiesarebrokendownintotwocategories.Largerthan30MWcapacityarecalledlarge
hydro.Smallerthan30MWcapacityisconsideredsmallhydroandaretotaledintothe
renewableenergyportfoliostandards.Theamountofhydroelectricityproducedvarieseach
year.Itislargelydependentonrainfall(source:CaliforniaEnergyCommission).
Californiahasnearly400hydroplants,whicharemostlylocatedintheeasternmountainranges
andhaveatotaldependablecapacityofabout14,000MWofcapacity.Thestatealsoimports
hydrogeneratedelectricityfromthePacificNorthwest(source:CaliforniaEnergyCommission).
ThenumberofhydroelectricplantsinCaliforniaisexpectedtoincreaseby2018.Itisuncertain
whatthenumberofplantsandtotalinstalledcapacitywillbe.
Cost Drivers
Sincehydroelectricisaverymature,wellestablishedtechnology,therehavebeennoindustry
changessinceAugustof2007thathavemateriallyaffectedcosts.Alsonotrendsareforeseen
thatwouldmateriallyaffectfuturecosts.
Theprimarycostdriversforthistechnologyareasfollows.69
InitialCosts:
Licensing
Construction
Environmentalmitigation
Fishandwildlifemitigation
Recreationmitigation
67Hall,DouglasG.andKellyS.Reeves.AStudyofUnitedStatesHydroelectricPlanOwnership.U.S.
DepartmentofEnergy.IdahoNationalLaboratory.INL/EXT0611519,June2006.
68Conner,AlisonM.,BenN.Rinehart,andJamesE.Francfort.U.S.HydropowerResourceAssessmentfor
California.U.S.DepartmentofEnergy.IdahoNationalLaboratory.DOE/ID10430(CA),October1998.
69Hall,DouglasG.,RichardT.Hunt,KellyS.Reeves,andGregR.Carroll.EstimationofEconomic
ParametersofU.S.HydropowerResources.U.S.DepartmentofEnergy.IdahoNationalLaboratory.Bechtel
BWXTIdahoLLCandINLHydropowerResourceEconomicsDatabase,June2003.
76
Historicalandarcheologicalmitigation
Waterqualitymonitoring
Fishpassage
Thevarioustypesofenvironmentalmitigationaresitespecific(allarenotrequiredforeach
site).
AnnualCosts
FixedO&M
Operationsupervisionandengineering
Maintenancesupervisionandengineering
Maintenanceofstructures
Maintenanceofreservoirs,dams,andwaterways
Maintenanceofelectricplant
Maintenanceofmiscellaneoushydraulicplant
VariableO&M
Waterforpower
Hydraulicexpenses
Electricexpenses
Miscellaneoushydraulicpowerexpenses
Rents
FERCannualcharge
Current Costs
CostsweredevelopedthroughtheIdahoNationalLaboratory(INL)HydropowerResource
EconomicsDatabase.70Thisdatabasewasdevelopedfromsurveysofexistinghydroelectric
facilities.Indevelopingthisdatabase,regressionmodelswerebuiltrelativetoeachcostdriver
andappliedtopotentialsitesthroughouttheUnitedStates.Thedatabaseispresentedin2002
UnitedStatesdollars.Thesecostswereconvertedto2009UnitedStatesdollarsforthisstudy.
Amanipulationofthedatawasrequiredtoconvertthecoststotheunitsnecessaryforusein
theCOGmodel.OnlydataforpotentialsitesinCaliforniawereused.Withthedatabaseinthe
requiredunits,relationshipsweredevelopedbetweenunitratedcapacityandcosts:
70http://hydropower.inel.gov/resourceassessment/index.shtml.
77
-0.2091
Total Development
y = 2737.5x
2
R = 0.8779
4000
3500
Costs ($/kW)
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
Capacity (MW)
Figure 20. Hydropower costs for developed sites without power

Source: Idaho National Laboratory Hydropower Resource Economics Database
Figure20showstherelationshipbetweenunitcapacityandcostwithacurvefittingthedata
points88%ofthetime,whichisassumedacceptableforcostestimations.Thedataisprovided
in2002UnitedStatesdollars,sotheresultmustbeconvertedto2009UnitedStatesdollarsper
inflation.Somecostdatapointsarenoticeablyhigherthanothers,whichdenotesiteswherea
higherdegreeofmitigationisrequired.Inadditiontotheoverallcostcurve,relationshipswere
developedforotherparameters,basedonthedatasetsforCaliforniasitesonly,whereXisthe
capacityoftheplantinMWandYisthetotalcostin$/kWor$/MWhasshown:
Equation3:TotalDevelopmentCosts($/kW)
y=2737.5x^0.2091
Equation4:LicensingCost($/kW)
y=306.53x^0.3027
Equation5:ConstructionCost($/kW)
y=2180x^0.1928
Equation6:InstantCost($/kW)
InstantCost=LicensingCost+ConstructionCost
Equation7:InstalledCost($/kW)
InstalledCost=TotalDevelopmentCost(includeslicensing,constructionandaverage
mitigationcosts)
78

Equation8:FixedO&MCosts($/kW)
y=23.707x^0.2469
Equation9:VariableO&MCosts($/MWh)
y=4.9659x^0.2024
Theaboveequationswereusedtoestimatecostsbasedoninstalledcapacity(x=capacity,y=
cost)foreachparameter.
Overnightcosts($/kW):
Average:
$1,882
High :
$3,046
Low:
$1,006
FixedO&M($/kWyr):
Average:
$17.57
High:
$28.83
Low:
$9.88
VariableO&M($/MWh):
Average:
$3.48
High:
$5.54
Low:
$1.90
Capacityfactorscanvarydramatically.TheINLResourceDatabaselistsaveragehydroelectric
capacityfactorsforCaliforniatobe54.87%.Whenevaluatingactualcapacityfactorsfor
hydroelectricpowerplantsinCalifornia,capacityfactorswerefoundtobemuchdifferent.The
evaluationwasperformedasfollows:
Actualoutput(MWh)for2007andnameplateratings(MW)wereobtainedforall
hydroelectricfacilitiesinCaliforniafromtheEnergyInformationAdministration(EIA).
Allunitswithacapacitybelow1.5MWwereremoved.
Allpumpedstoragefacilitieswereremoved.
Capacityfactorswerecalculatedforallremainingsites.
Someofthedatawasfoundtobeinerrorwithcapacityfactorsatorbelowzeroorabove
100%.Soallfacilitieswithcapacityfactorsreportedshowingbelow10%andabove90%
wereremoved(approximately10%ofthesites).
79
Fromthisdataset,itwasconsideredunrealistictochoosetheextremehighandlow
values.Amorerealisticapproachformodelingwastoremovethetopandbottom5%.
Thisresultedin178facilitiesremaining,whichwereusedtoestimatecapacityfactor.
Average:
30.4%(weightedaverageofallsitesonthelisting)
High:
61.5%
Low:
12.5%

Hydroelectricpowerisaverymaturetechnologywithalimitednumberofsitesavailablefor
generation.Costsarenotforeseentodecreasewithincreasedgenerationprojectsandno
learningeffectsweremodeled.Costtrajectoriesweredeterminedsolelybyprojectedinflation
from2009to2029.
3.4.3. Hydro Capacity Upgrade for Developed Sites With Power

DevelopedwaterwayswithoutpowerinCaliforniainclude26siteswithatotalnameplate
potentialof1,744MW.71Potentialupgradesrangeinnameplatecapacityfrom2MWto600
MWwiththeaveragebeingapproximately80MW.
Californiasnearly400hydroplants,withatotaldependablecapacityofabout14,000MW,are
mostlylocatedintheeasternmountainranges.Californiastatealsoimportshydrogenerated
electricityfromthePacificNorthwest(source:CaliforniaEnergyCommission).
ThenumberofhydroelectricplantsinCaliforniaisexpectedtoincreaseby2018.Itisuncertain
whatthenumberofplantsandtotalinstalledcapacitywillbe.
Cost Drivers
Sincehydroelectricisaverymature,wellestablishedtechnology,therehavebeennoindustry
changessinceAugust2007thathavemateriallyaffectedcosts.Alsonotrendsareforeseenthat
wouldmateriallyaffectfuturecosts.
Theprimarycostdriversforthistechnologyareasfollows:72
InitialCosts:
Licensing
71Conner,AlisonM.,BenN.Rinehart,andJamesE.Francfort.U.S.HydropowerResourceAssessmentfor
California.U.S.DepartmentofEnergy.IdahoNationalLaboratory.DOE/ID10430(CA),October1998.
72Hall,DouglasG.,RichardT.Hunt,KellyS.Reeves,andGregR.Carroll.EstimationofEconomic
ParametersofU.S.HydropowerResources.U.S.DepartmentofEnergy.IdahoNationalLaboratory.Bechtel
BWXTIdahoLLCandINLHydropowerResourceEconomicsDatabase,June2003.
80
Construction
Environmentalmitigation
Fishandwildlifemitigation
Recreationmitigation
Historicalandarcheologicalmitigation
Waterqualitymonitoring
Fishpassage
Thevarioustypesofenvironmentalmitigationaresitespecific(allarenotrequiredforeach
site).
AnnualCosts:
FixedO&M
Operationsupervisionandengineering
Maintenancesupervisionandengineering
Maintenanceofstructures
Maintenanceofreservoirs,dams,andwaterways
Maintenanceofelectricplant
Maintenanceofmiscellaneoushydraulicplant
VariableO&M
Waterforpower
Hydraulicexpenses
Electricexpenses
Miscellaneoushydraulicpowerexpenses
Rents
FERCannualcharge
Current Costs
CostsweredevelopedthroughtheINLHydropowerResourceEconomicsDatabase.This
databasewasdevelopedfromsurveysofexistinghydroelectricfacilities.Indevelopingthis
database,regressionmodelswerebuiltrelativetoeachcostdriverandappliedtopotentialsites
throughouttheUnitedStates.Thecostswereconvertedto2009UnitedStatesdollarsforthis
study.
Amanipulationofthedatawasrequiredtoconvertthecoststotheunitsnecessaryforusein
theCOGmodel.OnlydataforpotentialsitesinCaliforniawereused.Withthedatabaseinthe
requiredunits,relationshipsweredevelopedbetweenunitratedcapacityandcosts.
81
-0.1889
y = 1761.2x
2
R = 0.8141
Total Development Cost

2,500
Cost ($/kW)
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
0
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
Capacity (MW)
Figure 21. Hydropower costs for increasing capacity

Source: Idaho National Laboratory Hydropower Resource Economics Database
Figure21showstherelationshipbetweenunitcapacityandcostwiththedatapointsfittingthe
curve81%ofthetime,whichisassumedacceptableforcostestimations.Thedataisprovided
in2002UnitedStatesdollars,sotheresultmustbeconvertedto2009UnitedStatesdollarsper
inflation.Somecostdatapointsarenoticeablyhigherthanothers,whichdenotesiteswherea
higherdegreeofmitigationisrequired.Inadditiontotheoverallcostcurve,relationshipswere
developedforotherparameters,basedonthedatasetsforCaliforniasitesonly,whereXisthe
CapacityoftheplantinMWandYisthetotalcostin$/kWor$/MWhasshown:
Equation10:TotalDevelopmentCosts($/kW)
y=1761.2x^0.1889
Equation11:LicensingCost($/kW)
y=209.95x^0.3027
Equation12:ConstructionCost($/kW)
y=1351.6x^0.1928
Equation13:InstantCost($/kW)
InstantCost=LicensingCost+ConstructionCost
Equation14:InstalledCost($/kW)
InstalledCost=TotalDevelopmentCost(includeslicensing,constructionandaverage
mitigationcosts)
82

Equation15:FixedO&MCosts($/kW)
y=23.707x^0.2469
Equation16:VariableO&MCosts($/MWh)
y=4.7411x^0.1998
Theaboveequationswereusedtoestimatecostsbasedoninstalledcapacity(x=capacity,y=
cost)foreachparameter.
Overnightcosts($/kW):
Average:
$932
High:
$1,871
Low:
$637
FixedO&M($/kWyr):
Average:
$12.59
High:
$27.05
Low:
$8.77
VariableO&M($/MWh):
Average:
$2.39
High:
$5.00
Low:
$1.60
Thecapacityfactoraverage,high,andlowareassumedtobethesameasforhydrodeveloped
siteswithoutpower.
Hydroelectricpowerisaverymaturetechnologywithalimitednumberofsitesavailablefor
generation.Costsarenotforeseentodecreasewithincreasedgenerationprojectsandno
learningeffectsweremodeled.Costtrajectoriesweredeterminedsolelybyprojectedinflation
from2009to2029.
83
3.5. Solar
Therearethreetypesofsolarelectricgeneratingtechnologiesconsideredforcostmodeling:
solarparabolictrough(withoutenergystorage),solarparabolictrough(withenergystorage),
andsolarphotovoltaic(SingleAxis).
Solar Parabolic Trough General:
Thisisalsoknownasconcentratingsolarpower(CSP)whichusesmirrorstoreflectand
concentratesunlightontoreceiversthatcollectthesolarenergyandconvertittoheat.This
thermalenergycanthenbeusedtoproduceelectricityviaasteamturbineorheatengine
drivingagenerator.
ThepredominantCSPsystemsinoperationintheUnitedStatesarelinearconcentratorsusing
parabolictroughcollectors.Insuchasystem,thereceivertubeispositionedalongthefocalline
ofeachparabolashapedreflector.Thetubeisfixedtothemirrorstructure,andtheheated
fluideitheraheattransferfluidorwater/steamflowsthroughandoutofthefieldofsolar
mirrorstowhereitisusedtocreatesteam(or,forthecaseofawater/steamreceiver,itissent
directlytotheturbine),showninFigure22.
Figure 22. Solar parabolic trough electric generating system

Solar Parabolic Trough Energy Storage Technology Considerations:

Theuseofthermalenergystoragetechnologyenablesthewideruseofsolarrenewableenergy
asdispatchablepowerandprovidesgridflexibilityforpeakdemandtimes.Currently,thereare
threecommercializedtechnologiesavailableforstoringthermalenergyfromsolarparabolic
andpowertowerplants73:
73Konrad,Tom.INDEPTH:HotDebateoverThermalStorage.CSPToday,April20,2009.
84
SteamTheleastsuitablemethodforthermalenergystorage,asitlendsitselftoonly
shorttermbufferstorage,andusedprimarilytoaddressshorttermtransientneedssuch
asintermittentcloudcover.
MineraloilandsyntheticheattransferfluidsAnapproachcurrentlyusedwithexisting
technologysolarparabolictroughsystems,asthefluiddoesnotsolidifyatnightas
moltensaltsystemscan(attemperaturesbelow221deg.C).Mineraloilsystemsare
approximatelythreetimesmoreexpensivetooperatethanmoltensaltsystems,dueto
theoilcost,andsoarechieflyusedforshortertermdurationstorageof3060minutes.
MoltensaltTypicalmoltensaltsystemsuseamixtureofsodiumnitrateandpotassium
nitrate(60%sodiumnitrate40%potassiumnitrate)heatedabovethemeltingpointof
221deg.C.Moltensaltsystemsarecurrentlyusedinpowertowerdesigns,andare
beingexaminedforimplementationinparabolictroughsystems.Thecostofmoltensalt
storageforaparabolictroughsystem,whichisestimatedat$90160/kW,isroughly
threetimesthecostofstorageforapowertowersystem,duetotheamountofmolten
saltneeded,widerfieldarraysandtransportdistancesforthetroughsystem.
Figure 23. Simplified molten salt storage process diagram

Source: Concentrating Solar Power From Research to Implementation, European Commission, 2007
Theresearchteamchoseamoltensaltthermalstoragesystemforthebestcommercial
embodimentofthisstoragetechnologybecauseoftheengineeringandtechnicalaspectsofthe
moltensaltapproach.ThemoltensaltstoragetechnologycurrentlyinoperationinSpains
AndaSolprojectwasfirstsuccessfullydemonstratedinatestloopattheparabolictrough
85

systemoperatinginKramerJunction,California.TheAndaSolprojectprovides50MWof
generationcapacity,withamoltensaltstoragesystemof7.5hoursduration.74
Forpurposesofanalysis,amoltensaltstoragesystemcomprisingsixhoursdurationofenergy
storagewasmodeledandcostedintothethermalstoragecase.
Solar Photovoltaic (Single Axis):
Photovoltaic(PV)systemsincludethePVmodulesthemselvesandthebalanceofsystems
(BOS).TheBOSincludesmountingstructures,wiring,overcurrentprotection,andinverters
(theelectronicdevicethatconvertsDCtoACelectricity).Themountingstructurescaninclude
trackersthatfollowthesunspaththroughouttheday.Asingleaxistrackersimplytiltsfrom
easttowest,followingthesunspaththroughouttheday.AnexampleofasingleaxisPV
systemisthe14.2MWfacilityatNellisAirForceBase(Figure24).
Figure 24. Nellis Air Force Base PV installation

Source: SunPower Corporation
3.5.2. Solar Parabolic Trough

Theresearchteamselectedparabolictroughtechnologybecauseitiscommerciallyavailable.
CSPinstallationsareproducingelectricitywithacapacityof354MWsince1990(source:
NREL).WithAndaSol13oneparabolictroughsystemwith50MWiscommerciallyrunningin
Spain,andtwoadditional50MWplantsareunderconstruction.Storagetechnology(molten
salt)forsevenfullloadhoursisincludedintheAndaSolproject.Storageorcombinedoperation
74ConcentratingSolarPowerFromResearchtoImplementation.EuropeanCommission,2007.
86

withgasleadstoextendedoperationhoursperday.AdditionalprojectsinGreeceandSpainare
beingplanned.
CaliforniahasnineparabolictroughCSPfacilitiesinoperation.TheyareallintheMojave
Desertandwerebuiltbetween1985and1991.Oneisratedat13.8MW,sixat30MW,andtwo
at80MW.Thereasonforthesesizesisthe13.8MWplantwasthefirstonebuiltasa
demonstration,the30MWplantsweresizedperPURPArestrictionsinplaceatthetime,and
the80MWplantswerebuiltwhenPURPArestrictionswereraisedto80MWplantsin1989.
TherearecurrentlynosuchPURPArestrictionsinplaceforplantsize(source:EIA).
Intheseplants,solartroughtechnologyisusedtoproducesteaminaconventionalsteam
turbinegenerator.Naturalgaswasusedasasupplementaryfuelforupto25%oftheheat
input.
In2018,theresearchteamexpectsthattheprimarycommercialembodimentwilltendtoward
largersystems.ThecurrentprimaryworldwidecommercialembodimenttodayisinSpain,
wherefeedintariffshaveencouragedsolardevelopment,butsystemsizesarelessthan50MW
duetorestrictionsinthefeedintariffsystem.SolarMillenniumhasannounceda250MW
parabolictroughpowerstationinNevada.75AnengineeratSolarMillenniumtoldtheresearch
teamthatthesystemwillconsistofone250MWsteamturbine(not50MWmodules).
AccordingtotheengineeratSolarMillennium,thecompanybelieves250MWandexpectstobe
theoptimalsizeforparabolictroughsystemsandexpectsfuturesystemstorangefrom200to
300MW.Forsmallersystemstheturbineistoosmall(andthereforetooexpensive),andfor
biggersystemsthelossesinthesolarcollectorfieldwouldbetoohigh.
Cost Drivers
SpainhasoneofthemostfavorablefeedintariffsforCSPplantspayingatleastUnitedStates
$0.39perkWh.Thatisonereasonwhyattheendof2007morethan50CSPprojectswithabout
2,150MWhavebeenregisteredbySpainsMinistryofIndustry,makingSpaintheleading
countryinCSPdevelopmentworldwide.
ThefirstpowerstationAndaSol1(50MW)wascommissionedinNovember2008.AndaSol2
(50MW)isunderconstruction,andAndaSol3(50MW)willfollowin2009.Allplantsare
equippedwithsixhoursofmoltensaltstorage.Duetotherestrictionsofthefeedintarifflaw
inSpainthecapacityoftheunitsislimitedto50MWatmaximum.
75SolarMillenium.NevadaEnergy,SolarMillenniumandMANFerrostaalCooperateintheDevelopmentof
Projects.SolarMilleniumCorporateNews,April3,2009.
http://www.solarmillennium.de/Press/Press_Releases/Nevada_Energy__Solar_Millennium_and_MAN_F
errostaal_cooperate_in_the_development_of_projects,lang2,50,1532.html.
87

CurrentTrends
For2009,theSpanishgovernmenthasannouncedachangeinthefeedintariff.Thiswillreduce
theamountofnewregisteredprojectsinSpain.NevadaEnergy,SolarMillenium,andMAN
Ferrostaalhaveannouncedasolarthermalpowerplantwithacapacityof250MWandthermal
storagecapacity.AbengoaSolarhassignedanagreementwithArizonaPublicService(APS)to
buildandoperatewhatwillbethelargestsolarpowerplantintheworld.Theplantwillbe
installedabout100kilometerssouthwestofPhoenix,nearGilaBend.Solana,with280MWeof
poweroutputcapacity,isbasedonparabolictroughtechnologyandthermalstorageusing
moltensalts.Itusesasinglesteamturbine.
CostDrivers
Theprimarygeneralcostdriversforparabolictroughsystemsare:
Siteworkinfrastructure.
SolarfieldMirrorsandsolarreceiversarethecostdriversofthesystem.Assumptions:
Massproductionofbothelementscouldreducecosts.
SteelpriceSteeldoubledinpricebetweenJanuary2008andSeptember2008andagain
betweenSeptember2008andJanuary2009.
Heattransferfluidsystem.
ThermalenergystorageIncludingthermalstoragecausesincreasesincostduetothe
additionofthethermalenergystoragesystemandadditionalsolarfieldarearequiredto
chargethethermalstoragesystem.
PowerblockOptimumsizecouldreducepriceofturbineandgenerator.
Balanceofsystems.
Contingency.
Indirectcosts.
Current Costs
Fromthethreebasicstudiesthefollowingactualcostdatawereextracted:
88

Table 18. Parabolic trough cost comparison
CEG-Study 2007
NREL-Study 2006
RETI 2008
Navigant
Black & Veatch
Black & Veatch
$
Gross Plant
Capacity (kW)
Net Plant Capacity
(kW)
Annual
Degradation (%/y)
Project lifetime (y)
Overnight Cost
($/kW)
Site Work &
Infrastructure
Solar Field
Heat Transfer Fluid
System
Thermal Energy
Storage (6 hrs.)
Power Block
Balance of Plant
Contingency
Indirect Costs
Fixed O&M
($/kW/y)
Variable O&M
($/MWh)
Development Time
(months)
Construction time
Forced Outage
Rate (%)
Typical Net
Capacity Factor
(%)
63,500
50,000
100,000
200,000
0.2%
30
3,900
3,120
4,944
3,955
39
31
25
20
1,755
78
1,404
62
2,309
100
1,847
80
507
406
580
464
312
195
234
780
60
250
156
187
624
48
388
225
307
1,011
67
310
180
246
809
54
3,900
3,120
66
53
20
20
20
12
6%
12
6%
12
6%
27%
27%
27%
Source: CEG-Study: Klein and Rednam. Comparative Costs of California Central Station Electricity Generation Technologies.
NREL-Study: Stoddard, Abrecunus, and OConnell. Economic, Energy, and Environmental Benefits RETI: Black & Veatch.
Renewable Energy Transmission Initiative Phase 1A.
TherearenoactualpublishedcostdataavailablefortheinstallationsinSpain.Inapublication
downloadedfromthehomepageofSolarMillenniumanumberof300millioneuro()is
mentioned.Thiswouldleadtospecificcostsof7,500$/kW.
89

FromthesamehomepageapressreleaseconcerningthecooperationofNevadaEnergy,Solar
Millennium,andMANFerrostaalaCSPstationwithacapacityof250MWisannouncedwith
aninvestmentvolumeofover1billionUnitedStatesdollars.Thiswouldleadtoinvestment
costsofover4,000$/kW.76
Pressreleasesconcerningthe64MWACCIONACSPprojectintheNevadadesertreport
investmentcostsbetween220millionand266millionUnitedStatesdollars.Thiswouldleadto
specificinvestmentcostsof3,438and4,156$/kW.77
Technologyassumptions:520,000mparabolictroughsolarfield(SKALET),casesincludeboth
nonstoragesystems,a6hourreservemoltensaltthermalstoragesystem,anda250MW
capacitysteamcycle.Thetechnologycasethatincludessixhourmoltensaltthermalstorage
alsoaccountsfora57%solarfieldareaincrease,usedtochargethestoragesystemandto
improvecapacityfactor.78
Thedirectcostsofaparabolicsolarplantcanbesummarizedintothefollowingfivemajor
categories:
Siteworksandinfrastructure
Solarfield
HeatCollectionElement(HCE)
Mirror
Supportstructure
Drive
Piping
Civilwork
Powerblock
Steamturbineandgenerator
Electricauxiliaries
Thermalstorage/heattransferfluidsystem
BalanceofPlant(BOP)
Coolingsystem
Watertreatment
Electrical
76http://www.solarmillennium.de/index,lang2.html.
77http://www.accionaenergia.com/default.asp?x=0002020401&lang=En.
78NationalRenewableEnergyLaboratory,OverviewonuseofaMoltenSaltHTFinaTroughSolar
Field,NREL/PR550,February2003.
90
Instrumentationandcontrol
Miscellaneouscivilwork
Thesolarfield,thermalstorage,andpowerblockcostsencompassapproximately95%ofthe
totaldirectcosts,asillustratedinFigure25.Ofthesethreehighestcostcategories,thesolarfield
costcomprises58%ofthetotaldirectcost.Figure25showsthesolarfieldcomponentcost
breakdown.Thecomponentcostbreakdownofthesolarfieldrevealsthesupportstructuresare
29%,theheatcollectionelements19%,andthemirrors18%ofthesolarfielddirectcosts,fora
totalof68%ofthesolarfielddirectcosts.
2%
14%
3%
Structures and Improvements

Solar Collections System
Thermal Storage System
23%
58%
Steam Gen. or HX System

Power Block (EPGS, BOP)
Figure 25. Major cost categories for parabolic trough plant

Source: NREL, Assessment of Parabolic Trough and Power Tower Solar Technology
Table19providesasummaryofSunLabsdesign,deployment,andcostprojectionsfortrough
plantswiththeSEGSVIplantasthebasecase.
Table 19. Assessment of parabolic trough and power tower solar technology
Plant size, net

electric, MWe
Plant size, gross
thermal input, MWt
Thermal Storage,
hr
Annual Plant
Capacity Factor
Annual Solar-toElectric Efficiency
Solar Field Design:
SEGS VI
Trough 100
Trough 100
Trough 150
Trough 200
Trough 400
1999
2004
2007
2010
2015
2020
30
100
100
150
200
400
88
294
279
408
544
1,087
12
12
12
12
12
22.2%
53.5%
56.2%
56.2%
56.2%
56.5%
10.6%
14.2%
16.1%
17.0%
17.1%
17.2%
91
Number of
Collectors
Receivers per
SCA
Number HCE
Number HCE
Accumulative
Collector Size,
m2
Field Aperture
Area, m2
Heat Transfer Fluid
System
HTF Type
Fluid Volume,
gallons
Direct Capital Cost:
Structures &
Improvements
Collector
System
Thermal
Storage System
Steam Gen. or
HX System
EPGS
Balance of
Plant
Total Direct
Costs
Solar Collection
System, $/m2 field
Receivers, $/m2
field
$/unit
Mirrors, $/ m2 field
Concentrator
Structure, m2 field
Concentrator
Erection, m2 field
Drive, m2 field
SEGS VI
Trough 100
Trough 100
Trough 150
Trough 200
Trough 400
1999
2004
2007
2010
2015
2020
800
4,768
1,269
1,808
2,392
4,783
12
12
36
36
36
36
9,600
9,600
57,216
66,816
45,700
112,516
65,072
177,588
86,101
263,688
172,201
435,889
235
235
817.5
817.5
817.5
817.5
188,000
1,120,480
1,037,760
1,477,680
1,955,200
3,910,400
VP-1
115,500
VP-1
688,380
Hitec XL
637,560
Hitec XL
907,830
Hitec XL
1,201,200
Hitec XL
2,402,400
2,526
7,279
6,538
8,097
9,596
16,284
44,793
249,654
181,533
226,753
259,852
452,825
95,807
42,475
57,426
76,567
153,135
4,304
9,964
9,227
11,161
12,772
19,394
15,805
9,190
36,713
21,346
34,877
20,279
44,008
25,588
51,134
29,732
78,915
45,884
76,619
420,763
294,929
373,033
439,654
766,438
250
234
184
161
140
122
43
43
34
28
22
18
847
40
50
847
40
47
762
36
44
635
28
42
508
20
39
400
16
36
17
14
13
12
11
10
14
13
92
Interconnection
Piping, m2 field
Electronics &
control, m2 field
Header piping, m2
field
Foundations/Other
Civil, m2 field
Other (spares,
HTF, freight), m2
field
Contingency, m2
field
Direct Capital Cost,
$/kWe
Structures and
Improvements,
$/kWe
Solar Collection
System, $/kWe
Thermal Storage
System, $/kWe
System Generator
of HX System,
$/kWe
EPGS, $/kWe
Balance of Plant,
$/kWe
Total Direct Cost,
$/kWe
SEGS VI
Trough 100
Trough 100
Trough 150
Trough 200
Trough 400
1999
2004
2007
2010
2015
2020
11
10
16
14
21
18
17
15
14
12
17
17
11
10
12
11
84
73
65
54
48
41
1,493
2,497
1,815
1,512
1,299
1,132
958
425
383
383
383
143
100
92
74
64
48
527
306
367
213
349
203
293
171
256
149
197
115
2,554
4,208
2,949
2,487
2,198
1,916
Table20andFigures26and27illustratetheSunLabprojectedtotalinstalledcapitalcost
($/kWe)comparedtothemoreconservative(Sargent&Lundy)S&Lvalues.Table20alsoshows
thetotalinstalledcapitalcostbasedonachievingtheannualnetefficienciesprojectedby
SunLabbutnottheprojectedcostreductions.Thecurveshighlighttheimpactoftheannualnet
efficienciesonthecapitalcost.Thecurvesalsoindicatethatadditionalcostreductionsabovethe
moreconservativeS&Lvalues,duetotechnologyimprovementsandincreaseddeployment
rates,willresultinconvergenceofthecapitalcoststowardtheSunLabvalues.
93

Table 20. Comparison of total investment cost estimates ($/kWe): SunLab vs. S&L
Sunlab
S&L S&L Efficiencies
S&L - SunLab
Efficiencies
S&L No Storage
2004
2007
2010
2015
2020
$4,859
$4,816
$4,791
$3,408
$3,854
$3,687
$2,876
$3,562
$3,331
$2,546
$3,389
$3,165
$2,221
$3,220
$2,725
$2,453
$2,265
$2,115
$1,990
$1,846
Figure 26 Capital cost comparison

94
Figure 27. Levelized O&M cost comparison

Table 21. CSP plant capital cost breakdowns, 2005

($1,000s)
Site Work and
Infrastructure
Solar Field
HTF System
Thermal Energy Storage
Power Block
Balance of Plant
Contingency
Total Direct Costs
Indirects
Total Installed Cost
*With 6 hours storage.
2007
100 MW*
2,455
2009
100 MW*
2,433
2011
150 MW*
2,566
2015
200 MW*
2,681
230,865
10,009
57,957
38,754
22,533
30,707
393,280
101,106
494,386
205,109
9,895
57,937
38,754
22,533
28,116
364,776
92,814
457,590
243,059
11,896
71,320
48,899
28,432
33,742
439,915
113,469
553,384
268,441
13,542
89,390
56,818
33,036
37,720
501,627
129,746
631,373
Source: Klein and Rednam, Comparative Costs of California Central Station Electricity Generation Technologies.
95

Table 22. Annual CSP O&M cost breakdowns, 2005
($1,000s)
Labor
Administration
Operations
Maintenance
Total Labor
Miscellaneous
Service Contracts
Water Treatment
Spares and Equipment
Solar Field Parts and
Materials
Annual Capital Equipment
Subtotal
Total
2007
100 MW
2009
100 MW
2011
150 MW
2015
200 MW
528
979
633
3,018
419
263
260
669
1,859
528
973
633
2,984
415
259
265
651
1,311
554
1,088
664
3,517
516
352
413
870
1,457
554
1,158
664
3,926
599
435
556
1,040
1,904
226
3,695
6,713
218
3,119
6,104
320
3,928
7,445
418
4,953
8,879
Source: Klein and Rednam, Comparative Costs of California Central Station Electricity Generation Technologies.
3.5.3. Solar Photovoltaic (Single Axis)

Flatplatephotovoltaic(FPV)modulesarecommerciallyavailableworldwide.Thesolar
electricitymarketisbooming.Bytheendof2007,thecumulativeinstalledcapacityofsolarPV
systemsaroundtheworldhadreachedmorethan9,200MW.Thiscompareswithafigureof
1,200MWattheendof2000.InstallationsofPVcellsandmodulesaroundtheworldhavebeen
growingatanaverageannualrateofmorethan35%since1998(source:EPIA).
Onpvresources.comswebsitealmost880photovoltaicpowerplants(putintoservicein2007or
earlier),eachwithpeakpowerof200kWpormore,arelisted.Cumulativepowerofallthese
photovoltaicpowerplantsisabout955MWp,andaverageplantpoweroutputisslightlymore
than1.24MWp.Morethan390largescalephotovoltaicplantsarelocatedinGermany,225in
theUnitedStates,andmorethan130inSpain(source:pvresources).
ThePVmodulescanbemountedonfixedtiltstrucuresorononeortwoaxistrackingdevices.
AsofDecember2007,themarketshareoffixedarrayswas73%ofthetotalinstalledcapacityin
largescalePVinstallations,only27%weretrackingsystems(source:pvresources).Howeverin
situationswithahighproportionofdirectnormalinsolation,suchasinCalifornia,theoneaxis
trackingsystemcouldincreasethesunlightcapturebyupto25%overtraditionalfixedtilt
systems,whilesignificantlyreducinglanduserequirements(source:Sunpower).
96

TherearecurrentlynosingleaxistrackingutilityscalePVinstallationsinCalifornia.The
largestFPV(singleaxis)projectintheUnitedStatesis14MWpatNellisAirForceBasein
Nevada.79Theactualconstructionandinstallationrequiredeightmonthstocomplete(although
itwasintheplanningstageforthreeyears)andwascompleteinDecember2007.Theprojectis
apublicprivatepartnershipbetweentheAirForce,SunpowerCorporation,NevadaPower
Company,andMMARenewableVentures,asubsidiaryofMunicipalMortgageandEquity.
ThelargestFPV(fixedtilt)projectintheworldis60MWpinOlmedilla,CastillaLaMancha,
Spain.80GermanyalsohasautilityscaleinstallationofFPV(fixedtilt)or40MWpin
Waldpolenz,Brandis,Saxony,Germany.81
ThereiscurrentlyoneutilityscalesingleaxistrackingPVsystemsplannedforCaliforniaandis
plannedtobeinoperationbefore2018.PG&EhassignedacontractwithHighPlainsRanchII,
LLC,asubsidiaryofSunPowerCorporation,for250MWofhighefficiencyPVsolarpower.
TheplantwouldbelocatedinSanLuisObispoCountysCaliforniaValley.Theprojectis
expectedtobeginpowerdeliveryin2010andbefullyoperationalin2012.
Cost Drivers
WorldsolarPVmarketinstallationsreachedarecordhighof5,750MWin2008,representing
growthof117%overthepreviousyear.
SpainsPVmarketreached2,600MWin2008(annualgrowthrateofmorethan400%)andnow
accountsfor44%oftheworldmarket.Germanyreachedamoderateincreaseto1,500MW,
whiletheUnitedStatesincreasedby220%to500MW.Itbecametheworldsthirdlargest
marketeveninfrontofJapan(oncetheworldleader)whichstayedstableatalevelof230MW.
(source:BSWSolar/EPIA/NNPVA)
Globalsolarcellproductiondoubledincomparisonto2007(3,436MW).Chinesemanufacturers
raisedtheirsharein2008.Meanwhile,thinfilmproductionreachedaremarkablemarketshare
(2007:12%).
In2008,aninterestingtrendcouldbeobservedinSpain.ManylargescaledPVinstallations
havecomeintooperationwithcapacitiesintherangeof20to60MW(source:Photon).
CurrentTrends
In2009marketexpertsandanalystsexpectthesamerateofnewinstallationsasin2008.The
reasonsforareductionofthetremendousincreaseofthelasttwoyearsarethefinancialcrisis
andthereductionsofincentivesespeciallyinSpainandGermany.
79www.sunpowercorp.com
80www.nobesol.com
81www.juwi.de
97

Thedynamicextensionsoftheproductionfacilitiesinallstepsoftheproductionchainresultin
anincreasingofferofsolarmodules.Asaresultthiscouldleadtoreducedpricesandachange
fromsellersmarkettobuyersmarket.
Thesuppliersofsiliconbasicmaterialforsolarcellshaveannouncedplanstoincreasetheir
productioncapacityto150,000tonsperyear,equivalentto15GWofsolarcells(source:Photon).
ThedownwardmoveinretailpricesoflastmonthhasacceleratedinMarch2009.Itisnowthree
monthsinarowwherethenumberofdecreaseshasoutpacedincreases,andthesameoutcome
hasbeentrueforfouroutofthelastsixmonths.
ThelasttimetheEuropeanpriceindexdroppedbackinJanuary,themovewasdrivenmainly
byexchangeratemovementswithinEurope.Thistimeitisafunctionofactualpricereductions,
whichwerewidespreadacrossseveralretailers.ThiscausedtheEuropeanindextofall7cents
perwatt.ThelasttimetherewasadropofthismagnitudewasinNovember2001.
WhileEuropeanpricesreactedtomarketconditions,UnitedStatesretailersalsoreducedprices.
ThemovementintheUnitedStatesindexmatchedthedropseeninFebruary.
Thesepricedropsare,inpart,anoutcomeofthebillionsofdollarsofinvestmentmadearound
theworldinnewmanufacturingcapacityforsolarmodulesoverrecentyears.Asconsumers
demandthisnewenergysource,somarketsizeandproductionvolumesallowtheindustryto
bringdowncosts.
CostDrivers
TheprimarygeneralcostdriversforFPVsingleaxissystemsare:
SolarmodulesCostofbasicmaterialsilicon,wafers,andsolarcells.Assumption:
producershaveincreasedtheircapabilitiestoproducesilicondramatically.
Overcapacitiesareexpectedforthenextthreeyears.
InvertersMassproductionofinverterscutscosts.
InstallationEfficienciesofsolarmodules:Highefficiencysolarmodules(mono
crystalline)reducecostofinstallation.Cheaperamorphoussiliconmodulesincrease
cost.
SteelpriceSteeldoubledinpricebetweenJanuary2008andSeptember2008andagain
betweenSeptember2008andJanuary2009.
Balanceofsystems.
Marketingsalestaxes.
Grossmargin.
98

Current Costs
TheSolarbuzzconsultancyreportanalyzedthepriceofasinglephotovoltaicmoduleby
observingthepricesofapproximately1.500solarmodules:
Figure 28. Solar module retail/price index, 125 watts and higher
Source: http://www.solarbuzz.com/Moduleprices.htm
AsofMarch2009,therearecurrently293solarmodulespricedbelow$4.75perwatt(3.75per
watt)or20.1%ofthetotalsurvey.Thiscompareswith250pricedbelow$4.75perwattin
February.Thelowestretailpriceforamulticrystallinesiliconsolarmoduleis$3.29perwatt
(2.60perwatt)fromaGermanretailer.Thelowestretailpriceforamonocrystallinesilicon
moduleis$3.48perwatt(2.75perwatt),alsofromaGermanretailer.
Thelowestthinfilmmodulepriceisat$2.47perwatt(1.95perwatt)fromaGermanybased
retailer.Asageneralrule,itistypicaltoexpectthinfilmmodulestobeatapricediscountto
crystallinesilicon(forlikemodulepowers).Thisthinfilmpriceisrepresentedbya44watt
module.
Theresultsofayearlyindependentinterviewwith100leadingPVinstallationcompaniesin
Germanyshowthatsystempricesfor100kWroofmountedPVinstallationbeenreducedtoa
levelof$4.96perwatt(3.92perwatt)(withoutsalestax)inthefirstquarterof2009.
99
Figure 29. Solar power generation plant since 2006 over 20% cheaper
Source: http://www.solarwirtschaft.de/medienvertreter/infografiken.html
ForaGermaninstallationofaPVpowerstation(Waldpolenz/RoteJahne)withacapacityof30
MWp,totalinvestmentcostswerereportedat$4.49perwatt(3.55perwatt).
ForasecondGermaninstallationofaPVpowerstation(Knigsbrck)withacapacityof
4.4MWp,totalinvestmentcostswerereportedat$4.81perwatt(3.80perwatt).
Bothinstallationsarefixedtilt.
Technologyassumptions:Theprimarycommercialembodimentofthetechnologyforthecost
modelis100,000solarmodules,multicrystalinesilicon,area:app.145,000m,moduleefficiency:
14%,singleaxistracking,200DC/ACinverters.
TheoveralltargetoftheshorttermresearchdescribedintheStrategicResearchAgenda(SRA)
issuedbytheEuropeanCommunityisforPVelectricitytobecompetitivewithconsumer
electricity(gridparity)insouthernEuropeby2015.Specifically,thismeansreachingPV
generationcostsof0.15perkWh($0.19perkWh),oraturnkeysystempriceof2.5perwatt
($3.16perwatt).Thissystempricearisesfromtypicalmanufacturingandinstallationcostsof
<2.0perwatt($2.5perWatt).Allcostandpricefiguresareinconstant2007values.
100
Figure 30. Typical turnkey system price

Source: cordis.europa.eu/technology-platforms/pdf/photovoltaics.pdf
Basedonadetailedanalysisofcostreductionpotentials,theworkinggroupoftheSRAdecided
thatthesamecosttargetsshallbeusedforallflatplatePVmoduletechnologiesconsidered:
0.81.0perwatt($1.011.26perwatt)fortechnologyreadyby2013andimplementedinlarge
scaleproductionin2015,0.600.75perwatt($0.760.95perwatt)in2020,and0.30.4perwatt
($0.380.51perwatt)in2030.Thetargetsareexpressedasarangetoreflecttheefficienciesof
differenttypesofmodules.Tomeettheoverall,crosstechnologycosttargets,lowerefficiency
modulesneedtobecheaperthanhigherefficiencymodulesduetothearearelatedcomponent
oftheBOScosts.Thesetargetsshouldnotbeinterpretedaspredictions.Itispossiblethatsome
technologieswillevenexceedthem.TheefficiencytargetsquotedlaterintheSRAforeach
technologyareconsideredasperformancetargetsthatshouldbemettomeetthecosttarget.
Systemcostsandprices,itshouldbenoted,dependonthespecificapplicationthatthesystemis
putto.ThereforethecostsandpricesmentionedintheSRAareonlyapproximate.
101
3.6. Wind
Awindenergysystemtransformsthekineticenergyofthewindintoelectricalenergythatcan
beharnessedforpracticaluse.Themaincomponentsofawindturbineareasfollows:
Arotor,orblades,whichconvertthewindsenergyintorotationalshaftenergy.
Anacelle(enclosure)containingadrivetrain,usuallyincludingagearboxanda
generator.
Atowertosupporttherotoranddrivetrain.
Electronicequipment,suchascontrols,electricalcables,groundsupportequipment,and
interconnectionequipment.
Somewindturbinesusedirectdrivegeneratorsanddonotneedagearbox(beingacritical
componentfromamaintenanceperspective).
Typicalfacilitiestodayconsistof1.5to2.5MWturbinesatop80mtowers.
Figure 31. A modern 1.5 MW wind turbine installed in a wind power plant
Source: U.S. DOE, EERE, 20% Wind Energy by 2030.
82
82U.S.DepartmentofEnergy.EnergyEfficiencyandRenewableEnergy(EERE).20%WindEnergyby
2030,IncreasingWindEnergysContributiontoU.S.ElectricSupply.DOE/GO1020082567,July2008.
102

WindplantscanrangeinsizefromafewmegawattstohundredsofMWincapacity.Wind
powerplantsaremodular,whichmeanstheyconsistofsmallindividualmodules(theturbines)
andcaneasilybemadelargerorsmallerasneeded.Turbinescanbeaddedaselectricity
demandgrows.Today,a50MWwindfarmcanbecompletedin18monthstotwoyears.Most
ofthattimeisneededformeasuringthewindandobtainingconstructionpermitsthewind
farmitselfcanbebuiltinlessthansixmonths.
SomeareasofCaliforniahavegood(Class3/4)toexcellent(Class6/7)windresourcesasseenin
Figure32.
Figure 32. California wind resource map

Source: California Energy Commission PIER web site
103

Californiaalsohasseveralwindpowerplantsinoperation.Thespecificlocationsofthose
plantsareshowninFigures33and34.
Figure 33. Wind resource map of Northern California

Source: California Energy Commission. Wind Power Generation Trends at Multiple California Sites. PIER Interim Project Report,
CEC-500-2005-185.
104
Figure 34. Wind resource map of Southern California

Source: California Energy Commission. Wind Power Generation Trends at Multiple California Sites. PIER Interim Project Report,
CEC-500-2005-185.
FromFigures33and34,windclassesweredeterminedforthefiveCaliforniautilityscalewind
facilities.Alsoaveragecapacityfactorsfrom1995to2005weredetermined.83
Altamont:
Class34 18.4
SanGorgonio:
Class7
29.2
Tehachapi:
Class7
26.6
Pacheco:
Class24 16.6
Solano:
Class45 17.7
Capacityfactorcanvaryfromyeartoyear.Alsowindturbinesarebecomingmoreefficient,
withgreatercapacityratingsandhighertowers,thusproducinghighercapacityfactors.Trends
incapacityfactorforthesesites,from1995to2005areshowninFigure35.
83ElectronicWindPerformanceReportingSystem(eWPRS),http://wprs.ucdavis.edu/
105
Figure 35. Capacity factor trends of California utility wind sites

Source: eWPRS web site
Thesecapacityfactorsincludebotholderandnewerinstalledturbines,soisnotnecessarily
representativeofcapacityfactorsthatcanbeexpectedfromnewinstallations.
3.6.2. Onshore Wind Class 5

AccordingtotheAmericanWindEnergyAssociation(AWEA),in2008,withover8,500MW
installed,windpowerprovided42%ofallthenewgeneratingcapacityaddedintheUnited
States,upfromlessthan2%ofnewcapacityaddedin2004.Withatotalof25,369MWin
operationattheendof2008,theUnitedStatespulledaheadofthepreviousleaderGermany
(23,902MW)bothinwindenergyproductionandincumulativewindpowergenerating
capacity.TheUnitedStatesisalsotheworldslargestmarketintermsofnewinstallations(8,545
MW)addedin2008,aheadofChina(6,300MW).
AsofSeptember2008,Californiahad2517MWofinstalledwindturbinecapacity(source:
AWEA).Windplantinstallationsaremodularwiththecapabilitytoaddnewturbineswithin
106

eachdevelopment,thusincreasingoverallplantsize.Recentwindturbineinstallations(since
2006)rangeinsizefrom1MWto3MW(source:AWEA84).
WindplantsizeinCaliforniavariesdramatically.Asanillustration,windplantinstallations
since2003areshowninTable23.Plantsizesvaryfromlessthan1MWto150MW,andmany
oftheseinstallationsarewithinthesamegeneralareaaspreexistinginstallations,which
illustratethemodularnatureofthistechnology.CaliforniainstallationslistedbyAWEAtotal
116windplants.
UtilityscalewindturbineinstallationswillcontinuetoincreaseinCaliforniathrough2018and
beyond.Agrowingtrendistowardlargerturbines.Therearecurrentlyseveral5MWwind
turbinesintheprototypestage.85Itisuncertainwhethersuchlargeturbineswillberoutinely
installedforonshoreapplicationsorwillberelegatedonlytotheoffshoremarket.
84http://www.awea.org/projects/Projects.aspx?s=California
85Musial,Walt,SandyButterfield,andBonnieRam.EnergyfromOffshoreWind.NationalRenewable
EnergyLaboratory,NREL/CP50039450,February2006.
107

Table 23. California utility wind plant installations since 2003
Name
Location
Power
Turbine
Capacity Units
Size
(MW)
Turbine Mfr.
Shiloh II
Northern California
150
75
Edom Hills repower
Southern California
20
2.5 Clipper
Alite Wind Farm
Southern California
24
3 Vestas
Allco/Oak Creek Energy
Dillon
Southern California
45
45
1 Mitsubishi
Iberdrola Renewables
Solano Wind Project
Solano
63
21
3 Vestas
Buena Vista
Altamont Pass
38
38
Shiloh Wind Power Project
Solano County
150
100
Solano IIA
Solano County
24
Coram Energy (Aeroman repower)
Tehachapi
Kumeyaay Wind Power Project
East of San Diego
10.5
50
25
2 REPower
Developer
1 Mitsubishi
1.5 GE Energy
3 Vestas
1.5 GE Energy
2 Gamesa
Owner
Power Purchaser
Year
Online
enXco
enXco
PG&E
2009
BP Alternative Energy
BP Alternative Energy
SCE
2008
California Portland Cement
2008
Iberdrola Renewables
Southern California Edison
2008
Sacramento Municipal
Utility District
Babcock & Brown
Utility District
Babcock & Brown
Sacramento Municipal Utility

District
Pacific Gas & Electric
2007
PPM Energy
PPM Energy
2006
Utility District
Coram Energy
Utility District
Coram Energy
PG&E, Modesto Irrigation

District & City of Palo Alto
Utilities
District
San Diego Gas & Electric
2005
2005
Superior Renewable Energy Babcock & Brown
2006
2006
2005
Victorville Wind Project
Victorville prison
0.75
0.75 Vestas
NORESCO
NORESCO
Victorville Prison
Victory Garden
Tehachapi
0.66
0.66 Vestas
Caithness
Caithness
2005
Victory Garden
Tehachapi
0.75 Zond
Caithness
Caithness
2005
2004
Coram Energy (Aeroman repower)
Tehachapi
Diablo winds
Altamont Pass
Lake Palmdale
Palmdale
4.5
Coram Energy
Coram Energy
20.46
31
0.66 Vestas
1.5 GE Energy
FPL Energy
FPL Energy
Pacific Gas & Electric
2004
0.95
0.95 Vestas
Palmdale Water District
2004
60
60
4.62
Oasis Power Partners
Tehachapi
Solano Wind Project, phase II
Solano County
1 Mitsubishi
Aeroman repower (2003)
Tehachapi
CalWind II CEC
Tehachapi
8.58
13
0.66 Vestas
High Winds
Solano
162
90
1.8 Vestas
FPL Energy
Karen Avenue II (San Gorgonio Farms)
San Gorgonio
4.5
1.5 GE Energy
San Gorgonio Farms
Mountain View Power Partners III
San Gorgonio
22.44
34
0.66 Vestas
Solano Wind Project, phase I
Solano County
10.56
16
0.66 Vestas
Whitewater Hill
San Gorgonio
4.5
0.66 Vestas
1.5 GE Energy
1.5 GE Energy
Source: AWEA Project Database
108
enXco
enXco
2004
FPL Energy
Utility District
Coram Energy

District
2004
2003
FPL Energy
PPM Energy
2003
San Gorgonio Farms
2003
PPM Energy
PPM Energy
2003
Utility District
Cannon Power Corp.
Utility District
Cannon Power Corp.

District
2003
Coram Energy
CalWind Resources
2003
2003

Cost Drivers
Thereareseveralkeymarketandindustrychangessince2007thathavemateriallyaffected
windturbineinstallationcosts.
ThevalueoftheUnitedStatesdollarrelativetotheEurohasshownanincreasesince
mid2008.
UnitedStatesmanufacturingofturbinepartshasbeenincreasing.
Thesechangesandtheirsignificancearefurtherdiscussedbelow.
CurrentTrends
Thecostofwindpowerinstallationsshowedasteadydeclinefromtheearly1980suntil2002.
Sincethencostshaveincreasedsteadily.ThistrendisfromaLawrenceBerkeleyNational
Laboratory(LBNL)studyofactualinstallationsovertimeandshowninFigure36.86
Figure 36. Installed wind project costs over time

Source: Wiser and Bollinger, Annual Report on U.S. Wind Power Installation, Cost, and Performance Trends: 2007.
Thesecostincreasesaredrivenbyseveralmarketfactorsasdiscussedbelow(Wiser2007):
Increasedcostforcommodities(affectingturbineprices).
DropinvalueoftheUnitedStatesdollarrelativetotheeuro.
Improvedsophisticationofturbinedesign.
86Wiser,RyanandMarkBolinger.AnnualReportonU.S.WindPowerInstallation,Cost,andPerformance
Trends:2007.U.S.DepartmentofEnergy.EERE,May2008.
109
Upscalingofturbinesize(andhubheight).
Shortagesincertainturbinecomponents.
Ageneralmovebymanufacturerstoimprovetheirprofitability.
Thesefactorsarecitedasreasonsforwindturbinepriceincreasesof9%from2006to2007.But
someofthesefactorshaveactuallyshownareversalsince2007.
ThevalueoftheUnitedStatesdollarrelativetotheeurohasshownanincreasefrom
mid2008throughApril2009(Figure38).
UnitedStatesmanufacturingofturbinepartshaveincreasedfrom30%in2005to50%in
2008,87thusreducingthevalueoftheUnitedStatesdollarrelativetotheeuroasacost
driver.
TheincreaseinUnitedStatesmanufacturingcapacityalsoresultsinareductionon
shortagesofcertainturbinecomponents.
Thereisspeculationthatdirectdrive88ormultiplegeneratordrivetrain89windturbine
configurationswillultimatelyreducecosts.Currentlythesetechnologiesareinthe
development/demonstrationstages.
IncreasedCostforCommodities:
Awindturbineismadeprimarilyofsteel(approximately90%)andothermaterials.Costtrends
fortheserawmaterialsareshowninFigure37.
87Cheeseman,G.M.U.SWindTurbineManufacturingWillIncrease.www.Clesias.com
http://www.celsias.com/article/uswindturbinemanufacturingwillincrease/
88deVries,Eize.REWExclusive:SiemensNew3.6MWDirectDriveConceptWindTurbine.
RenewableEnergyWorld,July4,2008.
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2008/07/rewexclusivesiemensnew36mw
directdriveconceptwindturbine52963
89Cotrell,J.A.APreliminaryEvaluationofaMultipleGeneratorDrivetrainConfigurationforWindTurbines.
PresentedatAmericanSocietyofMechanicalEngineersWindEnergySymposium,NREL/CP50031178,
January2002.
http://www.osti.gov/bridge/servlets/purl/15000704XNgzBn/native/15000704.PDF.
110
Figure 37. Metal prices Jan. 2002 Sept. 2007 (London Metal Exchange)
Source: OConnell and Pletka, 20 Percent Wind Energy Penetration in the United States.
90
DropinValueoftheUnitedStatesDollarRelativetotheEuro:
Onefactorinthecostincreaseforthewindindustrysince2002hasbeenthedropinvalueofthe
dollaragainsttheeuro.Priorto2008,themajorityofwindturbinecomponentshavebeen
manufacturedinEurope,butthistrendhasstartedtoreverseduetomoreUnitedStates
manufacturing.AsthevalueoftheUnitedStatescurrencydroppedagainsttheeuro,turbine
priceshaveincreasedinUnitedStatesdollarterms(Black&Veatch2007).Butthistrendin
valueoftheUnitedStatesdollaragainsttheeurohasshownareversaloverthepastyear.This
isillustratedinFigure38.
90OConnell,RicandRyanPletka,etal.20PercentWindEnergyPenetrationintheUnitedStates:ATechnical
AnalysisoftheEnergyResource.Black&VeatchProject:144864,October2007.
111
Figure 38. U.S. dollar vs. euro, Jan. 1999 through April 2009 (European Central Bank)
Source: European Central Bank.
ImprovedSophisticationofTurbineDesign
Suchimprovementswillincludeimprovedefficienciesresultinginincreasedcapacityfactors.
Figure39showscapacityfactortrendsfromwindturbineinstallationsovertime.Thisupward
trendcannotbeattributedonlytoturbinedesign.Increasedhubheightsandincreasedcarein
selectingturbinelocationforhigherwindsitescanincreasecapacityfactor.Theincreaseinhub
heightandcareinsiteselectioncanalsocontributetoincreasedinstalledcosts.
Figure 39. 2007 Project capacity factors by commercial operation date

Projectionsoffuturecapacityfactorhavebeenperformed(Black&Veatch2007)byanalyzing
monthlydatafromover5,000MWofwindplantsinstalledintheMidwestfrom2000to2005.
TheresearchteambelievestheMidwestinstallationanalysisistransferabletoCaliforniaeven
thoughthetopographyisquitedifferent,sincecapacityfactorsweredeterminedbywind
powerclass.Oneregion,theMidwest,waschosenfortheanalysiswiththepurposeof
performingarelativecomparison.Aregressioncurvewasdevelopedforthevariouswind
classesandisshowninFigure40.
112
Figure 40. Onshore capacity factor by installed year and class

UpScalingofTurbineSize(andHubHeight):
Windturbinesize(ratingsinMW),whichdrivesrotordiameterandhubheight,hasincreased
overtime.Theincreasedequipmentcostswillbeatleastpartiallyoffsetbyincreasedcapacity
factor.
Table 24. Size distribution and number of turbines over time
ShortagesinCertainTurbineComponents
UnitedStateswindpowercapacitysurgedby46%in2007,with5,329MWaddedand$9billion
invested(Wiser2007).AnnualgrowthofthewindturbineindustryintheUnitedStatesis
113

showninFigure41,whichhascontributedtoshortagesintheindustry.ButasUnitedStates
manufacturingcapacityincreases,turbinecomponentshortagesshouldbelessofanissue.
Figure 41. Annual and cumulative growth in U.S. wind power capacity
AGeneralMovebyManufacturerstoImproveWindProfitability
Since2003,windpowergenerationcostshavebeencostcompetitivewithotherformsof
generationbuthavebeengenerallyincreasingaswholesalepowerpricesincrease.
Figure 42. Average cumulative wind and wholesale power prices over time
Source: Wiser and Bollinger, Annual Report on U.S. Wind Power Installation, Cost, and Performance Trends:
2007.
Sincewindproducedelectricityisbecomingmorevaluablewithincreasedelectricprices,
increaseddevelopmentofthetechnologycanoccur(resultinginhighercapacityfactors,hub
heights,andturbineefficiencies),andmoreeffortcanbeputintolocatingtheturbinesinthe
bestwindsites.Windturbinemanufacturersandwindsitedevelopersarethenabletocharge
morefortheirproducts.
114

CostDrivers
Eachofthecurrenttrendslistedabovecanalsobeconsideredcostdrivers.Eachofthosetrends
primarilyaffectsturbineprices,whicharetypically75%ofoverallprojectinstallationcosts
(Black&Veatch2007).Generalprojectcostdriversarelistedbelow:
Turbinecost
Reliability
Permittingandsiteselection
Landacquisition
Transmissioncosts
Alsowhenusingnationalaveragecostdata,adjustmentsmustbemadefordifferencesin
California.A9%increasefromnationalcostdatashouldbeappliedtowindturbineproject
installationsinCalifornia(Black&Veatch2007).
Someconsidereconomiesofscaletobeacostdriverforloweringcosts.Sincewindpower
plantsareamodulartechnology,veryfeweconomiesofscalehavebeenseenfromlarger
installations(Wiser2008),asshowninFigure43.
Figure 43. Installed wind project costs as a function of project size: 2006-2007 projects
Current Costs
Thecurrentcostsweredeterminedthroughthefollowingsteps:
Useinstalledcostsfromthe2008DOEstudy91($2007).
91Wiser,RyanandMarkBolinger.AnnualReportonU.S.WindPowerInstallation,Cost,andPerformance
Trends:2007.U.S.DepartmentofEnergy.EERE,May2008.
115
Projectcoststo$2009adjustingfrom$2007perinflation(adjusted6.75%perMoodys
priceinflatorsfrom2007to2009).
AdjustnationalaveragecoststoCaliforniavalues(multiplyingby1.09).
Average2007installedcost:$1,710/kW
Average2009installedcost:$1825/kW
California2009installedcost:$1,990/kW
Also,reportedinstalledUnitedStatescostsfor2007rangesfrom$1,240/kWto$2,600/kW
(Wiser2008).Adjustingto$2009forCalifornia,thehighandlowcostsareasfollows:
High2009installedcostforCalifornia:$3,025/kW
Low2009installedcostinCalifornia:$1,440/kW
FixedO&Misestimatedtohaveanationalaveragecostof$11.50/kW(Black&Veatch$2006),
basedonreviewofrecentprojects.ThisisincreasedforCaliforniaby9%.FixedO&Mcosts
consistofpropertytaxes,insurance,sitemaintenance,legalfees,labor,andmiscellaneousitems.
Itisassumedthesefactorscanvarybyapproximately25%toobtainthehighandlowfixed
O&Mcosts.The25%valuewasdeterminedthroughinspectionofO&Mvariability(Wiser
2008).
Adjustingto$2009,fixedO&Mcost:$13.70/kW:
Average:$13.70/kW
High:
$17.13/kW
Low:
$10.28/kW
VariableO&Mcostsareestimatedtohaveanationalaveragecostof$7.00/MWh(Black&
Veatch$2006),basedonreviewofrecentprojects.VariableO&Misdrivenbynumberof
turbinesandwilldeclineasturbinereliabilityimproves.Sincethetrendistowardlargerwind
turbines,resultinginfewerturbinespersite,andhigherqualityproducts,variableO&Mis
expectedtodeclineovertime.Basedonthesefactors,Black&Veatchestimatescurrentvariable
O&Mcostsat$7.00/MWhand2030costsat$4.40/MWh,withanaverageof$5.00/MWh(allin
$2006).
Adjustingto$2009,variableO&Mcost:
Average:$5.50/MWh
High:
$7.66/MWh
Low:
$4.82/MWh
116

Recentcosttrajectoriesshowasteepincreaseinwindturbineinstalledcostsoverthepast
severalyears.Thisreportexplainsthevariouscausesbehindtheincrease.Itisunreasonableto
believethecostswillcontinuetoclimb.Manyofthefactorsthathavecontributedtocost
increasessince2002haveshownareversaloverthepasttwoyears.Thesefactorsinclude:
ValueofUnitedStatesdollarversustheeurodeclinedfrom2002tomid2008,buthas
shownareversalsincethen.
IncreasesinglobalandUnitedStatesbasedmanufacturingcapacityforwindturbines.
Basiccommodityprices(e.g.,steel,copper)havesteadiedandinsomecasesdeclined.
Theresearchteamhasconcludedalearningeffectinwindturbineinstallationswillberealized,
butitisexpectedtobemodest.Themaindriverbeingthatwindgenerationinconjunctionwith
theproductiontaxcredit(PTC)andinvestmenttaxcredit(ITC)iscurrentlycostcompetitive
withotherformsofgeneration.Thelearningeffectisestimatedbetween0.33%to0.5%peryear.
3.6.3. Onshore Wind Class 3/4

TheentirediscussiononClass5winddirectlyappliestoClass3/4wind.Theonlydifferenceis
inthecapacityfactor,whichcanbedeterminedfromFigure40.CapacityfactorrangesforClass
3/4windturbineinstallationsaregivenbelow:
Average:37%
High:
41%
Low:
34%
3.6.4. Offshore Wind Class 5

OffshorewindisanemergingtechnologyintheUnitedStatesandanoperationalonein
Europe.TherearenoinstallationsintheUnitedStates,butbytheendof2008atotalofover
1,400MWofoffshorewindfarmshavebeeninoperationaroundEurope;inthecoastalwaters
ofDenmark,Ireland,Netherlands,Sweden,theUnitedKingdom,Germany,Belgium,and
Finland.Thisrepresentsaround2%ofthecumulativeinstalledcapacityofwindpowerinthe
EuropeanUnion(EU)(source:EWEA).Abreakdownofoffshorewindinstallationsbycountry
isprovidedinFigure44.
117
Figure 44. European offshore wind installations

Source: EWEA, Seas of Change: Offshore Wind Energy.
SeveraloffshorewindpowerinstallationshavebeenproposedintheUnitedStates,butmany
havebeenpostponedorcancelledpurportedlyduetohighprojectcosts.92Otherissues
fosteringoppositionhavebeentheperceivedimpacttosceneryfromvaluablecoastal
properties,birdmigrationpatterns,andhazardstomarineandairnavigation.93Offshorewind
hasbeenseeingaslowstartintheUnitedStatesbutshouldonedaybecomearealityinmany
partsofthecountry.OfftheDelawareshore,thefirstoffshorewindfarmtobedevelopedinthe
UnitedStateshasalreadysoldonethirdofthepowerthatwillbegeneratedduringitsfirst25
***yearsofoperationbeforeaturbineisevenplacedinthewater.94
92OConnell,RicandRyanPletka,etal.20PercentWindEnergyPenetrationintheUnitedStates:ATechnical
AnalysisoftheEnergyResource.Black&VeatchProject:144864,October2007.510.
93Snyder,JohnDespiteOpposition,OffshoreWindFarmsSeemPoisedtoMakeTheirMark.
ProfessionalMarinerMagazine,September2007.
94EnvironmentalNewsService.FirstU.S.SaleofOffshoreWindPowerSigned.January2008.
118

TherearecurrentlynooffshorewindinstallationsinCalifornia.
TheprimaryfocusofoffshorewindfarmsintheUnitedStateshasbeenofftheAtlanticcoast.
StrongwindresourcesalsoexistoffthePacificcoast,buttheseareprimarilyindeepwaters,
whichpresenttechnicalchallenges.95Untilthesechallengesassociatedwithdeepwaterwind
platformsareresolved,offshorewinddevelopmentinCaliforniawillbelimited.
Cost Drivers
MarketandindustrychangeshavebeenpresentedintheOnshoreWindsection,whichalso
applytooffshorewind.Thereareadditionalchangesthatapplytooffshore.
DuetoDelawaresmandatetoguaranteestablepricesforelectricity(HouseBill6)anditsRPS
requirementsof20%renewableenergyby2019(SenateBill74),BluewaterWindnegotiateda
PowerPurchaseAgreement(PPA)withDelmarvaPowerforpowerfromoffshorewind.
Bluewaterisproposinga450MWplant.96
NewUnitedStatespolicyframework,includingcommitmentsfromtheDepartmentofthe
Interior,theMineralsManagementService,andtheFERCencouragethedevelopmentof
offshorewindenergygenerationcapacity.97
Another30statelegislatorshavesignedontoalettertoKennethL.Salazar,U.S.Secretaryofthe
Interior,toquicklyapprovetheCapeCodWindFarmprojectofftheMassachusettscoast.98
InEurope,theoffshorewindindustryisflourishing.TheEWEAsstatisticsshowthatatotalof
1,471MWwasinstalledworldwidebytheendof2008,allofitinEuropeanUnion(EU)waters.
SinceDecember2007,thenumberofcountriesthathostoffshorewindturbineshasincreased
fromfivetoninethatis,onethirdofEUMemberStates.
In2008,Europeinstalled357MW,equivalenttoalmost1MWofoffshorecapacitybeingadded
everyday(source:EWEA).99
95U.S.DepartmentoftheInterior.SurveyofAvailableDataonOCSResourcesandIdentificationofDataGaps.
OCSReport.MMS2009015,2009.
96http://www.bluewaterwind.com/de_overview.htm.
97Jesmer,Graham,StageSetforOffshoreWindEnergyintheU.S.RenewableEnergyWorld,April8,
2009.
98http://www.capewind.org/news973.htm.
99EWEA.SeasofChange:OffshoreWindEnergy,February2009,
http://www.ewec2009.info/fileadmin/ewec2009_files/documents/Media_room/EWEA_FS_Offshore_FINA
L_lr.PDF.
119

CurrentTrends
Onshorewindenergytrendsalsoaffecttheoffshoreindustry.Sometrendsparticulartothe
offshoreindustryarenoted:
Onshorewindturbinesizeshaveshownasteadyincreaseoverthepastseveralyears
(seediscussioninOnshoreWindsection).Thisissignificantsincethetrendforoffshore
windhasbeenforlargersizeturbines.
TheEUpotentialforoffshorewinddevelopmentisforeseentobe20to40GWthrough
2020.Backin2003,EWEApublishedprojectionsof70GWofoffshorewindby2020.
Thisprojectionwasforeseenasunrealisticandwasrevisedin2007to20GWto40
GW.100
DuetotheEUtargetof20%renewablesby2020,offshorewindisforeseentoplaya
significantfactor.Trendsofpastinstallationswithprojectionsforfuturegrowthare
providedbyEWEAandshowninFigure45.
Figure 45. European offshore wind growth and projections

Source: EWEA, Seas of Change: Offshore Wind Energy.
100EWEA.DeliveringOffshoreWindPowerinEurope.December2007.
120

Withincreasedinternationalgrowthoftheoffshorewindindustry,someinstallationsoffthe
Californiacoastshouldberealizedwithinthenext20years.
CostDrivers
Primarycostdriversforoffshorewindinstallationsareasfollows:
Turbinecost.
Reliabilityandmaintenance.
Permittingandsiteselection.
Supportstructure.
Gridconnectionandtransmissioncosts.
Developmentoftechnologyoffoundationsorfloatation.
Thesecostdriversareverysimilartothoseforonshorewind.Onekeydifferenceisforonshore,
theturbineisapproximately75%ofprojectcosts,whereforoffshoretheturbineis
approximately33%ofprojectcosts.
Current Costs
BothovernightandO&Mcostsofoffshorewindinstallationshavebeenestimatedtobe
approximatelytwicethatofonshoreinstallations101(alsofromBlack&Veatch,page510).
Boththe2009and2018OnshoreClass5dollarshavebeendoubledtoobtainthenecessary
offshorewindprojectcosts.Formodelingpurposes,itisestimatedwindturbineinstallations
willbeginofftheCaliforniacoastin2018.
OvernightCosts($/kW):
$2009
$2018
Average:
$3,980
$4,581
High:
$6,050
$6,964
Low:
$2,880
$3,315
101Beurskens,L.W.M.,M.deNoord,andH.J.deVries.PotentialsandCostsforRenewableElectricity
Generation.EnergyResearchCentreoftheNetherlands.ECNC03006,February2004.
121

FixedO&MCosts($/kWyr):
$2009
$2018
Average:
$27.40
$31.54
High:
$34.25
$39.42
Low:
$20.55
$23.65
VariableO&M($/MWh):
$2009
$2018
Average:
$11.00
$12.66
High:
$15.32
$17.63
Low:
$9.64
$11.10
Oneotherthingtonoteisthecapacityfactor.Duetolargerwindturbinesforoffshore
applications(meaninghighertowers)andlowerwindturbulence,capacityfactorswillincrease
by15%overonshoreturbineestimates(Black&Veatch2007).Capacityfactorestimationsare
includedinFigure46.
Figure 46. Offshore capacity factor by installed year

122

CapacityfactorsforClass5offshorewindareestimatedtovarybetween42%and48%withthe
averagebeing45%.
Primarycosttrajectoriesaretoincludelearningeffectsasmoreoffshorewindprojectsare
installed.Period1&2LearningRates(20%and10%respectively),definedinEIAsElectricity
MarketModule,wereusedtoestimatecostreductionsovertime.Itisestimatedeachlearning
ratewilllastfiveyears.Thereforeatotalof15%costimprovementwillberealizedbetween
2018and2029,basedonincreasesincumulativeinstalledgenerationfrom23GWto110GW.
Thisisaconservativeestimatesinceonshorewindinstallationsdecreasedincostby50%from
1982to1992.
3.7. Wave
Waveenergyextractioniscomplex,andmanydevicedesignshavebeenproposed.For
understandingthedevicetechnology,itishelpfulintroducetheseintermsoftheirphysical
arrangementsandenergyconversionmechanisms.
DistancefromshoreWaveenergydevicesmayconvertwavepowerattheshoreline,
neartotheshore(definedasshallowwaterwherethedepthislessthanonehalfofthe
wavelength)oroffshore.
BottommountedorfloatingWaveenergydevicesmaybeeitherbottommountedor
floating.
Waveenergydevicescanbeclassifiedbymeansofthetypeofdisplacementandreaction
systememployed.Varioushydraulicorpneumaticpowertakeoffsystemsareusedandinsome
casesthemechanicalmotionofthedisplacerisconverteddirectlytoelectricalpower(direct
drive)Fourofthemostwellknowndeviceconceptsareintroducedbelowandtheirprincipleof
operationillustrated.
SymmetricalpointabsorberAbottommountedorfloatingstructurethatabsorbs
energy.Thepowertakeoffsystemmaytakeanumberofforms,dependingonthe
configurationofdisplacers/reactors.Thekeycharacteristicofapointabsorberisthatit
canabsorbmoreenergythanavailablewithinthedeviceswidthifthedeviceistuned
(i.e.,itisnaturalresonancefrequencymatchestheincidentwavefrequency).
OscillatingWaterColumn(OWC)Nearshoreoroffshore,thisisapartiallysubmerged
chamberwithairtrappedaboveacolumnofwater.Aswavesenterandexitthe
chamber,thewatercolumnmovesupanddownandactslikeapistonontheair,
pushingitbackandforth.Theairisforcedthroughaturbine/generatortoproduce
electricity.
OvertoppingterminatorAfloatingreservoirstructurewitharampoverwhichthe
wavestoppleandhydroturbines/generatorsthroughwhichthewaterreturnstothesea.
123
AttenuatorOneformoftheattenuatorprincipleisalongfloatingstructurethatis
orientatedparalleltothedirectionofthewaves.Thestructureiscomposedofmultiple
sectionsthatrotateinpitchandyawrelativetoeachother.Thatmotionisthen
convertedtoelectricityusinganelectrohydraulicpowerconversionmachine.
Conceptualdiagramsofthesedevicesanincludedinthefollowingfigures(source:EPRI).
Figure 47. Point absorber

Source: EPRI, Ocean Tidal and Wave Energy
Figure 48. Oscillating water column

Figure 49. Overtopping

124
Figure 50. Attenuator

3.7.2. Ocean Wave

Waveenergyhasbeeninexistenceformanyyears,althoughveryfewcommercial
developmentsareinplace.Currently,worldwideinstallationstotalonly4MWrated
nameplate.Therehasrecentlybeensubstantialinterest,withover25countriesinvolvedin
developingrelevantconversiontechnologiesforharnessingoceanrenewableresourcesfor
electricitygenerationand/orotherpurposes.Alsooverthepasttwoyearstherehavebeen
severalcompaniessubmittingfilingswiththeFERCforpermitstoinstalloceanwaveenergy
systemsinvariouslocationsalongtheCaliforniacoast.Thesepermitsareforsystemsranging
insizefrom1to5MWto100MW.
TherearecurrentlynocommercialwaveenergysystemsinstalledofftheCaliforniacoast.
BasedontherecentFERCfilings,itishypothesizedthatby2018therewillbesomecommercial
waveenergysystemsinstalledofftheWestCoastoftheUnitedStates.TheFERCfilingshave
beenforsystemsfromupto5MWtoupto100MW.Inreality,eachofthesecompaniesthat
havesubmittedfilingsandwillperformsomeinstallationswillperformmoredetailed
evaluationsofthesite,begininstallingoceanwaveunits,evaluatetheirperformance,andthen
addmoreunitstotheplantsbasedontheirevaluationsofperformanceandprojected
costs/benefits.A40MWtypicalplantsizeisforeseenasaveragebasedontherangeofFERC
filings.
Cost Drivers
affectedthecostsofwaveenergysystems.
125

CurrentTrends
BasedonareviewofseveralFERCfilings,itisforeseenthatafewwaveenergymanufacturers
willinstalldemonstrationprojectstoproveouttheirsystemandthenaddtothecapacitybased
ontheirsuccess.Thefilingsshowmodularitywiththesystems,whichallowaddingonto
capacitywithmultipleunits.
CostDrivers
Primarycostdriversforthistechnologyareasfollows:102
DevicestructureRequiredtohousethewaveenergyturbineandgenerator.
MechanicalandelectricalplantShorebasedpowerstationfortheunit.
TransportationandinstallationMovingequipmenttotheshoreandshippingtothe
offshoredevicestructure.
ConstructionmanagementandpermittingAdministrativecosts.
ElectricaltransmissionUnderseacables.
VariableO&MCostofsparesandrepaircosts(replacementpartsandremoval,
replacementandrefurbishmentofparts).
FixedO&MOperationalcosts(maintenancecrewsandvesselstoenablerepairs).
Current Costs
ThebestcostinformationwasfoundfromareportpublishedbytheEnergyTechnology
SupportUnit(ETSU)oftheAssociationforEducationalAssessment(AEA)Europe.102The
reportoutlinestheresultofaEuropeancostmodeldevelopedintheearly1990sandrefinedin
thelate1990s.Itgivescostdataandcapacityfactorsforseveralcompetingwaveenergy
technologiesin1999Britishpounds.
Britishpounds(1999)wereconvertedto1999UnitedStatesdollarsthroughhistoricalexchange
rates.
Equation17:1999Britishpoundto1999U.S.dollarConversion
1999U.S.dollar=1.61x1999Britishpound
UnitedStatesdollars(1999)wereconvertedtopresentandfuturedollarsstrictlythrough
inflationestimates.Asummaryofthecostsobtainedandthecostscalculatedareincludedin
Table25.
102Thorpe,Tom.ABriefReviewofWaveEnergy.AEATechnology.ETSUR120,May1999.
126

Table 25. Ocean wave energy cost data
Device
Limpet
Limpet II
Ospray
Duck
Rated Capacity Estimated Cost

Capacity Factor
()
1 MW
1 MW
20 MW
2 GW
0.206
0.26
0.26
0.3
Averages
0.26
Low
0.21
High
0.30
1,160,000
1,400,000
26,300,000
2,400,000,000
Fixed
Variable Variable
Fixed
Estimated Estimated
O&M per O&M per O&M per O&M per
Cost per
Cost per
Unit
Unit
Unit
Unit
Unit (/kW) Unit ($/kW)
(/kW)
($/kW)
(/MWh) ($/MWh)
1,160
$1,868
13
$21
4
$7
1,400
$2,254
17
$27
6
$9
1,315
$2,117
19
$31
7
$11
1,200
$1,932
21
$34
7
$11
1999 cost
$2,043
$28
$9
2018 cost
$2,978
$41
$14
2009 cost
$2,587
$36
$12
1999 cost
$1,868
$21
$7
2018 cost
$2,723
$31
$10
2009 cost
$2,365
$27
$9
1999 cost
$2,254
$34
$11
2018 cost
$3,286
$50
$17
2009 cost
$2,855
$43
$14
Source: Thorpe, T.W.

Learningeffectsfromoceanwavetechnologyareexpectedbemodestsincecumulative
generationisnotexpectedtobeatahighenoughleveltotakeadvantageofeconomiesofscale.
3.8. Integrated Gasification Combined-Cycle

ThereareseveralmajorIGCCprocesstechnologiesavailableforpowergeneration.Themain
suppliersofgasifiertechnologyareShell,GE,Siemens,andConocoPhillips.Theresearchteam
didnotfocusononeoftheseprocesstechnologiestoavoidexcludingpossibleviableoptionsfor
thefuture.ThereforetheselectedIGCCtechnologyforthisstudyisbasedonthecurrent
worldwidepracticeforcoalfueledIGCCtechnologyatascaleof300MW.Thisresultsinthe
selectionoftheoxygenblownentrainedflowgasifierprocesstechnology.
Airblowngasificationtechnologyisavailable,butsinceithasnotbeenappliedoutsideof
Japan,itisnotconsideredasaprimarycommercialembodimentoftheIGCCtechnology.This
processdoesnotrequireanairseparationunit;however,thesyngascontainsalotofnitrogen
resultinginmuchlargerdimensionsofequipmentthanoxygenblowngasification.
Figure51showsatypicaloxygenblownIGCCprocessschematic,andFigure52showsanaerial
photoofanactualinstallation.
127
Treated water
Waste water
treatment unit
Residue
Stack gas
Sulpur
Steam/Feedwater
Steam cy
Condensate
Tailgas
Waste water
Flyash
Slag
Gasification
island
Raw
Syngas
Gas cleanup
Cleaned
Syngas
Humidification
Humidified
Syngas
Heated
Syngas
Coal
Suppletion water
Oxygen
Heated Nitrogen
Nitrogen
Diluted
Syngas
Ambient air
ASU
Cooled
compressed air
Compressed air
GT
exh
Ambient air
Gas turbine
Figure 51. Typical oxygen blown IGCC process

Source: KEMA
128
Gas cleanup
Combined cycle
(Steam+Gas)
Waste water
treatment unit
Humidification
Gasification
island
Air Separation
Unit (ASU)
Figure 52. Actual installation (Buggenum, The Netherlands) with typical technological
components indicated
Source: Google Earth, modified by KEMA
ThebasicprincipleofIGCCisthegasification(partialoxidation)ofpulverizedcoalwithoxygen
andsteamtoproduceasyngas,whichiscombustedinagasturbine.Theoxygenissuppliedby
anairseparationunitwhichseparatesambientairintooxygenandnitrogen.Theaircanbe
deliveredbythecompressorofthegasturbine(fullairsideintegration)orbyaseparate
compressor(noairsideintegration).Airsideintegrationwillleadtohigherplantefficiencybut
alsotomorecomplexpowerplantoperations.Currentstateoftheartispartialairside
integration.
129

Inthegasificationisland,coal(eithersuppliedinslurryorinpowderform)isgasifiedinthe
reactorintorawgas.Apartfromtherawgasalsoflyashandslagareformed.Therawgas
contains:
CombustiblecomponentsCOandH2.
IncombustibleharmlesscomponentsH2O,N2,Ar.
GreenhousegasCO2.
Tracesofenvironmentallyand/ortechnicallyharmfulgaseouscomponents:
Sulphur:H2SandCOS.
Halogens:HClandHF.
Nitrogen:NH3,HCN.
Tracesofalkaliandheavymetals(suchasmercury).
Therawgasispurifiedinthegascleanup,thatisremovalofflyash(viacyclone,filter,and/or
wetscrubbing),heavymetals,halogen,nitrouscompounds,alkali(wetscrubbing),andsulphur
(absorption).Duringthisprocesswastewaterandsometailgasareproduced.Thetailgasis
recycledbackintothegasificationislandwhilethewastewateriscleanedinthewastewater
treatmentplant.Duringthisprocesscleandistillateandresidueareproduced.Thedistillateis
reusedinthepowerplant.
Thecleanedsyngasismoisturizedanddilutedwithnitrogentoachievealowerheatingvalue.
ThiscontributestolowerNOxemissions.Alsotheheatrateisimprovedmarginally.To
improvetheheatratefurtherthehumidsyngasisheatedbyfeedwaterfromthesteamcircuit
betweengasificationislandandsteamcycle.
Thedilutedsyngasiscombustedunderpressureinthegasturbineusingambientair
pressurizedbythegasturbinescompressor.Thehotcombustiongasesdrivethegasturbines
expander,providingelectricpowertodrivecompressorandgenerator.Theexhaustgasesare
leadintothesteamcyclewheresteamisproducedinthewasteheatboilerandisexpandedin
thesteamturbineinstallation,producingelectricity.
3.8.2. IGCC Without Carbon Capture (Single or Multiple 300 MW Trains)

CoalIGCCisaverypromisingnewcleancoaltechnology,especiallybecauseitiswellsuited
forCO2capture.AsillustratedbyanincreasingtrendinannouncementsofnewUnitedStates
gasificationprojects,theUnitedStatesmarketisawareofthispotentialapplicabilityofcoal
IGCCforfuturepowergeneration.TheentitiesthatareconsideringimplementingIGCC
projectsincludesomemajorenergyindustryplayerssuchasAEPandDukeEnergy(formerly
Cinergy).Inaddition,numeroussmallercompaniesarepursuinggasificationprojectsusing
stateandfederalgrants.Themoreadvanced,publiclydiscussedIGCCprojectsareshownin
Table26.Intotal,basedoninformationfrompublicannouncements,50projectshavebeen
identifiedforUnitedStatesoperationbeyond2010.
130

Table 26. Gasification-based power plant projects under consideration in the United States
beyond 2010
Project Name/Lead
Location
Feedstock
CT Fuel
Net (MWe)
Orlando, FL
coal
syngas
285
Lima, O
coal/ petcoke
syngas
540 SNG H2
Henderson
County, KY
coal
syngas
630
Sugar Land, TX
petcoke
syngas
1200
Mesaba/Excelsior Energy
Holman, MN
coal/ petcoke
syngas
600
Carson H2 Power Project/BP, Edison Mission

Group
Carson, CA
petcoke
H2
500
FutureGen/FutureGen Alliance
Illinois or Texas
coal
H2
275
Mountaineer Plant/AEP
New Haven, WV
coal
syngas
630
Pacific Mountain Energy Center/Energy

Northwest
Port Kalama, WA
coal/ petcoke
syngas
680
Taylorville, IL
coal
syngas
630
Huntley IGCC Project/NRG Energy
Tonawanda, NY
coal
syngas
680
Tampa Electric, Unit 2
Polk County, FL
coal
syngas
630
Wallula, WA
coal
syngas
600-700
Colorado
coal
syngas
300-350
TXU Corp.
Colorado City, TX
coal
syngas
630
TXU Corp.
Henderson, TX
coal
syngas
630
California
coal
H2
600
Orlando Gasification Project*/Southern Co.,

OUC
Lima Energy IGCC/Global Energy
Cash Creek IGCC Plant/GE, MDL Holdings
Lockwood IGCC Plant/Hunton Energy,
Cogentrix Energy Inc.
Taylorville Energy Center IGCC/CCG LLC
Wallula Energy Resource Center/Wallula

Resource Recovery LLC
Xcel Energy
Clean Hydrogen Power Generation

Project/Southern California Edison
Indian River IGCC Project/NRG Energy
Millsboro, DE
coal
syngas
630
Edwardsport IGCC Project/Duke Energy
Edwardsport, IN
coal
syngas
630
Meigs County, OH
coal
syngas
630
Wyoming
coal
syngas
TBD
Lower Columbia Clean Energy Center/

Summit Power Group
Clatskanie, OR
petcoke/ coal
syngas
520
Mississippi Power
Kemper County,
MS
coal
syngas
600
Texas
coal
syngas
630
Williamson County,
IL
coal
syngas
620 SNG
Great Bend/AEP
IGCC Demonstration Plant/Wyoming
Infrastructure Authority, Pacific Corp
NRG Energy
Steelhead Energy/Madison Power
Source: U.S. DOE, NETL, Gasification World Database 2007.

Currently,nonewgasificationplantsareprojectedtocomeonlineintheNorthAmerican
regionfrom2008to2010.Thiscontinuesthetrendfrom2005to2007wherenonewplantswere
startedintheUnitedStatesandonlyoneplant,theLongLakePlant,beganoperationsin
131

Alberta,Canada.ThisabsenceofnewUnitedStatescapacityadditionsfrom2005to2010is
understandablegiventhattheseplantswouldhavehadtobecommittedtoduringthelate
1990sandearly2000s.Inthoseyearsthenaturalgaspriceswerelow,resourcesforindustrial
needsandtransportationfuelswereseeminglyabundant,andtheresultsfromdemonstrations
ofnewgenerationgasificationtechnologies(e.g.,thePolkandWabashIGCCplants)werenot
yetfullyknown.However,withexpandeddemandforpowerplants,concernsoverthe
availabilityandpricesofoilandgas,andincreasedconsensusregardingtheneedsfor
deploymentoftechnologiesprovidingforenvironmentalprotection,gasificationbasedprojects
areincreasinglyviewedasatechnologyoptionforfutureprogress.103
ThecommercialapplicabilityofcoalfueledIGCCisdemonstratedbyapproximately18IGCC
projectsthroughouttheworld.Oneoftheseprojectswasthecoal/petcokebasedCoolWater
IGCCplant,whichhasbeendecommissioned.OfthesixcurrentlyoperatingcoalIGCCplants,
fourarecommercialscale,entrainedflowgasificationdemonstrationprojects(rangingin
capacityfrom250to300MW)andarelocatedinFlorida,Indiana,TheNetherlands,and
Spain.104Thisinformationshowsthatentrainedflowgasificationtechnologyhasbeenselected
byallsixcompanies.Asfeedstock,bituminouscoalisthemainchoice,followedbyablendof
petcoke.TheSouthernCompany/OUCprojectisbasedupon100%PowerRiverBasincoalbutis
acommercialdemonstrationprojectforanewgasificationtechnologyandthedemonstration
willnotbecompleteuntil2015.NRGEnergyreportsusingafuelsupplyofprimarilycoalbut
couldincludeupto20%petcokeand5%biomass.
CurrenttrendssuggestthattheIGCCofthefuturewillcontainmuchofwhatisseennow,with
entrainedgasificationretainingitspositionasthemostcommonsystem.Thegasturbineswill
bebasedonthenaturalgasfiredversionsthatwillhavebeendeployedafewyearsearlier.
Hydrogentechnologywillprobablybethesafeoptionatthattime.ThelargercapacityoftheH
classgasturbineswillprovideaneconomyofscale,helpingtoreducethespecificcapitalcostof
IGCC.If,additionally,gasifierunitsizeshavebeensuccessfullyincreased,anditbecomes
possibleforaoneononegasifier/gasturbinecombinationtobeused,thiswillprovidefurther
costsavingsduetoscale.Steamconditionsinthesteamcyclecouldthenberaisedtoultra
supercritical,whichwillgivefurther(modest)efficiencybenefit.
AlthoughtheCoolwaterIGCCdemonstrationplantbuiltinCaliforniainthe1980swasthe
worldsfirstcommercialscaleIGCCdemonstrationplant,onlyonegasificationprojectis
currentlyunderconsiderationinthestate,aCleanHydrogenprojectasshowninTable26.
103U.S.DepartmentofEnergy.OfficeofFossilEnergy.NationalEnergyTechnologyLaboratory.
GasificationWorldDatabase2007,October2007.
<http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/coalpower/gasification/database/database.html>.
104Black&Veatch.CleanCoalTechnologySelectionStudyFinalReportJanuary2007.Black&Veatch,2007.
132

Cost Drivers
Constructioncostsforpowerplantshaveescalatedatanextraordinaryratesincethebeginning
ofthisdecade.Mostrecentchangeisthecurrentcreditcrunchthatwillaffectthedemandand
supplyequilibriuminmarket.TheeffectsonthecostpricedevelopmentforcoalfueledIGCC
powerplantswereanalyzed.
CurrentTrends
Theresearchteamincludedthefollowingtrendsinthecostanalysis:
Constructionmaterialcosts.
Equipmentcosts.
Laborcosts.
Learningeffects.
DatafromtheU.S.BureauofReclamationwereusedtoassesstrendsinconstructioncosts.
Thesegeneralconstructioncosttrendsweredevelopedtotrackconstructionrelevanttopower
generationprojectcosts.ThisdatawasalsocomparedwiththeGasificationWorldDatabase2007
report,whichshowsthatcostoforiginalequipmentandinstallationhasincreasedasmuchas
20%to30%since1998.105Figure53showspowerplantconstructioncostsandmaincomponents.
Thevariouscostindexesinthefigureallconsistoftwoelements:contractorlaborand
equipmentcostsandcontractorsuppliedmaterialsandequipment.Adramaticincreaseincosts
isevidentattheendof2008,correspondingtothebeginningofthecreditcrunch.
105U.S.DepartmentofEnergy.OfficeofFossilEnergy.NationalEnergyTechnologyLaboratory.
133
Bureau of Reclamation Construction Cost Trends

340
320
300
280
260
240
220
Powerplants
Structures and improvements
Equipment
Turbines and accessories
Accessory elect. & misc. equip.
Machinery and equipment (BLS)
ja
n09
ja
n08
ja
n07
ja
n06
ja
n05
ja
n04
ja
n03
ja
n02
ja
n01
ja
n00
200
Figure 53. Bureau of Reclamation construction cost trends

Source: KEMA, based on U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation data, website
http://www.usbr.gov/pmts/estimate/cost_trend.htm
CostDrivers
TheprimarycostdriversforthecostofelectricityfromIGCCplantsare:
GovernmentincentivesManygovernmentincentivesinfluencethecostofgenerating
electricity.Someincentiveshaveadirectandclearinfluenceonthecostofbuildingor
operatingapowerplant,suchasaninvestmenttaxcredit.Othershavelessdirecteffects
thataredifficulttomeasure,suchaspartsofthetaxcodethatinfluencethecostof
producingfossilfuel.106
CapitalandfinancingcostsFocusingonconstructioncostcomponentsandtrends.The
costcomponentsthatwereanalyzedwereEPCcosts,ownerscosts,andcapitalized
financingchargesfortheCalifornia/UnitedStatessituation.107
Operatingcosts(e.g.,fuelcosts)BrokendownintofuelcostsandnonfuelO&Mcosts.
Coaltypicallyaccountsfor20%to25%ofthecostofenergyfromanIGCCorPCpower
plant.O&Mcostsincludelabor,maintenancematerial,administrativesupport,
106Kaplan,Stan,PowerPlants:CharacteristicsandCosts.CongressionalResearchService.National
CouncilonScienceandtheEnvironment,WashingtonDC,2008.
107Black&Veatch.CleanCoalTechnologySelectionStudyFinalReportJanuary2007.Black&Veatch,2007.
134

consumables,andwastedisposalandtypicallyaccountfor20%ofthecostofenergy
fromanIGCCpowerplant.108
AiremissionscontrolsforcoalandnaturalgasplantsRegulationsthatlimitair
emissionsfromfossilfueledpowerplantscanimposetwotypesofcosts:costsof
installingandoperatingcontrolequipment,andcostsofallowancesthatpermitplantsto
emitpollutants.109
Redundancy/availabilityToachievea+85%netcapacityfactorwithcurrent
gasificationtechnologies,itisgenerallybelievedthatredundantgasifiercapacityis
required,whichincreasesthecostofIGCCfacilities.However,itistheresearchteams
assessmentthatthiscanbereachedwithonetrain,thusnotrequiringasparegasifier.
Current Costs
GrosscapacitiesforcoalfiredIGCCplantsrangedfrom300MWlowandaveragecasestoa600
MWhighcase,bothcasesduetothecommercialembodimentofthetechnology,withthe600
MWcasebeingdevelopedwithmultiplegasifiertrainsandturbines,andthe300MWcase
beingdevelopedasasingletraingasifiersetup.
Netcapacityfactorsweremodeledbetweenarangeof7090%,with80%beingtheaveragecase,
primarilyduetotheexpectedonstreamperformanceofthegasifierunit.Currently,thelongest
continuousgasifieroperatingdurationisapproximately2,700hours.Currentgasification
technologyperformancetrendsindicatecapacityfactorsof7090%tobecurrentstateoftheart.
Instantcostsweremodeledbetweenarangeof$1,700/kWand$2,800/kW,withanaverage
instantcostof$2,250/kW.Therangeextremesonthelowcostsideareduetooptionsfor
repoweringexistinggasturbineunitstoagasificationcombinedcycleconfiguration,whilethe
highcostscenariorepresentsahigherlevelofdesignstandardtopromoteadditionalinservice
reliability.
Heatratesandfixed/variableO&Mcostsreflectthecurrenttechnologybase,usinganFclass
turbineheatratecoupledwiththegasifierparasiticpowerload,andtheoperationalprocessing
costofthesyngasfromthegasifiertrains.
Overallfuelcosts,inthiscasetherawcoalfeedstockinput,weremodeledusing11,700Btu/lb
UiintaBasincoalsourcesinColoradoandUtah,aprimarysourceofwesterncoalsupplyfor
California,andplantsthatfeedelectricityintoCalifornia.
108Breeze,Paul,TheCostofPowerGeneration:TheCurrentandFutureCompetitivenessofRenewable
andTraditionalTechnologies.BusinessInsightsLtd.,2008.
http://www.globalbusinessinsights.com/content/rben0202m.PDF.
109Rosenberg,WilliamG.,DwightC.Alpern,andMichaelR.Walker.DeployingIGCCTechnologyin
ThisDecadeWith3PartyCovenantFinancing:VolumeII.ENRPDiscussionPaper200407:Belfer
CenterforScienceandInternationalAffairs,KennedySchoolofGovernment,HarvardUniversity,
Cambridge,MA,July2004.
135

Experiencecurvesforadvancedfossilfueltechnologiesarelimited.Thoseavailable,someof
themold,indicatebothcostincreasesandcostreductions.Inthisstudy,theresearchteam
assumedalearningrateof5%.Thisimpliesa5%costreductionpercumulativedoublingof
installedcapacity.
3.8.3. Carbon Capture and Sequestration

Asclimatechangepolicyandcarbonbasedregulationbecomemoreprevalentinboththe
UnitedStatesandCalifornia,solidfuelcombustiontechnologieswillbedriventoward
integratedgasificationtechnologies.Gasificationtechnologiesprovidetheabilitythroughthe
chemicalprocessesofgasificationtoseparatecarbondioxideasaseparateoffgasstreamfor
potentialcaptureandsequestration.110
Manufacturersinvolvedinintegratedgasificationcombinedcycletechnologiesarepursuing
precombustionremovalofcarbondioxidethroughthegasifier,withatleasta90%effective
carbondioxidecapturerate,withresearcheffortsongoing.111
Currently,researchintocarboncaptureandsequestration(CCS)projectsarebeingspearheaded
byoilandgascompanies,suchasShell,Total,andChevron,wherethetechnologybaseusedis
similartothatusedforcarbondioxideinjectionforenhancedoilandgasrecoverytechniques.
However,anumberofobstaclesforutilityscaleadoptionofthesetechnologiesremain,
includingthespecificapplicationofoil/gascarbondioxidesequestrationtechnologiesto
reliablyandsecurelysequestercarbondioxideemissionsforcenturies.Commercialscale
researchdemonstrationprojectshavebegun,totalinganestimated$20billioninworldwide
spending.
ArecentMcKinseystudyshowsthatcarbonpricesbetween$45and$64permetrictonare
neededtomakeCCSprojectsviable,comparedtoacurrentEuropeanUnionpriceof$1012per
metricton.112
Marketforcesforcarbonemissionsreductionsandcarbonpriceswillplayakeyrolein
determiningthecosttrajectoryandcommercialdevelopmentpotentialforCCSoverthenext20
years.Currently,thetechnologybaseforutilityscaleCCSapplicationsisintheearly
demonstrationphase.Forexample,ChinaisproceedingwithitsGreenGenproject,a200MW
integratedgasificationcombinedcycleunitlocatedinthecityofTianjin,butcarboninjection
andsequestrationisnotanticipateduntilapproximately2020.113
110U.S.DepartmentofEnergy,NationalEnergyTechnologyLaboratory.GasificationWorldDatabase2007.
111SiemensWestinghouse,ImprovingIGCCFlexibilityThroughGasTurbineEnhancements.
GasificationTechnologiesConference2004,October2004.
112Scott,Mark,Is2009theYearforCarbon,Capture,Storage?BusinessWeek,GreenBusiness,February
16,2009.
113Forbes,Sarah,HearingbeforetheU.S.HouseofRepresentativesScienceandTechnologyCommittee
onEnergyandtheEnvironment:FutureGenandtheDepartmentofEnergysAdvancedCoal
136

TheFutureGenproject,consideredaleadingprojectforUnitedStatesbasedCCStechnology
demonstration,wasscrappedin2008afterthecostoftheprojectballoonedto$1.8billion.
Alstomestimatestodaythatsuchacarboncaptureplantwouldcost$1billiontoproduce.
McKinseyalsopresentsthatCCStechnologywillnotbecomematureuntilsometimenear2030,
citingnumerousconcernsfromcostcompetitivenesswithcarbonpricestominimallearning
curvesforapplyingthetechnology.114Inaddition,questionsregardingtheefficacyofstorage
andtheimplementationofprojectsaftertheinitialcommercialdemonstrationphasearekey
unresolvedissues.115
BasedonthelackofcommerciallydemonstratedutilityscaleCCSprojectscurrentlyin
operation,theanticipatedstartofthosedemonstrationprojectsonornear2015,andthe
expected1015yeartimehorizontoscalethetechnologyfromdemonstrationtofullcommercial
embodiment,theresearchteamdidnotincludeCCStechnologyinthecostofgeneration
analysis.Theresearchteamnotesthatseveralfactorsmaychangethisdeterminationoverthe
nextfewyears,namely:
Government/policymandatesSupportinginvestment,development,andrapid
commercializationofCCStechnologiesonanacceleratedbasis.
IncreasesincarbonmarketpricevalueTotheextentthatacurrentlyanticipated$40
65/metrictonmarketvalueisneededtosupportbreakevenfinancialperformanceof
todaysCCStechnologies
GlobalchangesinCCStechnologybaseCurrentinterestintheUnitedStatesandinthe
EuropeanUnionissignificantandmayproducebreakthroughsinCCStechnology,
whichcouldalterthecosttrajectoriesofCCSenoughtowarrantinclusionina
commerciallyviablecostofgenerationanalysis.
TheresearchteamrecommendsthattheCCStechnologiesbeevaluatedforinclusioninfuture
costofgenerationstudiesoncedemonstrationprojectsprovideenoughdataforcommercial
estimatestobereliable.
Programs.U.SHouseofRepresentatives.CommitteeonScienceandTechnology.Subcommitteeon
Energy&Environment,March11,2009.
114TheEconomist.TroubleinStore.Economist.com,March5,2009.
115McKinsey&Company.CarbonCapture&Storage:AssessingtheEconomics,McKinsey&
Company,September2008.
137
3.9. Advanced Nuclear

ThenuclearpowerindustryintheUnitedStatesisattemptingtostageacomeback.With
naturalgaspricesvolatileandpeopleanxiousaboutclimatechange,thenuclearpowerindustry
ismarketingitstechnologyasawaytomeetthenationsgrowingenergyneedswithout
emittingmoregreenhousegases.Overthenexttwoyears,theU.S.NuclearRegulatory
Commission(NRC)expectsapplicationstobuildasmanyas27newnuclearreactors.Hereare
sometechnologystatistics:
Approximately435commercialnuclearpowerreactorscurrentlyoperatein30countries,
supplying370,000MWeoftotalcapacityand16%oftheworldsbaseloadelectric
power.116
TheUnitedStateshas104nuclearreactorsoperatingin31statesandprovidingalmost
20%ofitselectricity.
IntheUnitedStates,therehavebeen17licenseapplicationstobuild26newnuclear
reactorssincemid2007,followingseveralregulatoryinitiativespreparingthewayfor
neworders.
Lifeextensionofnuclearreactorsisprogressingto60yearlifespansacrossthenuclear
operatingfleet.
Ownershipandoperationofnuclearreactorshavebecomemoreconcentratedoverthe
lastdecade.
Incontrasttothe20%ofelectricitysuppliedbynuclearplantsintheUnitedStates,75%of
Franceselectricityissuppliedbynuclearplants.Therehasbeennoneworderforanuclear
powerplantintheUnitedStatessincethe1970s,andnonewplanthasbeencompletedinthe
UnitedStatessince1996.Californiahashadamoratoriumonissuinglandusepermitsfornew
nuclearplantsuntiltheEnergyCommissionfindsthatthereisanapprovedmeansforthe
permanentdisposalofhighlevelradioactivewaste.UnitedStatesnuclearfacilitieshave
successfullyboostedoutputinrecentyearsbyincreasingusageratesfromhistoricalvaluesof
70%toover90%.Still,proponentsofnuclearenergyestimatethattheUnitedStateswillneed30
newnuclearplantsby2025tokeeppacewithincreasingelectricityuse.117However,opponents
ofnuclearpowerpointtothehighconstructioncostsofthenextgenerationreactorsand
difficultyinfinancingthemintodayscreditconstrainedmarkets.
Anumberofmajorriskfactorsarepresentinthequestforanuclearcomeback,includingthe
largestriskofall,nuclearplantconstructioncosts.Theabilitytoestimatenewplant
116http://www.aboutnuclear.net/English/Nuclear_Power_in_the_World.html.
117Mufson,Steven.NuclearPowerPrimedforComebackDemand,SubsidiesSpurU.S.Utilities.The
WashingtonPost,October8,2007;A01.
138

constructioncostswhenveryfewnuclearplantshavebeenbuiltsincetheThreeMileIslandand
Chernobylaccidentshavewidenedthespreadofestimatednuclearconstructioncostsoverthe
pastdecadeandcreatedagreatdealofuncertaintyinboththeutilityindustryandthefinancing
markets.ArecentupdatetoaMITstudyfoundin2008thatthecostspreadofinstantcostsfor
recent,similarnuclearplantprojectsintheUnitedStatesrangedfrom$3,500$4,800/kW(2007
dollars),whichisaverylargespreadincosts.118Difficultyinestimatingnuclearplantcosts
withprecisionandcertaintyisduetothesefactors:
LackofavailablereferenceplantdataVeryfewreactorshavebeenbuiltintheworld
recentlyandnoneintheUnitedStates.
HistoricalexperiencePastestimatesofnuclearplantinstalledcostshavenotalways
beenfoundtruewhenactualconstructioniscompleted.Arecentevaluationof
predictedversusactualcostsfoundthatcostsestimateshaveseverelyunderpredicted
actualcosts.
Figure 54. Actual vs. Predicted Nuclear Reactor Capital Costs

Source: Mark Cooper. The Economics of Nuclear Reactors: Renaissance or Relapse. Institute for Energy and the
Environment, Vermont Law School, June 2009.
SupplyChainIssuesConsiderableuncertaintystillexistsaroundthecapabilityofthe
nuclearsupplychaintodeliverthehighlyengineered,ultrahighqualityvessels,
fabrications,andmaterialsneededtosupportanuclearconstructionrevival.For
118Du,YangboandJohnE.Parsons.UpdateontheCostofNuclearPower.MITCenterforEnergyand
EnvironmentalPolicyResearch,May2009
139

instance,thenumberofASMENstampnuclearfabricatorshasdroppedfrom400
suppliers20yearsagoto80today.Inaddition,currentlyonlytwoworldwidesuppliers
existtosupplyreactorvesselsJapanSteelWorksandCreusotForge.119TheU.S.
DepartmentofEnergy,throughitsNP2010program,performedadetailed
manufacturingresourceassessmentin2005andfoundthatoutof22majormaterial
categories,fivewouldrequireextraleadtime,withthetwolargestimpactsupplychain
issuesbeingmanufactureofthereactorvessellargeringforgings(twoworldwide
suppliers)andmainplantdigitalcontrolsystemsandsimulators,bothrequiringan
extra23yearleadtimefromprocurementtodelivery.120
SpecializedNuclearLaborCostsandAvailabilityTheNP2010programassessment
statedthatthespecializedtradesneededfornuclearconstruction,especially
boilermakers,pipefitters,electricians,andironworkers,areexpectedtobeinshort
supplyandwillrequiremitigationstepstoavoidconstructiondelaysduetolabor.121
Theshortageofskilledtradeconstructionlaborhasbeenanationalproblemforthepast
decade,andwithoutmitigatingstepsforflexibilityinattractingorretainingworkers,
delaysinconstructionand/orcostincreasescouldresult.Inaddition,theneedfor
nuclearcertifiedqualitycontrolprogramsandproperlytrainedstafftoNRCquality
requirementsisessential.
MaterialCostEscalationOverthepastdecade,materialcostsusedforallelectricity
generationconstructionhaveescalatedfarinexcessoftheinflationrate,andevenmore
soformaterialsusedinnuclearconstruction.Whiletherecenteconomicrecessionhas
significantlydampenedtheincreases,uncertaintyexistsastowhetherthecostescalation
trendsofthelastdecadewillcontinue.
119Harding,James.OvernightCostsofNewNuclearReactors.GreenEnergyCoalition,EB20070707,
August2008.
120DOlier,Robert.,et.al..DOENP2010ConstructionInfrastructureAssessment.U.S.Departmentof
Energy,October2005.
121Ibid.
140
Figure 55: Power Capital Cost Index Nuclear and Non-Nuclear Construction
Source: IHS CERA. IHS CERA Power Capital Costs Index Shows Construction Costs Falling for All Types
of New Power Plants. June 23, 2009.
Becausesomuchoftheoverallcostandriskofnuclearpoweristiedupintheinitial
constructioncostoftheplant,financialriskanduncertaintyloomassignificantriskstothe
widespreadadoptionofnuclearpower.Manyutilitiesarereluctanttocommittonuclear
constructionprogramsbecauseofthefinancialrisktoautilitiesbalancesheetandfinancial
stability.Today,ratingsagenciessuchasStandard&PoorsandMoodyshaveissuedcautions
toutilitiesseekingtoembarkonnuclearconstructionprograms,statingthatutilitiesneedto
planforadditionalliquidityintheirbalancesheetstocovertheuncertaintiesofultimatebuilt
plantcostandthepotentialforunderestimationofregulatorytreatmentandraterecoveryfrom
publicutilitycommissions.122
122MoodysCorporateFinance.NewNuclearGeneratingCapacity:PotentialCreditImplicationsforU.S.
InvestorOwnedUtilities.MoodysCorporateFinance,May2008.
141

New Commercial Reactor Designs
Thestandardizationinthedesignofnuclearpowerreactorsevolvedoverthepastseveral
decades.Theoriginaltypesofreactorsconsistingoftheboilingwaterreactors(BWR)andthe
pressurizedwaterreactors(PWR)technologiesgavewaytothelatestdesignsintroducedbythe
majorUnitedStatesmanufacturerssuchastheWestinghouseandtheGeneralElectricHitachi
jointventureconsortium.TheWestinghouseAP1000designisbasedonthePWRreactortype,
anditisthemostpopularintheUnitedStatesandChina.GeneralElectricsAdvancedBoiling
WaterReactor(ABWR)designisbasedontheoriginalBWRtechnologyandisgainingthe
momentumintheUnitedStatesandabroad,withunitshavingbeenbuiltinJapan.
Advanced Nuclear Power Reactors
Neweradvancedreactorshave:123
Simplerdesigns,whichreducecapitalcost.Safetysystemsareadvancedandreducethe
potentialforreactorscrams(adefinednuclearemergencywherethenuclearreactoris
scrambledorgoesthroughanemergencyshutdown).
Astandardized,modulardesignforeachtypetoexpeditelicensing,reducecapitalcost,
andreduceconstructiontime.
Fuelcycledesignstoreducenuclearproliferationrisks.
AhigheravailabilityandlongeroperatinglifeOEMshavetypicallyquoted60years.
TypicalreactordesignsconsistofthePWR,BWR,PHWR(pressurizedheavywaterreactor),
HGTR(hightemperaturegascooledreactor),PBMR(pebblebedmodularreactor)andanew4S
technologyemphasizingthesupersafe,small,andsimplereactordesign.
The Economics of Nuclear Power
Nuclearplantslargestcostsareassociatedwiththeirupfrontcapitalcostsformaterials
andconstruction.Theupfrontcapitalcostsofnuclearpowerarethehighestcostdriver
behindcurrentnuclearcosteconomicsandthecurrentimbalancebetweennuclear
powerandfossilfueltechnologies.
Fuelcostsfornuclearplantsaccountonlyforapproximately10%oftotalgenerating
costs,makingnuclearpowerplantsrelativelyimmunefromuraniumfuelprice
variations.124
Truelifecyclecostsofnuclearpowermusttakeintoaccountthecostsofsite
decommissioningandnuclearspentfuelwastedisposal.Sitedecommissioningandthe
123WorldNuclearAssociation.AdvancedNuclearPowerReactors.http://www.world
nuclear.org/info/inf08.html.Retrieved5/15/2009.
124Tolley,George,et.al.,TheEconomicFutureofNuclearPower,UniversityofChicago,August2004.
142

issueofnuclearwastedisposalaretwoofthemajorbarrierstodevelopingadditional
nuclearpowerfacilitiesintheUnitedStates.125
Nuclearreactormanufacturershavestatedthattheycouldcutcostsandreducelicensingdelays
byusingstandarddesigns,similartoFrancesstandardizedreactorapproach,ratherthan
tailoringplantstoeachcustomer.Thenewdesignsthatareintheprecertificationprocessatthe
NRCreflectthisnewapproachbytheWestinghouseandothermajormanufacturersinthe
UnitedStatesandtheworld.
3.9.2. WESTINGHOUSE - AP1000

TheWestinghouseAP1000wasselectedforcostanalysisduetoitsworldwideacceptance.
WestinghouseCorporationwasselectedtosupplynewnuclearplantsinChinaandother
countries.ThemostrecentannouncementsfromChinaregardingtheplanstopurchase100
AP1000plantsoverthenext25yearsareanindicationofaninternationalacceptanceofthis
design.Furthermore,theAP1000hasbeenidentifiedasthetechnologyofchoicefornoless
than12newprojectedplantsintheUnitedStates.
ItisthejudgmentoftheresearchteamthattheAP1000isthebestbalancedchoiceformodeling
GenIIInuclearreactortechnology.Thisjudgmentisbasedseveralfactors,thefirstbeingthe
designcompetitiontosupplytheChinesegovernmentwithadvancednuclearpower
technology.TheChinesecompetition,begunin2003againstaglobalarrayofnuclearindustry
companies,resultedintheselectionoftheAP1000inthelargestenergycooperationproject
betweenChinaandtheUnitedStates.Thefirstreactor,SanmenNuclearPowerStation,began
constructioninearly2009andisexpectedtoachievecommercialoperationin2013.126The
secondfactoristhecurrentcertificationoftheAP1000bytheNRC,allowingconstructioninthe
UnitedStatesandCalifornia.Athirdfactoristhegenerationaldifferencesintechnologyand
safetysystemsincludedintheAP1000,whiletheToshibaGEABWRtechnologyisofearlier
development,havingbeencertifiedin1997.
TheDOEinitsNP2010studyshowedthatthreeprimaryembodimentsofGenIIInuclear
technologyare:127
GeneralElectric(GE):EconomicSimplifiedBoilingWaterReactor(ESBWR)
ToshibaVersionGEDesign:AdvancedBoilingWaterReactor(ABWR)
WestinghouseDesign:AdvancedPressurizedWaterReactor(AP1000)
125Beckjord,Eric,et.al.TheFutureofNuclearPower.MassachusettsInstituteofTechnology,2003
126http://www.chinaview.cn,Chinastartsbuilding3rdgenerationnuclearpowerreactorsusing
Westinghousetechnologies,April19,2009.
127DOlier,Robert,et.al.DOENP2010NuclearPowerPlantConstructionInfrastructureAssessment.Report
MPR2776,U.S.DOE,October2005.
143
Ofthesetechnologies,theWestinghouseAP1000andtheGEESBWRreactorsarethemost
technologicallyadvanced.However,theGEESBWRreactorisstillundergoingregulatory
certificationsthroughtheNRCdesigncertificationprocess.128TheWestinghouseAP1000
reactorreceiveditsNRCcertificationin2006.129
WestinghousestatesthattheAP1000designis:130
Currentlyavailableintheworldwidemarketplace.
BasedonstandardWestinghousepressurizedwaterreactor(PWR).
Technologythathasachievedmorethan2,500reactoryearsofhighlysuccessful
operation.
An1100MWedesignthatisidealforprovidingbaseloadgeneratingcapacity.
Modularindesign,promotingreadystandardizationandhighconstructionquality.
Economicaltoconstructandmaintain(lessconcreteandsteelandfewercomponents
andsystemsmeanthereislesstoinstall,inspectandmaintain).
Designedtopromoteeaseofoperation(featuresmostadvancedinstrumentationand
controlintheindustry).

CaliforniahastwooperatingnuclearplantsatDiabloCanyonUnit1&2(putintooperationin
1985and1986,respectively)andSanOnofreUnits2&3(putintooperationin1981and1983,
respectively).NoneofthecurrentnuclearplantlicenseapplicationsbeingreviewedbytheNRC
areintendedforplantsinCalifornia,althoughplantownersforDiabloCanyonandSanOnofre
havebegunlicenserenewalfeasibilitystudies.PacificGasandElectric(PG&E)planstosubmit
itslicenserenewalfeasibilitystudytotheCaliforniaPublicUtilitiesCommissionin2011,and
SouthernCaliforniaEdison(SCE)planstosubmititslicenseapplicationtotheNRCin2012.
Givenlongapprovalprocessesandconstructionleadtimes,theprimarycommercial
embodimentintheUnitedStatesin2018willbedrivenlargelybytheapplicationsthatare
beingfiledcurrently.TheNRChasreceived17applicationsforacombinedlicensefor
constructionandoperation(COL)andestimatesthatthelicensingprocessforaCOLwilltake
128http://www.gepower.com/about/press/en/2009_press/051909b.htm,GEHitachiNuclearEnergy
AnnouncesecomaginationApprovalEarnedforAdvancedBoilingWaterReactor,May19,2009.
129http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/newreactors/designcert/ap1000.html,IssuedDesignCertification
AdvancedPassive1000(AP1000),Rev.15
130http://www.ap1000.westinghousenuclear.com.
144

approximately36to48monthstocomplete.131TheCOLisvalidfor40yearsandcanbe
renewedforanadditional20years.AccordingtotheEnergyInformationAdministration,there
isnoassurancethatanyoftheplantsforwhichCOLhavebeenreceivedwillultimatelybebuilt
oroperate.TheclearestindicatoroftheextentofthenuclearrevivalintheUnitedStateswillbe
thenumberandcapacityofnewreactorsthatactuallygoonline.SubmittingaCOLapplication
doesnotensureareactorwillbebuiltorevenstartedandmayreflectagoaltokeepthenuclear
optionopenratherthanafullcommitment.
Table 27. Expected New Nuclear Power Plant Applications.132

Existing
Date of
Company*
NRG Energy (52012/013)***
NuStart Energy (52014/015)***
Date
Application
Design
Accepted
9/20/2007
ABWR
11/29/2007
10/30/2007
AP1000
1/18/2008
Site Under
Consideration
Operating
State
Plant
TX
Bellefonte (2 units)
AL
Calvert Cliffs (1 unit)
MD
North Anna (1 unit)
VA
SC
South Texas Project

(2 units)
07/13/2007
UNISTAR (52-016)***
(Envir.)
03/13/2008
EPR
01/25/2008
06/03/2008
(Safety)
Dominion (52-017)***
11/27/2007
ESBWR
1/28/2008
Duke (52-018/019)***
12/13/2007
AP1000
2/25/2008
2/19/2008
AP1000
4/17/2008
Harris (2 units)
NC
2/27/2008
ESBWR
4/17/2008
Grand Gulf (1 units)
MS
3/31/2008
AP1000
5/30/2008
Vogtle (2 units)
GA
3/31/2008
AP1000
7/31/2008
Summer (2 units)
SC
7/30/2008
AP1000
10/6/2008
Levy County (2 units)
FL
9/3/2008
ESWBR
10/30/2008
TX
Progress Energy (52022/023)***

NuStart Energy (52024)***
William Lee Nuclear

Station (2 units)
Southern Nuclear
Operating Co. (52025/026)***
South Carolina Electric &
Gas (52-027/028)***
Progress Energy (52029/030) ***
Exelon (52-031/032)***
Victoria County (2
units)
131U.S.NuclearRegulatoryCommission.CombinedLicenseApplicationsforNewReactors.
http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/newreactors/col.html.Retrieved5/15/2009.
132U.S.NuclearRegulatoryCommission.ExpectedNewNuclearPowerPlantApplications,UpdatedJuly2,
2009.http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/newreactors.html.Retrieved7/15/2009.
145

Existing
Date of
Company*
Date
Site Under
Application
Design
Accepted
Consideration
9/18/2008
ESBWR
11/25/2008
Fermi (1 unit)
9/19/2008
USAPWR
12/2/2008
Entergy (52-036)***
9/25/2008
ESBWR
12/4/2008
AmerenUE (52-037)***
7/24/2008
EPR
12/12/2008
UNISTAR (52-038)***
9/30/2008
EPR
12/12/2008
10/10/2008
EPR
12/19/2008
6/30/2009
AP1000
Detroit Edison (52033)***

Luminant Power (52034/035)***
PPL Generation (52039)***

Florida Power and Light
(763)
Operating
State
Plant
MI
TX
River Bend (1 unit)
LA
Callaway (1 unit)
MO
NY
Bell Bend (1 unit)
PA
Turkey Point (2 units)
FL
UNK
Comanche Peak (2
units)
Nine Mile Point (1

unit)
Vicinity of Amarillo (2
Amarillo Power (752)
CY 2009
EPR
units)
TX
CY 2009
EPR
Hammett (1 unit)
ID
Alternate Energy
Holdings (765)
Blue Castle Project

CY 2010
TBD
Utah
UT
2007 2011 Total Number of Applications = 22; Total Number of Units = 33
*Project Numbers/Docket Numbers; **Yellow Acceptance Review Ongoing; ***Blue Accepted/Docketed
N
N
Source: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Expected New Nuclear Power Plant Applications, Updated July 2, 2009.
Cost Drivers
TheU.S.EnergyInformationAdministration(EIA)recentlyprojectedadditionsofabout12GW
ofnuclearcapacitycomingonlinethrough2030intheUnitedStates.Thisassumes3.4GWof
expansionatexistingplants,licenseextensionsforcurrentreactors,13.4GWofnewcapacity
(about10newplants),and4.4GWlostfromplantsbeingretired.Electricitygenerationfrom
nuclearpowerisprojectedtoincreasefrom806billionkWhin2007to907billionkWhin2030,
asconcernsaboutrisingfossilfuelprices,energysecurity,andgreenhousegasemissions
supportthedevelopmentofnewnucleargeneration.133
Thedevelopmentofnewnuclearpowerreactorscouldbehinderedbypublicconcernsover
plantsafety,radioactivewastedisposal,andnuclearmaterialproliferation.Somenationsmay
bedeterredfromexpandingtheirnuclearprogramsbyhighcapitalandmaintenancecosts.
AccordingtotheEIA,theestimatedcostfornewnuclearplantshasbeengreatlyincreasedby
risingcostsforconstructionmaterials,andwhencombinedwithunstablefinancialmarkets,
newinvestmentsinnuclearpowerareuncertain.Despitethesedifficulties,theInternational
133EIA,AnnualEnergyOutlook,2009.AppendixA.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/pdf/appendixes.PDF.
146

EnergyOutlook2008(IEO2008)caseincorporatesimprovedprospectsforworldnuclear
power.134TheIEO2008projectionfornuclearelectricitygenerationin2025is31%higherthan
theprojectionpublishedinIEO2003onlyfiveyearsago.
CurrentTrends
EconomicandOperatingTrends
Theindustryisconcernedabouttheadequacyoftheskilledlaborpoolandlossofskilled
laborersandengineersduetoretirementandlackofnewgraduatesseekingcareersinnuclear
engineering.Thelackofskillednuclearengineers,constructionmanagerswithnuclear
experience,andskilledtradespeople(boilermakers,pipefitters,electricians,andironworkers)
areasignificantbottleneckinnuclearplantconstruction.Largescalerevivalofnuclearpower
intheUnitedStateswilldependontheindustrysapproachtothesecriticallaborissues.
Already,theNP2010recommendationscontendthatnuclearplantdesignsshouldbeata
completestagepriortoissuanceofEPC(engineerprocureconstruct)contracts,sothatlabor
supplycanbeproperlyestimatedandmanaged.135Thisrecommendationisdifferentthanmany
ofthefasttrackconstructionmethodsusedtoday.
OnerecenttrendintheUnitedStatesnuclearpowerindustrythatmightinfluencefuture
performancehasbeenanincreasedconcentrationofoperationsintofewerowneroperators.
Concentratedownershipofnuclearreactorsbeganinthe1990sasinvestorownedutilities
soughttoeithereliminatetheirnuclearrisksandtherisksofnuclearoperatinglicense
extensions,ortoconcentratethoserisksintoalarger,nuclearconcentratedbusiness.Theeffects
ofindustryconsolidationintofewer,morespecializednuclearoperatingcompaniesare
illustratedinthetablebelow:
Table 28. Operators of U.S. reactors136
Organization
Exelon-AmerGen
Entergy
Duke
TVA
Southern
2nd Five Firms
Others (3+ Reactors)
Others (<3 Reactors)
Capacity (MWe)
16,850
9,033
6,996
6,658
5,698
22,680
7,164
22,588
Share of Capacity
17.3%
9.2%
7.2%
6.8%
5.8%
23.2%
7.3%
23.1%
Source: www.eia.gov
134http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/electricity.html.
135DOlier,Robert,et.al.DOENP2010ConstructionInfrastructureAssessment.U.S.DepartmentofEnergy,
October2005.
136http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/analysis/nuclearpower.html.
147

Ownershippercentagesaresmallerthantheoperatingpercentagesabovebecausemany
reactorsoperateundertwosetsofagreements:ownershipagreementsandoperating
agreements.EntergyandExelon,bothinvestorownedutilitiesthatarepursuingnuclearbased
generationstrategies,havebothpurchasedmanagementrightsatnuclearplants.Overall,
outsideofExelon,thereisaroughly510%sharerangeofcapacityexposurethatnuclear
operatorsarewillingtoholdasonbalancesheetexposure,andthishasledtosomelevelingout
ofthetopnuclearoperatorsovertime.
ThedatainthetabledonotincludetheStarsgroup,whichsharessomeresponsibilitiesamong
themanagersofmanyofthesmallermanagerialgroupings.
Capacityuprating,oraddingadditionalgeneratingcapacityduetoadvancesintechnologyin
eitherthepowercycleortheturbinegeneratorset,hasbeenacontinuingtrendinnuclear
power,asithasalsobeeninother,fossilfiredtechnologies.Continuingadvancesintechnology
canbeusedbynuclearplantoperatorstogainadditionalmegawattcapacityandenergy
productionfromthesameplantsite,asbettermaterialsandbladeapplicationscometomarket.
Typicalcapacityupratescanincreasecapacityofexistingnuclearreactorsapproximately5
20%.137EIAestimatestheneartermpotentialoftheseupratesaround4GWe,basedonutility
andregulatorypublicannouncements.Theseupratesgenerallyfollowthesamejustificationas
isdoneinfossilfiredgenerationplant,wheretheincrementalbenefitoftheuprateexceedsthe
incrementalcostofretrofitandoperation,viewedonalifecyclebasis.
TechnologyTrends
With443nuclearpowerreactorsinuseworldwide,nucleargenerationprovidesapproximately
16%ofglobalelectricitygeneration.Severalindustrializedcountriesusenuclearpowerasa
primarysourceofelectricity(Japan,Germany,andFrancewhichproduces78%ofits
electricityfromnuclearpower).138Finland,Japan,KoreaandChinahaveactivenuclear
generationexpansionprogramsunderway.Today,theprimaryreactorembodimentsare
earliergenerationtechnologiesknownasGenerationIIreactors,whichcameonlineinthe
1960sand1970s.SomelimitedconstructionofGenerationIIIreactorshasgoneintoservice,
primarilyinAsia.Mostoftodaysnuclearrebirthhastakenplaceasaresultofthedesign
evolutionintoadvancedreactorsknownasGenerationIII+,andthefuturedesignsforthcoming
asGenerationIVreactortechnologies.
137Ibid.[130].
138IEA/OECD,IEAEnergyTechnologyEssentialsNuclearPower.March2007.
148
Figure 56. Generations of nuclear energy

Source: U.S. DOE and GIF, A Technology Roadmap for Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems.
Withthenuclearindustryrecoveringfromvirtualstagnationoverthelasttwodecades,new
factorsintheenergylandscapehaveimpliedapotentiallylargerrolefornuclearpowerin
supplyingdomesticenergyneeds.Issuessuchasglobalclimatechangeandairqualitysuggest
afutureforcarbonfree,emissionfreenucleartechnologies,whilediscussionoverenergy
independenceandsecurityalsoreinforcesthehypothesisthatgrowingnuclearpower
generationintheUnitedStatescouldenhancetheenergyinfrastructureandalleviatesecurity
concerns.However,itisclearthatwithoutacontinuedadvancingofnucleartechnologyto
reduceoverallinstalledcostrelativetofossilfueledandothertechnologies,nuclearpowerwill
notenjoytherenaissancemanyadvocatesenvision.139
Toanswertheseissuesandquestions,theU.S.DepartmentofEnergyhasledthedevelopment
ofnew,nextgenerationnuclearsteamsupplysystems,knownasGenerationIV,GenerationV,
andnuclearfusionreactors.(Fusionreactorsasdescribedbelowarebeyondthetimeframeof
thisstudy.)
GenerationIVReactors(notfeasiblebefore2030)
GenerationIVreactorsareasetoftheoreticalnuclearreactordesignsbeingresearchedbya
consortiumof10countriesaroundtheworld.Thesedesignsaregenerallynotexpectedtobe
availableforcommercialconstructionbefore2030,whichisbeyondthehorizonforthisstudy.
139TheFutureofNuclearPower.MassachusettsInstituteofTechnology,2003.
149

TodayscommercialreactorsaretypicallyofeitherGenerationIIorGenerationIII/III+
technologies,withmostGenerationIreactorshavingbeenretiredfromservice.
In1999,thisconsortiumofinternationalcountriescreatedtheGenerationIVInternational
Forum(GIF)toresearchnewreactortechnologiesbasedoneightfundamentalobjectives.The
primarygoalsareto:improvenuclearsafety,improveproliferationresistance,minimizewaste
andnaturalresourceuse,andtodecreasethecosttobuildandrunsuchplants.140
Severaladvancedreactortechnologiesarebeingevaluatedforstudy,including:141
Gascooledfastreactor
Leadcooledfastreactor
Moltensaltreactor
Sodiumcooledfastreactor
Supercriticalwaterreactor
Veryhightemperaturereactor
GenerationV+Reactors(notfeasiblebefore2030)
GenerationV+reactorsaredesignsthatmaybetheoreticallypossiblebutarenotbeingactively
consideredforcommercialdevelopment,eitherbecauseofcurrenttechnologyapplication
potential,oreconomics,orsafety.Thesetechnologiesinclude,butarenotlimitedto:
Liquidcorereactor
Gascorereactor
GascoreEMreactor
Fissionfragmentreactor
FusionReactors(notfeasiblebefore2050)
Thecontrolledpowerofnuclearfusioncontinuestobeanareaofactiveresearchinnuclear
powertechnology,withtheinternationalITERTokamakfusionreactornowoperationalin
Europeandscientificresearchcontinuingoverthenextseveraldecades.Fusionofhydrogen
isotopesinanultrahightemperatureplasmacarrieswithitthepromiseofvirtuallyunlimited
fuelsupplyandminimalradioactivewasteproducts,butsignificantscientificandtechnical
obstaclesremain.AstudydonebytheSwissFederalInstituteofTechnologyfortheIEA
140http://www.gen4.org/PDFs/annual_report2007.PDF.
141U.S.DOEandNuclearResearchAdvisoryCommitteeandtheGenerationIVInternationalForumA
TechnologyRoadmapforGenerationIVNuclearEnergySystems.ReportGIF00200,December2002.
150

concludedthatfusionreactorscouldbecomepartofthetechnologylandscapeby2050,butthat
widescaleadoptionwouldnottakeplaceuntil20502100.142
CostDrivers
Itisdifficulttotakeintoaccountallaspectsthatdrivecostswithinaparticularnuclearpower
plantastheaginginfrastructurehasresultedinnumerousonetimeevents.Toaccurately
comparethecostofnuclearagainstotherenergysources,thisreporthasconsideredthe
followingkeycostdrivers:
1.Capitalcosts
TheCongressionalBudgetOffice(CBO)hasidentifiedfinancingcostsasanimportantcost
driverintheirreporttitledNuclearPowersRoleinGeneratingElectricity(May2008).143Costs
associatedwithinitialconstructionoftheplantareheavilyinfluencedbyfactorssuchas
constructiononpreviouslyundevelopedland(knownasgreenfields),refurbishment,and
replacementsatexistingsitesandnewunitadditionsatcurrentsites.
Foranuclearplanttheconstructioncostsaregenerallyhigherthanthatforotherfossilfueledor
renewabletechnologiesbecausethebuildingsmustbeconstructedespeciallyforradiation
containment.Redundantsafetysystemsandadvancedplantcontrolsarepresent,adding
additionalcosts.Andallequipment,whetherpiping,valves,electricalequipment,andcontrols
mustallbecertifiedtohigherdesignspecificationsandstandardsforuseinanuclearpower
facility.However,nuclearplantsdonotrequirethetypesofpostcombustionscrubbersandair
emissionscontroltechnologiescommonlyfoundinfossilgenerationtoremovesulfurdioxide,
nitrogenoxides,andparticulatematter.
Instantconstructioncostswereobtainedfromavarietyofresearchsources,includingtwoMIT
studies,researchfromtheOECDNuclearEnergyAgency,theIEA,andseveralother
metastudies.TheresearchteamalsoevaluatedseveralrecentfilingsbyFloridaPower&Light
forconstructionofanAP1000reactor,andratingagencyandinvestmentbankcostestimates.
DirectestimateswerealsoobtainedbytheresearchteamfromWestinghouseandGeneral
Electric.Nottakenintoconsiderationwerecostestimatesfromindustrytradegroups,asthe
capitalcostsoutlinedbythoseorganizationsdidnotmatchwellwiththelargerbodyof
knowledgeinreportedcostdata.Inanyevent,theresearchteamnotesthatthecostspreadfor
nuclearpoweriswideandsomewhatuncertainandwillremainsountilnewreactorsare
constructedintheUnitedStates.
Forcostofcapitalandinstalledcostcalculationsaconstructionperiodofnineyearswasusedas
anaverage.Thisperiodincludessiting,environmentalimpactstudies,andlicensingapplication
142Gnansounou,EdgardandDenisBedniaguine.PotentialRoleofFusionPowerGenerationinaVery
LongTermElectricitySupplyPerspective:CaseofWesternEurope.SESEV
143CongressoftheUnitedStates,CongressionalBudgetOffice.NuclearPowersRoleinGenerating
Electricity.May2008.Retrievedfrom:http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/91xx/doc9133/0502Nuclear.PDF.
151

phasesandisbasedoncurrentFrenchdatafornuclearplantlicensingandconstructionperiods.
ThenineyearperiodisthreetofouryearslongerthanthetimelinerecommendedbytheU.S.
NuclearRegulatoryCommissionandisbasedontheresearchteamsviewthatthenextwaveof
nuclearplantsbuiltinCaliforniawillbesubjecttorigorousscrutinyandreview.Thetime
estimatesofnineyearconstructionperiodsmatchupwellwithexperienceinboththehistorical
contextofactualbuiltplantpluscurrentbuildcyclesinEurope.
Thenineyearconstructionperiodestimatefornuclearplantconstruction,combinedwithutility
financingofthenuclearpowerinvestmentcoststhroughouttheplantsusefullife,meansthat
utilitiesthatconstructnuclearpowerplantsmustaccountandplanforthesignificantincreases
infinancialliquiditytomeetthedemandsoffinancinganuclearprogram.Severalfinancial
ratingagencieshavestatedthatutilitieswithnuclearprogramsshouldtakeadequatestepsto
insureliquiditytoavoidratingdowngrades.144
2.Fuelcosts
Costsassociatedwiththefuelusedintheproductionofenergy.
Foranuclearplant,thesetendtobelowereventhoughthefollowingstepsoccurinthe
productionofthefuelassembliesusedinthereactor:
1. Miningoftheuraniumore145
2. ConversiontoU3O8(uraniumoxideyellowcakeform)andthentouranium
hexafluoride
3. Enrichmentfrom0.7%U235to25%U235
4. Pelletizationintousableuraniumdioxidepellets(UO2)
5. Fabricationofpelletsintorods,andthenfuelassemblies146
Transportationcostscomprisingcompleteduraniumfuelassembliesarecomparablewithcoal
transportationcostsbecauseofthevastamountsofuraniumorerequiredforprocessing.
3.Operationandmaintenancecosts
Operationandmaintenancecostsforanuclearpowerstationaregenerallyconsistentwiththat
ofotherfossilfueledstations,includingthecostsof:
a) Laborandoverheads(e.g.,medicalandpensionbenefits).
b) Consumablematerials.
c) NRCandstatelicensefees(e.g.,licensechanges,onsiteandregionalinspectors,and
headquartersstaff).
144 MoodysInvestorServices,NewNuclearGeneratingCapacity:PotentialCreditImplicationsforU.S.
Utilities,May2008.
145http://www.stockinterview.com/News/01092007/UraniumPriceForecast.html.
146Tolley,George,et.al.TheEconomicFutureofNuclearPower.UniversityofChicago,August2004.
152

d) Propertytaxesandinsurance,whichvarybystateandlocality.
e) Costsassociatedwithplantoutagesandreplacement/repairofmajorcomponents.
AdditionalcostscanbeleviedbytheNRCforoperatinglicensereviews,orwhenplantsrequire
enhancedinspectionsfollowingasignificantdeteriorationinplantperformanceandsafety.
Also,additionalcostscanoccurforenhancedsecurityneedsinthepost9/11environment,
whicharedifficulttoquantifyandarenotincludedintheO&Mcosttabulation.
Propertytaxescanresultinaplantpayingupto$1520millionperyearinpropertytaxes.
4.Wasterelatedcosts
Foranuclearplant,thesecostsincludethesurchargeleviedbytheDepartmentofEnergyfora
nuclearwastefundtopayforthetransportationandultimatedisposalofthespentnuclearfuel
fromreactorsaswellascostsassociatedwithtransportationanddisposaloflowlevel
radioactivewastes.TheDOEchargeforspentfueldisposalisaflatfeebasedonenergyuse.
Lowlevelwastedisposalcostsarerelativelymodestduringongoingplantoperations.
However,asubstantialquantityoflowlevelwastewillneedtobedisposedofwhentheplants
aredecommissioned.
5.Decommissioningcosts
Thecostsassociatedwithdismantlingashutdownreactor,decontamination,andrestorationof
theplantsitebacktogreenfieldstatus.Usuallyrestorationwouldoccuroveralongperiod,e.g.
20years.Partsoftheplant(e.g.,nonnuclearplantcomponents)couldbeusedforenergy
generationbyothersources.
InCalifornia,PG&E,SCE,andSanDiegoGas&Electric(SDG&E)collectabout0.03cents/kWh
fromretailratestofunddecommissioning.TheymustthenreportregularlytotheNRConthe
statusoftheirdecommissioningfunds.Asof2001,$23.7billionofthetotalestimatedcostof
decommissioningallUnitedStatesnuclearpowerplantshadbeencollected,leavingaliability
ofabout$11.6billiontobecoveredovertheoperatinglivesof104reactors(onbasisofaverage
$320millionperunit).
TheprojectedUnitedStatesindustryaveragecostfordecommissioningapowerplantis$300
million.Thefundsforthisactivityareaccumulatedintheoperatingcostoftheplant.The
FrenchandSwedishNuclearIndustriesexpectdecommissioningcoststobe1015%ofthe
constructioncostsandbudgetthisintothepricechargedforelectricity.Ontheotherhandthe
Britishdecommissioningcostshavebeenprojectedtobearound1billionpoundsperreactor.147
InCalifornia,accordingtoSCE,forSONGS2and3,estimateddecommissioningcostsare$3.659
147http://nuclearinfo.net/Nuclearpower/WebHomeCostOfNuclearPower
153

billionin2008dollars,andforSONGS1,theestimateis$769.2million.RanchoSecos
decommissioningcostswereestimatedtobe$518million(2002dollars).148
ExamplesofseveralnuclearreactorsdismantledinAmerica,type,power,and
decommissioningcost(oftenismentionedonlytheprobablecostperkilowattofpower):
Table 29. Nuclear decommissioning costs149
Country
U.S.
Location
Reactor type
Operative
Life
Decommissioning
Phase
Dismantling
Costs:
Fort St. Vrain
High
temperature,
gas-cooled
reactor
(HTGR)
[heliumgraphite]
380 MWe
12 years
(1977-1989)
Immediate Decon
$ 195 Million
U.S.
Maine Yankee
PWR
860 MWe
24 years
(closed in
1996)
U.S.
Connecticut
Yankee
PWR
590 MWe
28 years
(closed in
1996)
DECON
COMPLETED Demolished in
2004
(greenfield open to
visitors)
Decon demolished in
2007
(greenfield open to
visitors)
$ 635 Million
$ 820 Million
Source: http://nuclearinfo.net
Current Costs
InstallationCosts
Thesummarizedlow/average/highcostsarebasedonseveralresearchandfinancialsources
(KeystoneCenterandMoodysInvestorService)aswellasonthedataprovidedbythemajor
operatorsofthenuclearpowerplants(FloridaPower&Light,GeorgiaPowerandSouth
CarolinaElectricandGasCompany).Thesemajorownersand27othernuclearpower
companies/contractorshaveconcludedinJune2007thatthecostforbuildingnewreactors
wouldbebetween$3,600and$4,000perinstalledkW(withinterest).Theyalsoprojectedthat
theoperatingcostsfortheseplantswouldberemarkablyexpensive:$0.30/kWhforthefirst13
yearsuntilconstructioncostsarepaidfollowedby$0.18/kWhovertheremaininglifetimeofthe
148Byron,Barbara,ResearchTeamCommunicationwithCaliforniaEnergyCommissionStaff
149http://nuclearinfo.net/Nuclearpower/WebHomeCostOfNuclearPower
154

plant.Justafewmonthslater,inOctober2007,MoodysInvestorServiceprojectedevenhigher
costsduetothequicklyescalatingpriceofmetals,forgings,othermaterials,andlaborneededto
constructreactors.Theyestimatedtotalcostsfornewplants,includinginterest,atbetween
$5,000and$6,000perinstalledkW.FloridaPower&LightinformedtheFloridaPublicService
CommissioninDecember2007thatitsestimatedcostforbuildingtwonewnuclearunitsat
TurkeyPointinSouthFloridawas$8,000perinstalledkW.Basedontherapidlychanging
natureofthesecostestimates,andtheirresultantuncertainty,additionaldatasourceswere
locatedbecauseoftherecentchangesininstalledcostestimatessince2007,whichincreased
overallcostestimatesusedinthisstudy.MoodysInvestorServicerecentlyupdatedits
estimatesfornuclearconstructioncosts,indicatingthatconstructioncostsarenowprojectedat
$7,000perinstalledkW.150ArecentstudybyCooperdetailstherisingtrendinnuclearpower
constructioncostsandthewidespreadbetweenestimatesoverrecentyears.151
Includedintheinstallation/constructioncostsare:coolingtowers,siteworks,transmission
costsandriskmanagement,plantcomponents,projectfinancingcosts,licenseapplication,
regulatoryfees,initialfuel,insuranceandtaxes,escalation,andcontingencies.
FinancialCostofConstruction
TheresearchteamincludedcostsforAllowanceforFundsUsedDuringConstruction(AFUDC)
inthepreliminaryanalysis.Theallowanceforfundsusedduringconstructioncalculation,
especiallyfornuclearplantconstruction,canbehighlyvariableandisbasedonthetotal
durationfromplantinceptiontodeclarationofcommercialoperation.152Whilemostsources,
includingtheNRC,assumeaconstructionspendingprofileoffiveyears(60months)duration,
withpreconstructionperiodsof18months,actualplantconstructionof36months,andstart
upoperationscommissioningof6months,theresearchteamlengthenedtheconstruction
durationstoreflectconditionsandconcernsincurrentreactorlicensingefforts.
Theresearchteamconcludedthatreasonablebasisforlicensingandconstructionplanning
wouldbetheexperienceseeninFrance,wherethereisconsiderabletimespentinpre
constructionphaseplantlicensing,permittingandstudyevaluations.Thisadditionaltime
lengthenstheoverallconstructionperiodto810years,andtheresearchteamuseda
constructionperiodofnineyearsduration,andaconstructionspendingprofileasshowninthe
followingtable:
150Ibid.144:
151MarkCooper,TheEconomicsofNuclearReactors:RenaissanceorRelapse,VermontLawSchool,
June2009.
152OrganisationforEconomicCooperationandDevelopment.ProjectedCostsofGeneratingElectricity:
2005Update.OECDNuclearEnergyAgency,InternationalEnergyAgency,2005.
155

Table 30. Nuclear plant construction spending profile (% of total instant cost per year)
Year
% total
instant cost
1
2.5
2
2
3
7
4
15.5
5
22
6
21
7
18
8
10
9
2
Source: OECD Nuclear Energy Agency, International Energy Agency, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
Projected Costs of Generating Electricity: 2005 Update. OECD Publishing, 2005
Thefirstthreeyearsarethecashflowspendingprojectionsusedforpreconstruction
permitting,licensing,andenvironmentalstudiesandapprovals.Followingapprovals,thenext
sixyearsisaspendingprofileconsistentwiththeactualconstruction,startup,commissioning,
andtestingofthenuclearplant.
Becauseoftheminimalrecentexperienceinnuclearplantlicensingandapprovals,theresearch
teambelievesthatautilitywilldevotesignificanttimeandeffortsintothepreconstruction
licensingprocess.Threeyearsdurationisreasonableforadditionalsitelicensing,studies,and
environmentalimpactfindingsleadingtoplanningandregulatoryapprovalsneededtobegin
actualconstruction.Whiletheresearchteamnotesthattheprocurementmethodfornuclear
powerinFranceconcentratesauthorityinatriumviratebetweengovernment,agovernment
sponsoredutility,andastandarddesign,thechoiceofanineyearconstructiondurationis
transferabletotheUnitedStatesandtoCaliforniabecauseofthehistoricaltrackrecordof
constructiondurationsinthiscountry,theconcentrationofthenuclearindustryintoan
oligopolyoffewcommercialproviders,andtheincreasingdemandofthefinancialandutility
industriesforfederalloanguaranteesfornuclearplant.Allofthesecoincidentforcescreatean
environmentsimilartocurrentFrenchexperience.
NotableinthederivationofAFUDCforthenuclearcase,theresearchteamassumedthatthe
interestrate,andthusthecostoffunds,wouldbethatofaninvestorownedutility,andnotthat
ofamerchantgeneratororapublicownedutility.
Expectedcosttrajectoriesfornuclearpoweroptionsareexpectedtorisenominallywith
inflation,andonlylittleexperiencecurveeffects,evenbasedonthenewGenerationIVreactor
designs.Thelackofsufficientmomentuminincreasingthecumulativegenerationcapacity
representedbynuclearplantsandthematureexperiencecurveofthenuclearpowerindustry
causedtheresearchteamtomodelexperiencecurveeffectsata95%rate(doublingofthe
installedcapacityrepresentsa5%costdecreaseduetoexperience).
Nominally,theresearchteamexpectsthatnuclearcosttrajectorieswillriseatarategreaterthan
inflationasthenewGenerationIVreactorsarebegun.AsnewGenerationIVreactorsarebuilt
overthenextseveralyearsandinstant/installedcostrangestighten,theresearchteamexpects
nuclearescalationrateshigherthannormalcostinflation,butmoderatinginthe20182030time
periodasfollows:
HighCase:Additional7%escalationthrough2018,thenadditional5%through2030:
AverageCase:Additional5%escalationthrough2018,thenadditional3%through2030:
LowCase:Additional3%escalationthrough2018,thennominalinflationthrough2030.
156
4.0 Conclusions and Recommendations
KEMAperformedadetailedassessmentofthetechnologiesthatarelikelytobedeployedinthe
next20years.Foreachtechnology,KEMAconductedaquantitativeandqualitativeassessment
ofcostdriversandtrendstodevelopinputvariablesfortheCaliforniaEnergyCommissions
levelizedcostmodel.KEMAperformedadetailedliteraturereviewtosupportthisstudyand
identifiedutilityscalerenewableenergyandtwononrenewableenergytechnologiesthatmay
likelybedeployedinCaliforniaoverthenext20years,alongwithidentificationofthe
infrastructurescalesatwhichtheyarelikelytobedeployed.
Foreachtechnology,KEMAidentifiedcostdrivedriversandtrendscontributingtotechnology
deploymentandperformedaquantitativeassessmentoffactorstodeterminehigh,average,and
lowestimatesofexpectedcosts.Inaddition,KEMAhasdevelopedadetailedassessmentofthe
expectedtrajectoriesforfuturecostsforutilityscalegeneration.KEMAsresearchledtothe
developmentofdetailedcostsheetsthatprovidetheinputvariablesfortheCommissions
levelizedcostanalysis.Thefinalprojectreportwillalsoaddresscommunityandbuildingscale
technologiesaswellassummarizekeyfindingsandrecommendations.
Futurecostofgenerationstudiesshouldconsiderincluding:
Qualitativeorquantitativeassessmentofotherkeyissuesthatmayinfluencecostsof
generationincluding:
CO2abatementcosts
Environmentalsensitivity
Landuseconstraints
Permittingrisk
Transmissionconstraintsandequityissuesrelatedtowhobearsthecostofnew
transmission
Systemintegrationcosts
Systemdiversity
Taxcreditavailabilityandstructure
Financingavailability
Macroeconomicbenefits(jobscreation,security,fueldiversity,etc.)
Naturalgaspriceandwholesalepriceeffectsassociatedwithincreased
penetrationofrenewables
Carboncaptureandstorage
Storage(CAES,Battery,PumpedHydro)
Dispatchabilityanalysis
Otherriskfactors
MoretimeforastakeholderinputsimilartotheRETIprocessorCPUCGHGModeling
Initiatives.
157
158
5.0 References
Abrams,RichardF.andKevinToupin.EfficientandLowEmissionStokerFiredBiomassBoiler
TechnologyinTodaysMarketplace.POWERGENRenewableConferenceTechnical
Publication,March2007.
Beurskens,L.W.M.,M.deNoord,andH.J.deVries.PotentialsandCostsforRenewableElectricity
Generation.EnergyResearchCentreoftheNetherlands.ECNC03006,February2004.
Black&Veatch.CleanCoalTechnologySelectionStudyFinalReportJanuary2007.Black&Veatch,
2007.
Black&Veatch.RenewableEnergyTransmissionInitiativePhase1A(DraftReport).Black&Veatch,
RETIStakeholderSteeringCommittee,ProjectNumber149148.0010,March2008.
http://www.energy.ca.gov/2008publications/RETI10002008001/RETI10002008001
D.PDF.
Black&Veatch.TechnicalAnalysisoftheEnergyResource.Black&VeatchProject:144864,October
2007.
Breeze,Paul.TheCostofPowerGeneration:TheCurrentandFutureCompetitivenessofRenewableand
TraditionalTechnologies.BusinessInsightsLtd.,2008.
http://www.globalbusinessinsights.com/content/rben0202m.PDF.
CaliforniaPublicUtilityCommission.GenerationCosts2008,CPUC,2007.
http://www.ethree.com/GHG/Generation%20costs.doc
Christoua,Costas,IoannisHadjipaschalisaandAndreasPoullikkas.AssessmentofIntegrated
GasificationCombinedCycleTechnologyCompetitiveness.RenewableandSustainable
EnergyReviews12,Issue9,(December2008):24592471.
Chupka,MarcW.andGregoryBasheda. RisingUtilityConstructionCosts:SourcesandImpacts.
TheEdisonFoundation,September2007.
Cobb,JamesT.SurveyofCommercialBiomassGasifiers.UniversityofPittsburgh,AIChE
AnnualMeeting,November2007.
Conner,AlisonM.,BenN.Rinehart,andJamesE.Francfort.SeeU.S.DepartmentofEnergy.
IdahoNationalLaboratory.
CPUC,Aspen,E3,andPlexos.33%ImplementationAnalysisWorkingGroupMeeting.2009.
DeFusco,John,PhillipMcKenzie,andMichaelFick.BubblingFluidizedBedorStokerWhich
istheRightChoiceforYourRenewableEnergyProject.CIBOFluidBedCombustion
XXConference,May2007.
159

EuropeanPhotovoltaicTechnologyPlatform.AStrategicResearchAgendaforPhotovoltaicSolar
EnergyTechnology.EuropeanPhotovoltaicTechnologyPlatform,2007.
http://cordis.europa.eu/technologyplatforms/pdf/photovoltaics.PDF.
Gray,David.SeeU.S.DepartmentofEnergy.OfficeofCoalandEnvironmentalSystems
GasificationTechnologiesProgram.
Hall,DouglasG.andKellyS.Reeves.SeeU.S.DepartmentofEnergy.IdahoNational
Laboratory.
Hall,DouglasG.,RichardT.Hunt,KellyS.Reeves,andGregR.Carroll.SeeU.S.Departmentof
Energy.IdahoNationalLaboratory.
Hance,Cedric.FactorsAffectingCostsofGeothermalPowerDevelopment.GeothermalEnergy
Association,August2005.
Haq,Zia.SeeBiomassforElectricityGeneration.U.S.DepartmentofEnergy.EnergyInformation
Administration,2002.
InternationalEnergyAgency.ExperienceCurvesforEnergyTechnologyPolicy.Organizationof
EconomicCooperationandDevelopment(OECD),2000.
Kagel,Alyssa.AHandbookontheExternalities,Employment,andEconomicsofGeothermalEnergy.
GeothermalEnergyAssociation,October2006.
Kaplan,Stan.PowerPlants:CharacteristicsandCosts.CongressionalResearchService.National
CouncilonScienceandtheEnvironment,WashingtonDC,2008.
Klein,JoelandAnithaRednam.ComparativeCostsofCaliforniaCentralStationElectricity
GenerationTechnologies.CaliforniaEnergyCommission,ElectricitySupplyAnalysis
Division,CEC2002007011,December2007.
http://www.energy.ca.gov/2007publications/CEC2002007011/CEC2002007011
SF.PDF.
Koetzier,H,FJJMvanAart,PJPloumen,PHWakker,andHCWels.Updatetechnischereview
grootschaligeelektriciteitsopwekking.KEMA,2007.
Lenardic,Denis.LargeScalePhotovoltaicPowerPlants:CumulativeandAnnualInstalledPower
OutputCapacity,AnnualReport2007.pvresources.com,RevisedEdition,April2008.
http://www.pvresources.com/download/AnnualReport2007.PDF.
Minchener,AJ.CoalGasificationforAdvancedPowerGeneration.Fuel47,Issue3,May2006:
171.
NationalEnergyRenewableEnergyLaboratory.AssessmentofParabolicTroughandPowerTower
SolarTechnologyCostandPerformanceForecasts.NREL/SR35034440,October2003.
OConnell,Ric,andRyanPletka,etal.20PercentWindEnergyPenetrationintheUnitedStates:A
TechnicalAnalysisoftheEnergyResource.Black&VeatchProject:144864,October2007.5
10.
160

Overend,RalphP.BiomassConversionTechnologies.Golden,CO:NationalRenewableEnergy
Laboratory,March2007.
PurchasingMagazine.SteelPlatePricesHavePlunged50%FromMid2008Peak.Purchasing
Magazine.April2009.www.purchasing.com/article/CA6654110.html?industryid=48389.
Rhodes,JamesS.andDavidW.Keith.EngineeringEconomicAnalysisofBiomassIGCCWith
CarbonCaptureandStorage.BiomassandBioenergy29(2005):440450.
Rosenberg,WilliamG.,DwightC.Alpern,andMichaelR.Walker.DeployingIGCC
TechnologyinthisDecadewith3PartyCovenantFinancing:VolumeII.ENRP
DiscussionPaper200407:BelferCenterforScienceandInternationalAffairs,Kennedy
SchoolofGovernment,HarvardUniversity,Cambridge,MA,July2004.
SisonLebrilla,Elaine,ValentinoTiangco.GeothermalStrategicValueAnalysis.CEC5002005105
SD,June2005.
SolarMillenium.NevadaEnergy,SolarMillenniumandMANFerrostaalcooperateinthedevelopment
ofprojects.SolarMilleniumCorporateNews,April3,2009.
http://www.solarmillennium.de/Press/Press_Releases/Nevada_Energy__Solar_Millenni
um_and_MAN_Ferrostaal_cooperate_in_the_development_of_projects,lang2,50,1532.ht
ml.
Stahl,Krister,LarsWaldheim,MichaelMorris,UlfJohnsson,andLennartGrdmark.Biomass
IGCCatVarnamo,SwedenPastandFuture.GCEPEnergyWorkshop,April2004.
Stoddard,L.,J.Abrecunas,andR.OConnell.Economic,Energy,andEnvironmentalBenefitsof
ConcentratingSolarPowerinCalifornia.NationalRenewableEnergyLab,NREL/Sr550
39291,April2006.
Tavoulareas,Stratos.AdvancedPowerGenerationTechnologiesAnOverview.U.S.Agencyfor
Thorpe,Tom.ABriefReviewofWaveEnergy.AEATechnology.ETSUR120,May1999.
U.S.DepartmentofEnergy.EnergyEfficiencyandRenewableEnergy(EERE).20%WindEnergy
by2030,IncreasingWindEnergysContributiontoU.S.ElectricSupply.DOE/GO102008
2567,July2008.
U.S.DepartmentofEnergy.EnergyInformationAdministration,BiomassforElectricity
Generation,byZiaHaq,2002.
U.S.DepartmentofEnergy.EnergyInformationAdministration.AnnualEnergyOutlook2009
(AEO2009).DOE/EIA0383(2009),March2009.
U.S.DepartmentofEnergy.EnergyInformationAdministration.ElectricPowerAnnual2007.
DOE/EIA0348(2007),January2009.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epa_sum.html.
161

U.S.DepartmentofEnergy.EnergyInformationAdministration.AssumptionstotheAnnual
EnergyOutlook2008,WithProjectionsfor2030.DOE/EIA0554(2008),June2008.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/archive/aeo08/assumption/pdf/0554(2008).PDF.
U.S.DepartmentofEnergy.EnergyInformationAdministration.ElectricityMarketModule
(EMM).DOE/EIA0554(2009),March2009.
U.S.DepartmentofEnergy.IdahoNationalLaboratory.AStudyofUnitedStatesHydroelectric
PlanOwnership,byDouglasG.Hall,andKellyS.Reeves.INL/EXT0611519,June2006.
U.S.DepartmentofEnergy.IdahoNationalLaboratory.EstimationofEconomicParametersofU.S.
HydropowerResources,byDouglasG.,Hall,RichardT.Hunt,KellyS.Reeves,andGregR.
Carroll.BechtelBWXTIdahoLLCandINLHydropowerResourceEconomicsDatabase,
June2003.
U.S.DepartmentofEnergy.IdahoNationalLaboratory.U.S.HydropowerResourceAssessmentfor
California,byA.M.Conner,B.N.Rinehart,andJ.E.Francfort.DOE/ID10430(CA),
October1998.
U.S.DepartmentofEnergy.NationalEnergyTechnologyLaboratory.CostandPerformance
BaselineforFossilEnergyPlants.DOE/NETL2007/1281,August2007.
http://www.netl.doe.gov/energy
analyses/pubs/Bituminous%20Baseline_Final%20Report.PDF.
U.S.DepartmentofEnergy.OfficeofCoalandEnvironmentalSystemsGasification
TechnologiesProgram.CurrentandFutureIGCCTechnologies:BituminousCoaltoPower,
byDavid,Gray,SalvatoreSalerno,andGlenTomlinson,2004.
U.S.DepartmentofEnergy.OfficeofFossilEnergy.NationalEnergyTechnologyLaboratory.
U.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency.CombinedHeatandPowerPartnership.Biomass
CombinedHeatandPowerCatalogofTechnologies,September2007.
U.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency.EnvironmentalFootprintsandCostsofCoalBased
IntegratedGasificationCombinedCycleandPulverizedCoalTechnologies.EPA430/R06/006,
July2006.http://www.epa.gov/air/caaac/coaltech/2007_01_epaigcc.PDF.
VanDam,CaseP.WindPowerGenerationTrendsatMultipleCaliforniaSites.CaliforniaEnergy
Commission.PublicationNumber:CEC5002005185,December2005.
Wiser,RyanandMarkBolinger.AnnualReportonU.S.WindPowerInstallation,Cost,and
PerformanceTrends:2007.U.S.DepartmentofEnergy.EERE,May2008.
162
URLsCited:
AbengoaSolar:http://www.abengoasolar.com
CaliforniaEnergyCommission:http://www.energy.ca.gov/(CaliforniaEnergyCommission)
CRUSteelPriceIndex(CRUspi):
http://cruonline.crugroup.com/SteelFerroalloys/CRUSteelPrices/CRUspi/tabid/143/Default.aspx
DLR(GermanAerospaceCenter):http://www.dlr.de
DutchAssociationofCostEngineers:http://www.dace.nl/
EnergyInformationAdministration:http://www.eia.doe.gov/
EnergyProductsofIdaho:http://www.energyproducts.com/
EuropeanPhotoVoltaicIndustryAssociation:http://www.epia.org/
juwi(sustainableenergywebsiteinGerman):www.juwi.de
NationalRenewableEnergyLaboratory:http://www.nrel.gov/
NetworkofNationalPVAssociations:http://nnpva.net/
NOBESOL(PVserviceswebsiteinSpanish):www.nobesol.com
NuclearPowerEducation:
http://nuclearinfo.net/Nuclearpower/WebHomeCostOfNuclearPower
OregonInstituteofTechnology:http://geoheat.oit.edu/directuse/power.htm
Photon:dasSolarstromMagazin:http://www.photon.de/
SolarMillenniumAG:http://www.solarmillennium.de
SolarBuzzPortaltotheWorldofSolarEnergy:http://www.solarbuzz.com/
SolarwirtschaftOfficialHomepageoftheGermanSolarIndustryAssociation:
http://www.solarwirtschaft.de/SolarwirtschaftOfficialHomepageoftheGermanSolar
IndustryAssociation.
SunPower:www.sunpowercorp.com
TechnicalServiceCenter:http://www.usbr.gov/pmts/estimate/cost_trend.html.
U.S.DOEEnergyEfficiencyandRenewableEnergy:http://www.eere.energy.gov/(U.S.DOE
EnergyEfficiencyandRenewableEnergy)
Westinghouse:http://www.ap1000.westinghousenuclear.com.
163

Nuclearcostreferences:
ComparisonofFuel,OperationsandMaintenance,andCapitalCostsasafunctionofUnit
CapacityFactor.http://www.nucleartourist.com/basics/costcomparison.htm
Corradini,Mike.NuclearPower:Prospectsinthe21stCenturyWisconsinInstituteofNuclear
Systems.http://www.energy.wisc.edu/presentations/
King,Jeff.SixthNorthwestConservation&ElectricPowerPlan,ProposedNuclearPower
PlantPlanningAssumptions.NorthwestPowerandConservationCouncil,Generating
ResourcesAdvisoryCommittee,Portland,OR,October23,2008.
http://www.nwcouncil.org/energy/grac/meetings/2008/10/Nuclear%20planning%20assu
mptions%20%206P%20Draft%20102208.ppt
SF.PDF.
Lacruz,Jeffrey.Discussionofvariousplanttypesandcostcomparison.TechnicalBackground
Report(partialreport).http://www.io.com/~hcexres/textbook/finrepx7c.html.
NewYork&WashingtonNuclearComporations.NuclearFuelPrices.
http://www.nynco.com/html/nuclear_fuel_prices.html
NRCCostComparison(noteNRCcostsdonotreflectdecommissioning,capital,wastecosts).
http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/NUREGS/SR1350/V9/part07.html
NuclearEnergyInstitute.CostandPerformance.http://www.nei.org/library/infob1.htm
Paulson,Keith.FutureCommercialNuclearPowerExpansionintheUS.WorldNuclear
AssociationAnnualSymposium.London,46September2002.http://www.world
nuclear.org/sym/2002/pdf/paulson.PDF.
SmithKevern,Rebecca.AdvancedReactorsandGovernmentSupportforNewNuclear
Plants.PresentationtotheNationalAssociationofRegulatedUtilityCommissioners.
February2008.www.narucmeetings.org/Presentations/SmithKevern.ppt
UraniumExchange(Ux)Company.Prices.http://www.uxc.com/top_review.html
WestinghouseAP1000DesignControlDocumentRev.16(PublicVersion).
http://adamswebsearch2.nrc.gov/idmws/ViewDocByAccession.asp?AccessionNumber=
ML071580939
164

LevelizedCostEstimates:
BusinessEnergyTaxCredit(BETC).
http://www.oregon.gov/ENERGY/CONS/BUS/docs/Rule_summary.PDF.
EnergyandEnvironmentalAnalysis,Inc.UpdateonEEAActivitiesforORNL/DOEDG/CHP
Program.October2004.
http://www.intermountainchp.org/initiative/support/eea041013.PDF.
EnergyInformationAdministration.FederalEnergyMarketInterventions1999:Primary
Energy.http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/subsidy/pdf/appendix_b.PDF.
Ford,F.Peter.TechnicalandManagementChallengesAssociatedwithStructuralMaterials
DegradationinNuclearReactorsintheFuture.Abstract.http://www.cns
snc.ca/CNS_Conferences/Deg2007/13thPlenaryPaperFinalAug15th.PDF.
Kittler,Ronny.RenewableEnergyintheUSA:FederalandStateActivitiestoPromote
AlternativeElectricityGeneration.HeinrichBllFoundation.PolicyPaperNo.21,April
2003.http://www.boell.org/docs/Renewable_Energy_Final.pdf,REPTCprograms
SF.PDF.
Parker,LarryandMarkHolt.NuclearPower:OutlookforNewU.S.Reactors.CRSReportfor
Congress.OrderCodeRL33442,March2007.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL33442.PDF.
Paul,Anthony.ElectricityPolicyInteractions:Climate,Renewables,&DemandEfficiency.
36thAnnualPURCConference,UniversityofFlorida,Gainesville,FL,February5,2009.
http://www.cba.ufl.edu/purc/docs/presentation_2009Paul.PDF.
PublicServiceCompanyofColorado.2007ColoradoResourcePlan.CPUCDocketNo.07A
447E,December2008.
http://www.xcelenergy.com/SiteCollectionDocuments/docs/CRPGenericCostTables.PDF.
WestinghouseElectricCompanyTechnologyFactSheet:WestinghouseAP1000.
http://www.energetics.com/pdfs/nuclear/ap1000.PDF.
165
166
6.0 Glossary
ABWR
Advancedboilingwaterreactor
AC
Alternatingcurrent
AEA
AssociationforEducationalAssessment(Europe)
AEO
AnnualEnergyOutlook
AFUDC
Allowanceforfundsusedduringconstruction
APS
ArizonaPublicService
ASU
Airseparationunit
AWEA
AmericanWindEnergyAssociation
BOP
Balanceofplant
BOS
Balanceofsystems
Btu
Britishthermalunit
BWR
Boilingwaterreactors
CaliforniaISO
CaliforniaIndependentSystemOperator
CBO
CongressionalBudgetOffice
CCS
Carboncaptureandsequestration
CFB
Circulatingfluidizedbed
CIBO
CouncilofIndustrialBoilerOwners
CO
Carbonmonoxide
CO2
Carbondioxide
COG
Costofgeneration
COL
Constructionandoperation
CPUC
CaliforniaPublicUtilitiesCommission
CREZ
CompetitiveRenewableEnergyZone
CSP
ConcentratingSolarpower
DC
Directcurrent
DOE
DepartmentofEnergy
167

EAO
Electricityanalysisoffice
EERE
EnergyEfficiencyandRenewableEnergy
EIA
EnergyInformationAdministration
EM
Environmentalmanagement
EPRI
ElectricPowerResearchInstitute
ETSU
EnergyTechnologySupportunit
EU
EuropeanUnion
EWEA
EuropeanWindEnergyAssociation
FB
Fluidizedbed
FERC
FederalEnergyRegulatoryCommission
FPV
Flatplatephotovoltaic
GADS
GeneratingAvailabilityDataSystem
GDP
Grossdomesticproduct
GE
Generalelectric
GeothermEx
GeothermEx,Inc.
GHG
Greenhousegas
GIF
GENIVInternationalForum
GIF
GenerationInternationalForum
GW
Gigawatt
GWe
Gigawattelectric
GWh
Gigawatthour
HCE
Heatcollectionelement
HetchHetchy
HetchHetchyWaterandPowerDivision
HGTR
Hightemperaturegascooledreactor
HPRA
HydroelectricResourceAssessment
IEPR
IntegratedEnergyPolicyReport
IGCC
Integratedgasificationcombinedcycle
INEEL
IdahoNationalEngineeringandEnvironmentalLaboratory
168

INL
IdahoNationalLaboratory
IPP
Independentpowerprovide
ITC
Investmenttaxcredit
kW
kilowatt
kWe
Kilowattelectric
kWp
Kilowattpeak
LBNL
LawrenceBerkeleyNationalLaboratory
meter
MW
Megawatt
MWe
Megawattelectric
MWh
Megawatthour
MWp
Megawattpeak
NERC
NorthAmericanEnergyReliabilityCorporation
NOx
Nitrogenoxide
NRC
NuclearRegulatoryCommission
NRE
Nonrenewableenergy
NREL
NationalRenewableEnergyLaboratory
NSPS
NewSourcePerformanceStandards
O&M
Operationandmaintenance
OECD
OrganizationofEconomicCooperationandDevelopment
OWC
Oscillatingwatercolumn
PBMR
Pebblebedmodularreactor
PCFB
Pressurizedcirculatingfluidizedbed
PG&E
PacificGasandElectric
PGC
Publicgoodscharge
PHWR
Pressurizedheavywaterreactor
PIER
PublicInterestEnergyResearch
PPA
Powerpurchaseagreement
169

PTC
Productiontaxcredit
PURPA
PublicUtilityRegulatoryPoliciesAct
PV
Photovoltaic
PWR
Pressurizedwaterreactors
RDF
Refusederivedfuel
RE
Renewableenergy
REP
Renewableenergyprogram
RETI
RenewableEnergyTransmissionInitiative
RPS
RenewablesPortfolioStandard
RSCR
Rileyselectivecatalyticreduction
S&L
SargentandLundy
SCE
SouthernCaliforniaEdison
SCR
Selectivecatalyticreduction
SDG&E
SanDiegoGas&Electric
SFPUC
SanFranciscoPublicUtilitiesCommission
SOx
Sulfurdioxide
SRA
Strategicresearchagenda
U.S.
UnitedStates
UBC
Unburnedcarbon
Unocal
UnionOilCompanyofCalifornia
USGS
UnitedStatesGeologicalSurvey
Ux
Uraniumexchange
WECC
WesternElectricityCoordinatingCouncil
170
APPENDIX A
Cost Data
Technology Name:
All costs are in 2009 nominal dollars unless otherwise noted.

Year=2009, Value & Dollars
PLANT DATA
Gross Capacity (MW)
Station Service (%)
Net Capacity (MW)
Net Energy (GWh)
Transformer Losses
Tranmission losses
Load Center Delivered Capacity (MW)
Net Capacity Factor (NCF)
Planned Percent of Year Operational
Average Percent Output
Net Energy Delivered to Load Center (GWh)
Forced Outage Rate (FOR)
Scheduled Outage Factor (SOF)
Curtailment (Hours)
Degradation Factors
Capacity Degradation (%/Year)
Heat Rate Degradation (%/Year)
Emission Factors
NOX (lbs/MWh)
VOC/ROG (Lbs/MWh)
CO (Lbs/MWh)
CO2 (lbs/MWh)
SOX (lbs/MWh)
PM10 (lbs/MWh)
Average
28
6.00%
26.32
196
0.50%
5.00%
24.88
85.00%
92.39%
100.0%
185.25
8.00%
3.00%
60
High
15
7.00%
13.95
92
0.50%
5.00%
13.19
75.00%
88.65%
100.0%
86.63
10.00%
6.00%
120
Low
70
5.00%
66.50
524
0.50%
5.00%
62.86
90.00%
97.70%
100.0%
495.58
6.00%
2.00%
0
0.10%
0.15%
0.20%
0.20%
0.00%
0.10%
0.074
0.009
0.079
0.000
0.020
0.100
0.074
0.009
0.079
0.000
0.020
0.200
0.074
0.009
0.079
0.000
0.020
0.025
Technology Name:

Start Year
PLANT COST DATA
Average
Instant Cost (Nominal $/Gross MW)
Installed Cost (Nominal $/Gross MW)
% Cost of last year of construction
% Cost next to last year of construction
% Cost of previous year of construction
High
% Cost first year of construction
% Cost second year of construction
% Cost third year of construction
Low
Start Year
PLANT COST DATA
Average
High
Low
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
1
$3,200,000
$3,580,264
80%
20%
1
$3,260,838
$3,648,331
80%
20%
1
$3,322,833
$3,717,693
80%
20%
1
$3,386,006
$3,788,373
80%
20%
1
$3,450,380
$3,860,397
80%
20%
1
$3,515,978
$3,933,790
80%
20%
1
$3,582,823
$4,008,579
80%
20%
0.998957181
$3,647,132
$4,084,790
80%
20%
0.994689784
$3,700,595
$4,162,449
80%
20%
0.993153861
$3,765,127
$4,241,585
80%
20%
0.991454788
$3,830,145
$4,322,225
80%
20%
1
$4,800,000
$5,810,868
60%
40%
0%
1
$1,600,000
$1,677,000
100%
1
$4,891,257
$5,921,344
60%
40%
0%
1
$1,630,419
$1,708,883
100%
1
$4,984,249
$6,033,919
60%
40%
0%
1
$1,661,416
$1,741,372
100%
1
$5,079,009
$6,148,635
60%
40%
0%
1
$1,693,003
$1,774,479
100%
1
$5,175,570
$6,265,532
60%
40%
0%
1
$1,725,190
$1,808,215
100%
1
$5,273,967
$6,384,652
60%
40%
0%
1
$1,757,989
$1,842,592
100%
1
$5,374,235
$6,506,036
60%
40%
0%
1
$1,791,412
$1,877,623
100%
1.000502406
$5,479,161
$6,629,728
60%
40%
0%
0.997391042
$1,820,707
$1,913,320
100%
1.002566461
$5,594,848
$6,755,771
60%
40%
0%
0.98675735
$1,835,542
$1,949,696
100%
1.00331257
$5,705,459
$6,884,211
60%
40%
0%
0.982946811
$1,863,216
$1,986,764
100%
1.004139926
$5,818,725
$7,015,092
60%
40%
0%
0.978741818
$1,890,517
$2,024,536
100%
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
0.990617574
$3,899,668
$4,404,399
80%
20%
0.990357064
$3,972,763
$4,488,135
80%
20%
0.989558753
$4,045,029
$4,573,462
80%
20%
0.989219936
$4,120,521
$4,660,412
80%
20%
0.988245127
$4,194,722
$4,749,016
80%
20%
0.987627424
$4,271,800
$4,839,303
80%
20%
0.986618608
$4,348,568
$4,931,307
80%
20%
0.98506456
$4,424,263
$5,025,061
80%
20%
0.983981645
$4,503,420
$5,120,596
80%
20%
0.982000994
$4,579,801
$5,217,948
80%
20%
1.004548377
$5,931,762
$7,148,462
60%
40%
0%
0.976673797
$1,922,388
$2,063,026
100%
1.004675576
$6,045,301
$7,284,368
60%
40%
0%
0.976030843
$1,957,647
$2,102,248
100%
1.005065676
$6,162,625
$7,422,857
60%
40%
0%
0.974062145
$1,990,842
$2,142,215
100%
1.005231382
$6,280,824
$7,563,979
60%
40%
0%
0.973227317
$2,026,953
$2,182,943
100%
1.005708603
$6,403,272
$7,707,785
60%
40%
0%
0.970827833
$2,060,396
$2,224,445
100%
1.006011363
$6,526,975
$7,854,324
60%
40%
0%
0.969309203
$2,096,284
$2,266,736
100%
1.006506426
$6,654,337
$8,003,649
60%
40%
0%
0.966832089
$2,130,679
$2,309,830
100%
1.007270524
$6,785,996
$8,155,814
60%
40%
0%
0.963023621
$2,162,635
$2,353,745
100%
1.007804031
$6,918,673
$8,310,871
60%
40%
0%
0.960375082
$2,197,690
$2,398,494
100%
1.008782067
$7,057,052
$8,468,876
60%
40%
0%
0.955542238
$2,228,202
$2,444,093
100%
Technology Name:
Fixed Cost ($/kW-Year)

Variable Cost ($/MWh)
Start Year
FUEL COST DATA
Fuel Use
Fuel Cost $/mmBtu)
Average
High
Low
Heat Rate (Btu/kWh)
Nominal
High
Low
High
$150.00
$10.00
Low
$70.00
$3.00
2009
2010
2011
2,189,124
Start Year
FUEL COST DATA
Fuel Use
Fuel Cost $/mmBtu)
Average
High
Low
Heat Rate (Btu/kWh)
Nominal
High
Low
Average
$99.50
$4.47
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2,187,039
2,184,954
2,182,869
2,180,784
2,178,700
2,176,615
2,174,530
2,172,445
2,170,360
2,168,275
$2.00
$3.00
$1.75
$2.04
$2.55
$1.53
$2.08
$2.60
$1.56
$2.12
$2.65
$1.59
$2.16
$2.70
$1.62
$2.20
$2.75
$1.65
$2.24
$2.80
$1.68
$2.28
$2.85
$1.71
$2.33
$2.91
$1.74
$2.37
$2.96
$1.78
$2.41
$3.02
$1.81
10500
11000
9800
10490
10990
9790
10480
10980
9780
10470
10970
9770
10460
10960
9760
10450
10950
9750
10440
10940
9740
10430
10930
9730
10420
10920
9720
10410
10910
9710
10400
10900
9700
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2,166,190
2,164,105
2,162,021
2,159,936
2,157,851
2,155,766
2,153,681
2,151,596
2,149,511
2,147,426
$2.46
$3.08
$1.85
$2.51
$3.13
$1.88
$2.55
$3.19
$1.92
$2.60
$3.25
$1.95
$2.65
$3.32
$1.99
$2.70
$3.38
$2.03
$2.75
$3.44
$2.07
$2.81
$3.51
$2.11
$2.86
$3.58
$2.15
$2.91
$3.64
$2.19
10390
10890
9690
10380
10880
9680
10370
10870
9670
10360
10860
9660
10350
10850
9650
10340
10840
9640
10330
10830
9630
10320
10820
9620
10310
10810
9610
10300
10800
9600
Technology Name:

FINANCIAL INFORMATION
Average
Equity
Debt Financed:
Discount Rate (WACC)
High
Equity
Debt Financed:
Low
Equity
Debt Financed:
Loan/Debt Term (Years)

Equipment Life (Years):
Economic/Book Life (Years)
Merchant
Capital
Cost of
Structure
Capital
40.0%
15.2%
60.0%
6.7%
9.7%
IOU
Capital
Cost of
Structure
Capital
50.0%
11.7%
50.0%
5.9%
8.6%
POU
Capital
Cost of
Structure
Capital
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
4.3%
4.3%
60.0%
40.0%
14.4%
18.0%
10.0%
55.0%
45.0%
11.9%
15.0%
9.0%
0.0%
100.0%
7.0%
0.0%
7.0%
35.0%
65.0%
8.5%
14.0%
6.0%
50.0%
50.0%
7.7%
10.0%
5.9%
0.0%
100.0%
4.0%
0.0%
4.0%
Average
12
20
20
High
20
20
20
Low
10
20
20
Technology Name:

TAX INFORMATION/BENEFITS
Federal Tax
CA State Tax
Total Tax Rate
CA Avg. Ad Valorem Tax
CA Sales Tax
35.00%
8.84%
40.7%
1.07%
7.00%
Federal Tax Life (Years)

State Tax Life (Years)
Average
5
20
High
5
20
Low
5
20
Renewable Tax Benefits

Eligible For BETC
Eligible For Geothermal Depletion Allowance
Eligible For REPTC
Eligible For REPI
TDMA
Merchant
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
Average
IOU
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
POU
N
N
N
Y
N
Business Energy Tax Credit (BETC)

BETC Limit ($)
BETC Limit (% Of Remaining Taxes)
BETC Calculation
Geothermal Depletion Allowance
Percentage Depletion
Limit (% Of Remaining Taxes)
Amount ($/kWh)
Renewable Energy Production Tax Credit (REPTC)
Duration (Years)
REPTC Base Year
REPTC In Start Year
REPI Tier
REPI Tier Proportion Paid
REPI Duration
REPI Base Year
REPI In Start Year ($/kWh)
Merchant
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
High
IOU
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
POU
N
N
N
Y
N
Merchant
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
Low
IOU
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
POU
N
N
N
Y
N
$25,000
30%
$0
$25,000
30%
$0
$25,000
30%
$0
$25,000
30%
$0
$25,000
30%
$0
$25,000
30%
$0
$25,000
30%
$0
$25,000
30%
$0
$25,000
30%
$0
15%
50%
0.019
15%
50%
0.019
15%
50%
0.019
15%
50%
0.019
15%
50%
0.019
15%
50%
0.019
15%
50%
0.019
15%
50%
0.019
15%
50%
0.019
10
2009
0.010
10
2009
0.010
10
2009
0.010
10
2009
0.010
10
2009
0.010
10
2009
0.010
10
2009
0.010
10
2009
0.010
10
2009
0.010
Tier 1
10
2009
0.021
Tier 1
10
2009
0.021
Tier 1
10
2009
0.021
Tier 1
10
2009
0.021
Tier 1
10
2009
0.021
Tier 1
10
2009
0.021
Tier 1
10
2009
0.021
Tier 1
10
2009
0.021
Tier 1
10
2009
0.021
Technology Name:
Biomass - Stoker Boiler

PLANT DATA
Gross Capacity (MW)
Station Service (%)
Net Capacity (MW)
Net Energy (GWh)
Transformer Losses
Tranmission losses
Curtailment (Hours)
Degradation Factors
Emission Factors
NOX (lbs/MWh)
VOC/ROG (Lbs/MWh)
CO (Lbs/MWh)
CO2 (lbs/MWh)
SOX (lbs/MWh)
PM10 (lbs/MWh)
Average
38
4.00%
36.48
272
0.50%
5.00%
34.48
85.00%
92.39%
100.0%
256.76
8.00%
3.00%
60
High
25
7.00%
23.25
153
0.50%
5.00%
21.98
75.00%
88.65%
100.0%
144.39
10.00%
6.00%
120
Low
50
2.40%
48.80
385
0.50%
5.00%
46.13
90.00%
97.70%
100.0%
363.67
6.00%
2.00%
0
0.10%
0.15%
0.20%
0.20%
0.00%
0.10%
0.075
0.012
0.105
0.000
0.034
0.100
0.075
0.012
0.105
0.000
0.034
0.200
0.075
0.012
0.105
0.000
0.034
0.025
Technology Name:

Start Year
PLANT COST DATA
Average
High
Low
Start Year
PLANT COST DATA
Average
High
Low
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
$2,600,000
$2,908,964
80%
20%
$2,649,431
$2,964,269
80%
20%
$2,699,801
$3,020,625
80%
20%
$2,751,130
$3,078,053
80%
20%
$2,803,434
$3,136,573
80%
20%
$2,856,732
$3,196,205
80%
20%
$2,911,044
$3,256,970
80%
20%
$2,966,388
$3,318,892
80%
20%
$3,022,785
$3,381,990
80%
20%
$3,080,254
$3,446,288
80%
20%
$3,138,815
$3,511,808
80%
20%
$3,250,000
$4,049,672
50%
40%
10%
$3,311,789
$4,126,663
50%
40%
10%
$3,374,752
$4,205,119
50%
40%
10%
$3,438,912
$4,285,066
50%
40%
10%
$3,504,292
$4,366,533
50%
40%
10%
$3,570,915
$4,449,549
50%
40%
10%
$3,638,805
$4,534,143
50%
40%
10%
$3,707,985
$4,620,346
50%
40%
10%
$3,778,481
$4,708,187
50%
40%
10%
$3,850,317
$4,797,698
50%
40%
10%
$3,923,519
$4,888,911
50%
40%
10%
$1,749,800
$1,913,796
90%
10%
$1,783,067
$1,950,181
90%
10%
$1,816,966
$1,987,257
90%
10%
$1,851,510
$2,025,039
90%
10%
$1,886,711
$2,063,538
90%
10%
$1,922,581
$2,102,770
90%
10%
$1,959,133
$2,142,748
90%
10%
$1,996,379
$2,183,485
90%
10%
$2,034,334
$2,224,997
90%
10%
$2,073,011
$2,267,299
90%
10%
$2,112,422
$2,310,404
90%
10%
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
$3,198,490
$3,578,574
80%
20%
$3,259,299
$3,646,609
80%
20%
$3,321,264
$3,715,938
80%
20%
$3,384,408
$3,786,585
80%
20%
$3,448,752
$3,858,575
80%
20%
$3,514,319
$3,931,934
80%
20%
$3,581,132
$4,006,687
80%
20%
$3,649,216
$4,082,862
80%
20%
$3,718,595
$4,160,484
80%
20%
$3,789,292
$4,239,583
80%
20%
$3,998,112
$4,981,859
50%
40%
10%
$4,074,124
$5,076,573
50%
40%
10%
$4,151,580
$5,173,088
50%
40%
10%
$4,230,510
$5,271,438
50%
40%
10%
$4,310,939
$5,371,658
50%
40%
10%
$4,392,898
$5,473,783
50%
40%
10%
$4,476,415
$5,577,850
50%
40%
10%
$4,561,520
$5,683,895
50%
40%
10%
$4,648,243
$5,791,957
50%
40%
10%
$4,736,615
$5,902,073
50%
40%
10%
$2,152,584
$2,354,329
90%
10%
$2,193,508
$2,399,089
90%
10%
$2,235,211
$2,444,700
90%
10%
$2,277,706
$2,491,179
90%
10%
$2,321,010
$2,538,541
90%
10%
$2,365,136
$2,586,803
90%
10%
$2,410,102
$2,635,983
90%
10%
$2,455,923
$2,686,098
90%
10%
$2,502,614
$2,737,166
90%
10%
$2,550,194
$2,789,204
90%
10%
Technology Name:

Start Year
FUEL COST DATA
Fuel Use
Fuel Cost $/mmBtu)
Average
High
Low
Heat Rate (Btu/kWh)
Nominal
High
Low
High
$200.00
$8.73
Low
$107.80
$4.70
2009
2010
2011
3,112,428
Start Year
FUEL COST DATA
Fuel Use
Fuel Cost $/mmBtu)
Average
High
Low
Heat Rate (Btu/kWh)
Nominal
High
Low
Average
$160.10
$6.98
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
3,109,599
3,106,769
3,103,940
3,101,110
3,098,281
3,095,451
3,092,622
3,089,792
3,086,963
3,084,133
$2.00
$3.00
$1.75
$2.04
$2.55
$1.53
$2.08
$2.60
$1.56
$2.12
$2.65
$1.59
$2.16
$2.70
$1.62
$2.20
$2.75
$1.65
$2.24
$2.80
$1.68
$2.28
$2.85
$1.71
$2.33
$2.91
$1.74
$2.37
$2.96
$1.78
$2.41
$3.02
$1.81
11000
13500
10250
10990
13490
10240
10980
13480
10230
10970
13470
10220
10960
13460
10210
10950
13450
10200
10940
13440
10190
10930
13430
10180
10920
13420
10170
10910
13410
10160
10900
13400
10150
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
3,081,304
3,078,474
3,075,645
3,072,815
3,069,986
3,067,156
3,064,327
3,061,497
3,058,668
3,055,838
$2.46
$3.08
$1.85
$2.51
$3.13
$1.88
$2.55
$3.19
$1.92
$2.60
$3.25
$1.95
$2.65
$3.32
$1.99
$2.70
$3.38
$2.03
$2.75
$3.44
$2.07
$2.81
$3.51
$2.11
$2.86
$3.58
$2.15
$2.91
$3.64
$2.19
10890
13390
10140
10880
13380
10130
10870
13370
10120
10860
13360
10110
10850
13350
10100
10840
13340
10090
10830
13330
10080
10820
13320
10070
10810
13310
10060
10800
13300
10050
Technology Name:

Average
Equity
Debt Financed:
High
Equity
Debt Financed:
Low
Equity
Debt Financed:

Merchant
Capital
Cost of
Structure
Capital
40.0%
15.2%
60.0%
6.7%
9.7%
IOU
Capital
Cost of
Structure
Capital
50.0%
11.7%
50.0%
5.9%
8.6%
POU
Capital
Cost of
Structure
Capital
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
4.3%
4.3%
60.0%
40.0%
14.4%
18.0%
10.0%
55.0%
45.0%
11.9%
15.0%
9.0%
0.0%
100.0%
7.0%
0.0%
7.0%
35.0%
65.0%
8.5%
14.0%
6.0%
50.0%
50.0%
7.7%
10.0%
5.9%
0.0%
100.0%
4.0%
0.0%
4.0%
Average
12
20
20
High
20
20
20
Low
10
20
20
Technology Name:

Federal Tax
CA State Tax
Total Tax Rate
CA Sales Tax
35.00%
8.84%
40.7%
1.07%
7.00%

Average
5
20
High
5
20
Low
5
20

Eligible For BETC
Eligible For REPTC
Eligible For REPI
TDMA
Merchant
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
Average
IOU
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
POU
N
N
N
Y
N

BETC Limit ($)
BETC Calculation
Amount ($/kWh)
Duration (Years)
REPTC Base Year
REPTC In Start Year
REPI Tier
REPI Duration
REPI Base Year
Merchant
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
High
IOU
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
POU
N
N
N
Y
N
Merchant
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
Low
IOU
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
POU
N
N
N
Y
N
$25,000
30%
$0
$25,000
30%
$0
$25,000
30%
$0
$25,000
30%
$0
$25,000
30%
$0
$25,000
30%
$0
$25,000
30%
$0
$25,000
30%
$0
$25,000
30%
$0
15%
50%
0.019
15%
50%
0.019
15%
50%
0.019
15%
50%
0.019
15%
50%
0.019
15%
50%
0.019
15%
50%
0.019
15%
50%
0.019
15%
50%
0.019
10
2009
0.010
10
2009
0.010
10
2009
0.010
10
2009
0.010
10
2009
0.010
10
2009
0.010
10
2009
0.010
10
2009
0.010
10
2009
0.010
Tier 1
10
2009
0.021
Tier 1
10
2009
0.021
Tier 1
10
2009
0.021
Tier 1
10
2009
0.021
Tier 1
10
2009
0.021
Tier 1
10
2009
0.021
Tier 1
10
2009
0.021
Tier 1
10
2009
0.021
Tier 1
10
2009
0.021
Technology Name:
Biomass - Cofiring

PLANT DATA
Gross Capacity (MW)
Station Service (%)
Net Capacity (MW)
Net Energy (GWh)
Transformer Losses
Tranmission losses
Curtailment (Hours)
Degradation Factors
Emission Factors
NOX (lbs/MWh)
VOC/ROG (Lbs/MWh)
CO (Lbs/MWh)
CO2 (lbs/MWh)
SOX (lbs/MWh)
PM10 (lbs/MWh)
Average
20
2.40%
19.52
154
0.50%
1.49%
19.13
90.00%
90.45%
100.0%
150.84
0.50%
0.77%
0
High
10
2.40%
9.76
81
0.50%
1.49%
9.57
95.00%
97.08%
100.0%
79.61
1.00%
1.15%
0
Low
40
2.40%
39.04
291
0.50%
1.49%
38.27
85.00%
85.41%
100.0%
284.93
0.10%
0.38%
0
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.093
0.023
0.093
1083.844
0.009
0.065
0.064
0.018
0.050
828.140
0.007
0.028
0.064
0.018
0.050
828.140
0.007
0.028
Technology Name:
Biomass - Cofiring

Start Year
PLANT COST DATA
Average
High
Low
Start Year
PLANT COST DATA
Average
High
Low
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
$500,000
$524,250
100%
$509,506
$534,217
100%
$519,193
$544,373
100%
$529,063
$554,723
100%
$539,122
$565,269
100%
$549,372
$576,016
100%
$559,816
$586,967
100%
$570,459
$598,127
100%
$581,305
$609,498
100%
$592,356
$621,086
100%
$603,618
$632,894
100%
$700,000
$750,400
100%
$636,882
$764,666
100%
$648,991
$779,204
100%
$661,329
$794,018
100%
$673,902
$809,114
100%
$686,714
$824,497
100%
$699,770
$840,172
100%
$713,074
$856,145
100%
$726,631
$872,422
100%
$740,446
$889,009
100%
$754,523
$905,910
100%
$400,000
$417,000
100%
$407,605
$424,928
100%
$415,354
$433,007
100%
$423,251
$441,239
100%
$431,297
$449,628
100%
$439,497
$458,176
100%
$447,853
$466,887
100%
$456,367
$475,763
100%
$465,044
$484,808
100%
$473,885
$494,025
100%
$482,895
$503,418
100%
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
$615,094
$644,926
100%
$626,788
$657,187
100%
$638,705
$669,682
100%
$650,848
$682,414
100%
$663,221
$695,388
100%
$675,831
$708,608
100%
$688,679
$722,080
100%
$701,772
$735,808
100%
$715,114
$749,797
100%
$728,710
$764,052
100%
$768,868
$923,133
100%
$783,485
$940,684
100%
$798,381
$958,568
100%
$813,560
$976,792
100%
$829,027
$995,363
100%
$844,788
$1,014,286
100%
$860,849
$1,033,570
100%
$877,215
$1,053,220
100%
$893,893
$1,073,244
100%
$910,888
$1,093,648
100%
$492,075
$512,989
100%
$501,431
$522,741
100%
$510,964
$532,680
100%
$520,678
$542,807
100%
$530,577
$553,127
100%
$540,664
$563,643
100%
$550,943
$574,359
100%
$561,418
$585,278
100%
$572,092
$596,405
100%
$582,968
$607,744
100%
Technology Name:
Biomass - Cofiring

Start Year
FUEL COST DATA
Fuel Use
Fuel Cost $/mmBtu)
Average
High
Low
Heat Rate (Btu/kWh)
Nominal
High
Low
High
$21.00
$1.78
Low
$12.00
$1.02
2009
2010
2011
1,655,640
Start Year
FUEL COST DATA
Fuel Use
Fuel Cost $/mmBtu)
Average
High
Low
Heat Rate (Btu/kWh)
Nominal
High
Low
Average
$15.0
$1.27
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
1,654,063
1,652,486
1,650,910
1,649,333
1,647,756
1,646,179
1,644,602
1,643,026
1,641,449
1,639,872
$2.00
$3.00
$1.75
$2.04
$2.55
$1.53
$2.08
$2.60
$1.56
$2.12
$2.65
$1.59
$2.16
$2.70
$1.62
$2.20
$2.75
$1.65
$2.24
$2.80
$1.68
$2.28
$2.85
$1.71
$2.33
$2.91
$1.74
$2.37
$2.96
$1.78
$2.41
$3.02
$1.81
10500
12000
9800
10490
11990
9790
10480
11980
9780
10470
11970
9770
10460
11960
9760
10450
11950
9750
10440
11940
9740
10430
11930
9730
10420
11920
9720
10410
11910
9710
10400
11900
9700
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
1,638,295
1,636,718
1,635,142
1,633,565
1,631,988
1,630,411
1,628,834
1,627,258
1,625,681
1,624,104
$2.46
$3.08
$1.85
$2.51
$3.13
$1.88
$2.55
$3.19
$1.92
$2.60
$3.25
$1.95
$2.65
$3.32
$1.99
$2.70
$3.38
$2.03
$2.75
$3.44
$2.07
$2.81
$3.51
$2.11
$2.86
$3.58
$2.15
$2.91
$3.64
$2.19
10390
11890
9690
10380
11880
9680
10370
11870
9670
10360
11860
9660
10350
11850
9650
10340
11840
9640
10330
11830
9630
10320
11820
9620
10310
11810
9610
10300
11800
9600
Technology Name:
Biomass - Cofiring

Average
Equity
Debt Financed:
High
Equity
Debt Financed:
Low
Equity
Debt Financed:

Merchant
Capital
Cost of
Structure
Capital
40.0%
15.2%
60.0%
6.7%
9.7%
IOU
Capital
Cost of
Structure
Capital
50.0%
11.7%
50.0%
5.9%
8.6%
POU
Capital
Cost of
Structure
Capital
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
4.3%
4.3%
60.0%
40.0%
14.4%
18.0%
10.0%
55.0%
45.0%
11.9%
15.0%
9.0%
0.0%
100.0%
7.0%
0.0%
7.0%
35.0%
65.0%
8.5%
14.0%
6.0%
50.0%
50.0%
7.7%
10.0%
5.9%
0.0%
100.0%
4.0%
0.0%
4.0%
Average
12
20
20
High
20
20
20
Low
10
20
20
Technology Name:
Biomass - Cofiring

Federal Tax
CA State Tax
Total Tax Rate
CA Sales Tax
35.00%
8.84%
40.7%
1.07%
7.00%

Average
20
20
High
20
20
Low
20
20

Eligible For BETC
Eligible For REPTC
Eligible For REPI
TDMA
Merchant
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
Average
IOU
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
POU
N
N
N
Y
N

BETC Limit ($)
BETC Calculation
Amount ($/kWh)
Duration (Years)
REPTC Base Year
REPTC In Start Year
REPI Tier
REPI Duration
REPI Base Year
Merchant
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
High
IOU
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
POU
N
N
N
Y
N
Merchant
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
Low
IOU
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
POU
N
N
N
Y
N
$25,000
30%
$0
$25,000
30%
$0
$25,000
30%
$0
$25,000
30%
$0
$25,000
30%
$0
$25,000
30%
$0
$25,000
30%
$0
$25,000
30%
$0
$25,000
30%
$0
15%
50%
0.019
15%
50%
0.019
15%
50%
0.019
15%
50%
0.019
15%
50%
0.019
15%
50%
0.019
15%
50%
0.019
15%
50%
0.019
15%
50%
0.019
10
2009
0.010
10
2009
0.010
10
2009
0.010
10
2009
0.010
10
2009
0.010
10
2009
0.010
10
2009
0.010
10
2009
0.010
10
2009
0.010
Tier 1
10
2009
0.021
Tier 1
10
2009
0.021
Tier 1
10
2009
0.021
Tier 1
10
2009
0.021
Tier 1
10
2009
0.021
Tier 1
10
2009
0.021
Tier 1
10
2009
0.021
Tier 1
10
2009
0.021
Tier 1
10
2009
0.021
Technology Name:
Biomass - Cogasification IGCC

PLANT DATA
Gross Capacity (MW)
Station Service (%)
Net Capacity (MW)
Net Energy (GWh)
Transformer Losses
Tranmission losses
Curtailment (Hours)
Degradation Factors
Emission Factors
NOX (lbs/MWh)
VOC/ROG (Lbs/MWh)
CO (Lbs/MWh)
CO2 (lbs/MWh)
SOX (lbs/MWh)
PM10 (lbs/MWh)
Average
30
3.50%
28.95
190
0.50%
5.00%
27.36
75.00%
81.52%
100.0%
179.79
8.00%
3.00%
0
High
25
4.50%
23.88
125
0.50%
5.00%
22.57
60.00%
70.92%
100.0%
118.62
10.00%
6.00%
0
Low
40
2.50%
39.00
290
0.50%
5.00%
36.86
85.00%
92.27%
100.0%
274.49
6.00%
2.00%
0
0.05%
0.20%
0.10%
0.25%
0.00%
0.15%
0.074
0.009
0.029
0.000
0.020
0.100
0.074
0.009
0.029
0.000
0.020
0.200
0.074
0.009
0.029
0.000
0.020
0.025
Technology Name:

Start Year
PLANT COST DATA
Average
High
Low
Start Year
PLANT COST DATA
Average
High
Low
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
$2,950,000
$3,316,329
75%
25%
$3,006,085
$3,379,379
75%
25%
$3,063,236
$3,443,627
75%
25%
$3,121,474
$3,509,097
75%
25%
$3,180,819
$3,575,811
75%
25%
$3,241,292
$3,643,794
75%
25%
$3,302,915
$3,713,070
75%
25%
$3,365,710
$3,783,662
75%
25%
$3,429,698
$3,855,596
75%
25%
$3,494,903
$3,928,898
75%
25%
$3,561,348
$4,003,594
75%
25%
$3,687,500
$4,594,820
50%
40%
10%
$3,757,606
$4,682,176
50%
40%
10%
$3,829,045
$4,771,193
50%
40%
10%
$3,901,843
$4,861,902
50%
40%
10%
$3,976,024
$4,954,336
50%
40%
10%
$4,051,615
$5,048,527
50%
40%
10%
$4,128,644
$5,144,509
50%
40%
10%
$4,207,137
$5,242,315
50%
40%
10%
$4,287,123
$5,341,981
50%
40%
10%
$4,368,629
$5,443,542
50%
40%
10%
$4,451,685
$5,547,034
50%
40%
10%
$2,655,000
$2,767,243
100%
$2,254,564
$2,819,854
100%
$2,297,427
$2,873,464
100%
$2,341,106
$2,928,094
100%
$2,385,614
$2,983,763
100%
$2,430,969
$3,040,490
100%
$2,477,186
$3,098,295
100%
$2,524,282
$3,157,199
100%
$2,572,274
$3,217,224
100%
$2,621,177
$3,278,389
100%
$2,671,011
$3,340,717
100%
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
$3,629,056
$4,079,710
75%
25%
$3,698,051
$4,157,273
75%
25%
$3,768,358
$4,236,310
75%
25%
$3,840,001
$4,316,850
75%
25%
$3,913,007
$4,398,922
75%
25%
$3,987,400
$4,482,553
75%
25%
$4,063,208
$4,567,775
75%
25%
$4,140,457
$4,654,617
75%
25%
$4,219,175
$4,743,110
75%
25%
$4,299,389
$4,833,285
75%
25%
$4,536,320
$5,652,494
50%
40%
10%
$4,622,563
$5,759,958
50%
40%
10%
$4,710,447
$5,869,465
50%
40%
10%
$4,800,001
$5,981,055
50%
40%
10%
$4,891,258
$6,094,766
50%
40%
10%
$4,984,250
$6,210,639
50%
40%
10%
$5,079,010
$6,328,714
50%
40%
10%
$5,175,571
$6,449,035
50%
40%
10%
$5,273,969
$6,571,643
50%
40%
10%
$5,374,236
$6,696,582
50%
40%
10%
$2,721,792
$3,404,230
100%
$2,773,538
$3,468,951
100%
$2,826,268
$3,534,902
100%
$2,880,001
$3,602,107
100%
$2,934,755
$3,670,590
100%
$2,990,550
$3,740,375
100%
$3,047,406
$3,811,486
100%
$3,105,343
$3,883,950
100%
$3,164,381
$3,957,791
100%
$3,224,542
$4,033,036
100%
Technology Name:

Start Year
FUEL COST DATA
Fuel Use
Fuel Cost $/mmBtu)
Average
High
Low
Heat Rate (Btu/kWh)
Nominal
High
Low
High
$175.00
$4.50
Low
$125.00
$3.00
2009
2010
2011
2,069,550
Start Year
FUEL COST DATA
Fuel Use
Fuel Cost $/mmBtu)
Average
High
Low
Heat Rate (Btu/kWh)
Nominal
High
Low
Average
$150.0
$4.00
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2,067,579
2,065,608
2,063,637
2,061,666
2,059,695
2,057,724
2,055,753
2,053,782
2,051,811
2,049,840
$2.00
$3.00
$1.75
$2.04
$2.55
$1.53
$2.08
$2.60
$1.56
$2.12
$2.65
$1.59
$2.16
$2.70
$1.62
$2.20
$2.75
$1.65
$2.24
$2.80
$1.68
$2.28
$2.85
$1.71
$2.33
$2.91
$1.74
$2.37
$2.96
$1.78
$2.41
$3.02
$1.81
10500
11000
10000
10490
10990
9990
10480
10980
9980
10470
10970
9970
10460
10960
9960
10450
10950
9950
10440
10940
9940
10430
10930
9930
10420
10920
9920
10410
10910
9910
10400
10900
9900
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2,047,869
2,045,898
2,043,927
2,041,956
2,039,985
2,038,014
2,036,043
2,034,072
2,032,101
2,030,130
$2.46
$3.08
$1.85
$2.51
$3.13
$1.88
$2.55
$3.19
$1.92
$2.60
$3.25
$1.95
$2.65
$3.32
$1.99
$2.70
$3.38
$2.03
$2.75
$3.44
$2.07
$2.81
$3.51
$2.11
$2.86
$3.58
$2.15
$2.91
$3.64
$2.19
10390
10890
9890
10380
10880
9880
10370
10870
9870
10360
10860
9860
10350
10850
9850
10340
10840
9840
10330
10830
9830
10320
10820
9820
10310
10810
9810
10300
10800
9800
Technology Name:

Average
Equity
Debt Financed:
High
Equity
Debt Financed:
Low
Equity
Debt Financed:

Merchant
Capital
Cost of
Structure
Capital
40.0%
15.2%
60.0%
6.7%
9.7%
IOU
Capital
Cost of
Structure
Capital
50.0%
11.7%
50.0%
5.9%
8.6%
POU
Capital
Cost of
Structure
Capital
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
4.3%
4.3%
60.0%
40.0%
14.4%
18.0%
10.0%
55.0%
45.0%
11.9%
15.0%
9.0%
0.0%
100.0%
7.0%
0.0%
7.0%
35.0%
65.0%
8.5%
14.0%
6.0%
50.0%
50.0%
7.7%
10.0%
5.9%
0.0%
100.0%
4.0%
0.0%
4.0%
Average
15
20
20
High
20
20
20
Low
10
20
20
Technology Name:

Federal Tax
CA State Tax
Total Tax Rate
CA Sales Tax
35.00%
8.84%
40.7%
1.07%
7.00%

Average
5
20
High
5
20
Low
5
20

Eligible For BETC
Eligible For REPTC
Eligible For REPI
TDMA
Merchant
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
Average
IOU
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
POU
N
N
N
Y
N

BETC Limit ($)
BETC Calculation
Amount ($/kWh)
Duration (Years)
REPTC Base Year
REPTC In Start Year
REPI Tier
REPI Duration
REPI Base Year
Merchant
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
High
IOU
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
POU
N
N
N
Y
N
Merchant
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
Low
IOU
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
POU
N
N
N
Y
N
$25,000
30%
$0
$25,000
30%
$0
$25,000
30%
$0
$25,000
30%
$0
$25,000
30%
$0
$25,000
30%
$0
$25,000
30%
$0
$25,000
30%
$0
$25,000
30%
$0
15%
50%
0.019
15%
50%
0.019
15%
50%
0.019
15%
50%
0.019
15%
50%
0.019
15%
50%
0.019
15%
50%
0.019
15%
50%
0.019
15%
50%
0.019
10
2009
0.010
10
2009
0.010
10
2009
0.010
10
2009
0.010
10
2009
0.010
10
2009
0.010
10
2009
0.010
10
2009
0.010
10
2009
0.010
Tier 1
10
2009
0.021
Tier 1
10
2009
0.021
Tier 1
10
2009
0.021
Tier 1
10
2009
0.021
Tier 1
10
2009
0.021
Tier 1
10
2009
0.021
Tier 1
10
2009
0.021
Tier 1
10
2009
0.021
Tier 1
10
2009
0.021
Technology Name:
Geothermal - Binary

PLANT DATA
Gross Capacity (MW)
Station Service (%)
Net Capacity (MW)
Net Energy (GWh)
Transformer Losses
Tranmission losses
Curtailment (Hours)
Degradation Factors
Emission Factors
NOX (lbs/MWh)
VOC/ROG (Lbs/MWh)
CO (Lbs/MWh)
CO2 (lbs/MWh)
SOX (lbs/MWh)
PM10 (lbs/MWh)
Average
15
5.00%
14.25
112
0.50%
5.00%
13.47
90%
100.0%
96.15%
106
2.5%
4.00%
0.0
High
2
10.00%
1.80
13
0.50%
5.00%
1.70
80%
100.0%
93.53%
12
2.8%
12.00%
0.0
Low
50
5.00%
47.50
395
0.50%
5.00%
44.90
95%
100.0%
99.12%
374
2.2%
2.00%
0.0
4.00%
0
4.00%
0
4.00%
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Technology Name:
Geothermal - Binary

Start Year
PLANT COST DATA
Average
High
Low
2010
2011
1 0.982755954 0.973551831
$4,046,000
$4,050,101
$4,157,032
$4,846,345
$4,851,257
$4,979,341
20%
20%
20%
40%
40%
40%
40%
40%
40%
1 0.987823163 0.981297861
$5,948,000
$5,984,729
$6,128,253
$7,980,719
$8,030,000
$8,222,573
10%
10%
10%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
1 0.978866461 0.967620759
$2,353,000
$2,346,063
$2,412,391
$2,746,209
$2,738,112
$2,815,525
20%
20%
20%
40%
40%
40%
40%
40%
40%
Start Year
PLANT COST DATA

Average
High
Low
2009
2020
2021
2022
0.966437265 0.966437265 0.966437265

$4,858,063
$4,948,000
$5,023,167
$5,819,043
$5,926,771
$6,016,806
20%
20%
20%
40%
40%
40%
40%
40%
40%
0.976241455 0.976241455 0.976241455
$7,148,221
$7,274,025
$7,384,527
$9,591,114
$9,759,910
$9,908,176
10%
10%
10%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
0.958944685 0.958944685 0.958944685
$2,823,310
$2,877,569
$2,921,283
$3,295,112
$3,358,438
$3,409,457
20%
20%
20%
40%
40%
40%
40%
40%
40%
2012
0.973551831
$4,271,500
$5,116,452
20%
40%
40%
0.981297861
$6,279,506
$8,425,517
10%
45%
45%
0.967620759
$2,484,142
$2,899,266
20%
40%
40%
2013
0.973551831
$4,346,667
$5,206,487
20%
40%
40%
0.981297861
$6,390,008
$8,573,783
10%
45%
45%
0.967620759
$2,527,856
$2,950,285
20%
40%
40%
2014
0.973551831
$4,421,833
$5,296,523
20%
40%
40%
0.981297861
$6,500,510
$8,722,049
10%
45%
45%
0.967620759
$2,571,570
$3,001,304
20%
40%
40%
2015
0.973551831
$4,497,000
$5,386,558
20%
40%
40%
0.981297861
$6,611,012
$8,870,314
10%
45%
45%
0.967620759
$2,615,284
$3,052,323
20%
40%
40%
2016
0.973551831
$4,572,167
$5,476,594
20%
40%
40%
0.981297861
$6,721,514
$9,018,580
10%
45%
45%
0.967620759
$2,658,999
$3,103,342
20%
40%
40%
2017
0.969375668
$4,627,398
$5,542,750
20%
40%
40%
0.978331142
$6,811,361
$9,139,133
10%
45%
45%
0.962526251
$2,688,483
$3,137,754
20%
40%
40%
2018
2019
0.969375668 0.969375668
$4,722,500
$4,797,667
$5,656,665
$5,746,700
20%
20%
40%
40%
40%
40%
0.978331142 0.978331142
$6,942,518
$7,053,020
$9,315,112
$9,463,378
10%
10%
45%
45%
45%
45%
0.962526251 0.962526251
$2,746,427
$2,790,141
$3,205,381
$3,256,400
20%
20%
40%
40%
40%
40%
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
0.966437265
$5,098,333
$6,106,842
20%
40%
40%
0.976241455
$7,495,029
$10,056,442
10%
45%
45%
0.958944685
$2,964,997
$3,460,476
20%
40%
40%
0.962958958
$5,154,880
$6,174,574
20%
40%
40%
0.973765377
$7,586,240
$10,178,825
10%
45%
45%
0.954708246
$2,995,419
$3,495,982
20%
40%
40%
0.958985286
$5,227,008
$6,260,970
20%
40%
40%
0.970933429
$7,693,593
$10,322,865
10%
45%
45%
0.949872742
$3,036,965
$3,544,470
20%
40%
40%
0.951730924
$5,283,560
$6,328,709
20%
40%
40%
0.96575444
$7,784,788
$10,445,226
10%
45%
45%
0.941056801
$3,067,403
$3,579,996
20%
40%
40%
0.944761448
$5,359,463
$6,419,626
20%
40%
40%
0.96076783
$7,896,054
$10,594,518
10%
45%
45%
0.932601485
$3,111,642
$3,631,627
20%
40%
40%
0.941492513
$5,455,225
$6,534,332
20%
40%
40%
0.958425186
$8,027,916
$10,771,443
10%
45%
45%
0.928640528
$3,170,046
$3,699,791
20%
40%
40%
0.929936956
$5,481,222
$6,565,471
20%
40%
40%
0.950124671
$8,087,388
$10,851,238
10%
45%
45%
0.914663879
$3,178,709
$3,709,901
20%
40%
40%
Technology Name:
Geothermal - Binary

Start Year
FUEL COST DATA
Fuel Use
Fuel Cost $/mmBtu)
Average
High
Low
Heat Rate (Btu/kWh)
Average
High
Low
Start Year
FUEL COST DATA
Fuel Use
Fuel Cost $/mmBtu)
Average
High
Low
Heat Rate (Btu/kWh)
Average
High
Low
Average
$47.44
$4.55
High
$54.56
$5.12
Low
$40.32
$4.31
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Technology Name:
Geothermal - Binary

Average
Equity
Debt Financed:
High
Equity
Debt Financed:
Low
Equity
Debt Financed:

Merchant
Capital
Cost of
Structure
Capital
40.0%
15.19%
60.0%
6.71%
8.46%
IOU
Capital
Cost of
Structure
Capital
50.0%
11.74%
50.0%
5.94%
7.63%
POU
Capital
Cost of
Structure
Capital
0.0%
0.00%
100.0%
4.35%
4.35%
60.0%
40.0%
13.17%
18.00%
10.00%
55.0%
45.0%
10.65%
15.00%
9.00%
0.0%
100.0%
7.00%
0.00%
7.00%
35.0%
65.0%
7.21%
14.00%
6.00%
50.0%
50.0%
6.76%
10.00%
5.94%
0.0%
100.0%
4.00%
0.00%
4.00%
Average
20
30
30
High
20
30
30
Low
20
30
30
Technology Name:
Geothermal - Binary

Federal Tax
CA State Tax
Total Tax Rate
CA Sales Tax
35.00%
8.84%
40.7%
1.07%
7.00%

Average
5
20
High
5
20
Low
5
20

Eligible For BETC
Eligible For REPTC
Eligible For REPI
Merchant
N
N
Y
N
Average
IOU
N
N
Y
N
POU
N
N
N
Y

BETC Limit ($)
BETC Calculation
Amount ($/kWh)
Duration (Years)
REPTC Base Year
REPTC In Start Year
REPI Tier
REPI Duration
REPI Base Year
Merchant
N
N
Y
N
High
IOU
N
N
Y
N
POU
N
N
N
Y
Merchant
N
N
Y
N
Low
IOU
N
N
Y
N
POU
N
N
N
Y
$25,000
25%
$0
$25,000
25%
$0
$25,000
25%
$0
$25,000
25%
$0
$25,000
25%
$0
$25,000
25%
$0
$25,000
25%
$0
$25,000
25%
$0
$25,000
25%
$0
15%
50%
0.019
15%
50%
0.019
15%
50%
0.019
15%
50%
0.019
15%
50%
0.019
15%
50%
0.019
15%
50%
0.019
15%
50%
0.019
15%
50%
0.019
10
2005
0.019
10
2005
0.019
10
2005
0.019
10
2005
0.019
10
2005
0.019
10
2005
0.019
10
2005
0.019
10
2005
0.019
10
2005
0.019
Tier 1
10
2006
0.000
Tier 1
10
2006
0.000
Tier 1
10
2006
0.000
Tier 1
10
2006
0.000
Tier 1
10
2006
0.000
Tier 1
10
2006
0.000
Tier 1
10
2006
0.000
Tier 1
10
2006
0.000
Tier 1
10
2006
0.000
Technology Name:
Geothermal - Flash

PLANT DATA
Gross Capacity (MW)
Station Service (%)
Net Capacity (MW)
Net Energy (GWh)
Transformer Losses
Tranmission losses
Curtailment (Hours)
Degradation Factors
Emission Factors
NOX (lbs/MWh)
VOC/ROG (Lbs/MWh)
CO (Lbs/MWh)
CO2 (lbs/MWh)
SOX (lbs/MWh)
PM10 (lbs/MWh)
Average
30
5.00%
28.50
235
0.50%
5.00%
26.94
94%
100.0%
100.43%
222
2.5%
4.00%
0.0
High
7
5.00%
6.65
52
0.50%
5.00%
6.29
90%
100.0%
105.22%
50
2.8%
12.00%
0.0
Low
50
5.00%
47.50
408
0.50%
5.00%
44.90
98%
100.0%
102.25%
385
2.2%
2.00%
0.0
4.00%
0
4.00%
0
4.00%
0
0.191
0.011
0.058
60
0.026
0
0.191
0.011
0.058
60
0.026
0
0.191
0.011
0.058
60
0.026
0
Technology Name:
Geothermal - Flash

Start Year
PLANT COST DATA
Average
High
Low
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
1 0.982755954 0.973551831 0.973551831 0.973551831 0.973551831 0.973551831 0.973551831 0.969375668 0.969375668 0.969375668
$3,676,000
$3,679,726
$3,776,878
$3,880,878
$3,949,171
$4,017,464
$4,085,757
$4,154,050
$4,204,230
$4,290,635
$4,358,928
$4,403,155
$4,407,618
$4,523,988
$4,648,561
$4,730,362
$4,812,164
$4,893,966
$4,975,768
$5,035,875
$5,139,372
$5,221,174
20%
20%
20%
20%
20%
20%
20%
20%
20%
20%
20%
40%
40%
40%
40%
40%
40%
40%
40%
40%
40%
40%
40%
40%
40%
40%
40%
40%
40%
40%
40%
40%
40%
1 0.987823163 0.981297861 0.981297861 0.981297861 0.981297861 0.981297861 0.981297861 0.978331142 0.978331142 0.978331142
$5,329,000
$5,361,906
$5,490,495
$5,626,007
$5,725,009
$5,824,011
$5,923,014
$6,022,016
$6,102,513
$6,220,020
$6,319,023
$7,150,177
$7,194,329
$7,366,862
$7,548,685
$7,681,521
$7,814,357
$7,947,193
$8,080,029
$8,188,036
$8,345,702
$8,478,538
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
1 0.978866461 0.967620759 0.967620759 0.967620759 0.967620759 0.967620759 0.967620759 0.962526251 0.962526251 0.962526251
$2,603,000
$2,595,326
$2,668,701
$2,748,076
$2,796,434
$2,844,793
$2,893,151
$2,941,510
$2,974,127
$3,038,227
$3,086,586
$3,007,075
$2,998,210
$3,082,976
$3,174,672
$3,230,537
$3,286,403
$3,342,268
$3,398,134
$3,435,814
$3,509,865
$3,565,730
30%
30%
30%
30%
30%
30%
30%
30%
30%
30%
30%
35%
35%
35%
35%
35%
35%
35%
35%
35%
35%
35%
35%
35%
35%
35%
35%
35%
35%
35%
35%
35%
35%
Start Year
PLANT COST DATA

Average
High
Low
2009
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
0.966437265 0.966437265 0.966437265 0.966437265 0.962958958 0.958985286 0.951730924 0.944761448 0.941492513 0.929936956
$4,413,801
$4,495,513
$4,563,806
$4,632,099
$4,683,475
$4,749,007
$4,800,388
$4,869,349
$4,956,354
$4,979,974
$5,286,901
$5,384,778
$5,466,579
$5,548,381
$5,609,920
$5,688,414
$5,749,959
$5,832,562
$5,936,778
$5,965,070
20%
20%
20%
20%
20%
20%
20%
20%
20%
20%
40%
40%
40%
40%
40%
40%
40%
40%
40%
40%
40%
40%
40%
40%
40%
40%
40%
40%
40%
40%
0.976241455 0.976241455 0.976241455 0.976241455 0.973765377 0.970933429 0.96575444 0.96076783 0.958425186 0.950124671
$6,404,316
$6,517,027
$6,616,029
$6,715,032
$6,796,751
$6,892,931
$6,974,636
$7,074,323
$7,192,462
$7,245,744
$8,592,980
$8,744,210
$8,877,046
$9,009,882
$9,119,529
$9,248,579
$9,358,206
$9,491,961
$9,650,474
$9,721,965
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
0.958944685 0.958944685 0.958944685 0.958944685 0.954708246 0.949872742 0.941056801 0.932601485 0.928640528 0.914663879
$3,123,279
$3,183,303
$3,231,662
$3,280,020
$3,313,675
$3,359,634
$3,393,307
$3,442,246
$3,506,855
$3,516,438
$3,608,120
$3,677,461
$3,733,327
$3,789,192
$3,828,071
$3,881,165
$3,920,065
$3,976,601
$4,051,240
$4,062,310
30%
30%
30%
30%
30%
30%
30%
30%
30%
30%
35%
35%
35%
35%
35%
35%
35%
35%
35%
35%
35%
35%
35%
35%
35%
35%
35%
35%
35%
35%
Technology Name:
Geothermal - Flash

Start Year
FUEL COST DATA
Fuel Use
Fuel Cost $/mmBtu)
Average
High
Low
Heat Rate (Btu/kWh)
Average
High
Low
Start Year
FUEL COST DATA
Fuel Use
Fuel Cost $/mmBtu)
Average
High
Low
Heat Rate (Btu/kWh)
Average
High
Low
Average
$58.38
$5.06
High
$67.14
$5.28
Low
$49.62
$4.85
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Technology Name:
Geothermal - Flash

Average
Equity
Debt Financed:
High
Equity
Debt Financed:
Low
Equity
Debt Financed:

Merchant
Capital
Cost of
Structure
Capital
40.0%
15.19%
60.0%
6.71%
8.46%
IOU
Capital
Cost of
Structure
Capital
50.0%
11.74%
50.0%
5.94%
7.63%
POU
Capital
Cost of
Structure
Capital
0.0%
0.00%
100.0%
4.35%
4.35%
60.0%
40.0%
13.17%
18.00%
10.00%
55.0%
45.0%
10.65%
15.00%
9.00%
0.0%
100.0%
7.00%
0.00%
7.00%
35.0%
65.0%
7.21%
14.00%
6.00%
50.0%
50.0%
6.76%
10.00%
5.94%
0.0%
100.0%
4.00%
0.00%
4.00%
Average
20
30
30
High
20
30
30
Low
20
30
30
Technology Name:
Geothermal - Flash

Federal Tax
CA State Tax
Total Tax Rate
CA Sales Tax
35.00%
8.84%
40.7%
1.07%
7.00%

Average
5
20
High
5
20
Low
5
20

Eligible For BETC
Eligible For REPTC
Eligible For REPI
Merchant
Y
Y
Y
Y
Average
IOU
Y
Y
Y
Y
POU
N
N
N
Y

BETC Limit ($)
BETC Calculation
Amount ($/kWh)
Duration (Years)
REPTC Base Year
REPTC In Start Year
REPI Tier
REPI Duration
REPI Base Year
Merchant
Y
Y
Y
Y
High
IOU
Y
Y
Y
Y
POU
N
N
N
Y
Merchant
Y
Y
Y
Y
Low
IOU
Y
Y
Y
Y
POU
N
N
N
Y
$25,000
10%
$0
$25,000
10%
$0
$25,000
10%
$0
$25,000
10%
$0
$25,000
10%
$0
$25,000
10%
$0
$25,000
10%
$0
$25,000
10%
$0
$25,000
10%
$0
15%
50%
0.021
15%
50%
0.021
15%
50%
0.021
15%
50%
0.021
15%
50%
0.021
15%
50%
0.021
15%
50%
0.021
15%
50%
0.021
15%
50%
0.021
10
2009
0.021
10
2009
0.021
10
2009
0.021
10
2009
0.021
10
2009
0.021
10
2009
0.021
10
2009
0.021
10
2009
0.021
10
2009
0.021
Tier 1
10
2009
0.021
Tier 1
10
2009
0.021
Tier 1
10
2009
0.021
Tier 1
10
2009
0.021
Tier 1
10
2009
0.021
Tier 1
10
2009
0.021
Tier 1
10
2009
0.021
Tier 1
10
2009
0.021
Tier 1
10
2009
0.021
Technology Name:
Hydro - Developed sites without power

PLANT DATA
Gross Capacity (MW)
Station Service (%)
Net Capacity (MW)
Net Energy (GWh)
Transformer Losses
Tranmission losses
Curtailment (Hours)
Degradation Factors
Emission Factors
NOX (lbs/MWh)
VOC/ROG (Lbs/MWh)
CO (Lbs/MWh)
CO2 (lbs/MWh)
SOX (lbs/MWh)
PM10 (lbs/MWh)
Average
15
10.00%
13.50
36
0.50%
7.50%
12.43
30.40%
100.0%
35.35%
33
5.1%
9.40%
0.0
High
1.5
13.00%
1.31
1
0.50%
7.50%
1.20
12.50%
100.0%
14.81%
1
6.7%
9.56%
0.0
Low
300
9.20%
272.40
1468
0.50%
7.50%
250.71
61.50%
100.0%
70.39%
1351
3.8%
9.20%
0.0
2.00%
0
2.25%
0
1.75%
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Technology Name:

Start Year
PLANT COST DATA
Average
High
Low
Start Year
PLANT COST DATA
Average
High
Low
2009
2010
2011
2012
1
$2,083,540
$2,266,602
100%
1
$2,115,680
$2,301,566
100%
1
$2,147,820
$2,336,530
100%
1
$2,179,960
$2,371,494
100%
1
$2,212,100
$2,406,457
100%
1
$2,244,239
$2,441,421
100%
2026
1
$2,276,379
$2,476,385
100%
2027
1
$2,308,519
$2,511,349
100%
2028
1
$2,340,659
$2,546,313
100%
1
$2,019,260
$2,196,674
100%
2019
1 1.000098277 1.000098277 1.000098277 1.000098277 1.000123552 1.00017586 1.00017586 1.00017586

$2,872,922
$2,924,671
$2,976,137
$3,027,603
$3,079,069
$3,130,614
$3,182,248
$3,233,719
$3,285,189
$3,742,049
$3,809,453
$3,876,489
$3,943,524
$4,010,560
$4,077,699
$4,144,954
$4,211,995
$4,279,036
25%
25%
25%
25%
25%
25%
25%
25%
25%
40%
40%
40%
40%
40%
40%
40%
40%
40%
35%
35%
35%
35%
35%
35%
35%
35%
35%
1 0.999926841 0.999926841 0.999926841 0.999926841 0.999908027 0.999869095 0.999869095 0.999869095
$980,112
$997,596
$1,015,151
$1,032,706
$1,050,261
$1,067,795
$1,085,308
$1,102,862
$1,120,416
$1,043,379
$1,061,991
$1,080,679
$1,099,367
$1,118,055
$1,136,722
$1,155,365
$1,174,052
$1,192,739
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
2025
1
$1,987,120
$2,161,711
100%
2018
1
$2,821,461
$3,675,020
25%
40%
35%
1
$962,556
$1,024,689
100%
2024
1
$1,954,980
$2,126,747
100%
2017
1
$2,770,000
$3,607,990
25%
40%
35%
1
$945,000
$1,006,000
100%
2023
1
$1,922,840
$2,091,783
100%
2016
1
$1,794,280
$1,951,928
100%
2022
1
$1,890,700
$2,056,819
100%
2015
1
$1,762,140
$1,916,964
100%
2021
1
$1,858,560
$2,021,855
100%
2014
1
$1,730,000
$1,882,000
100%
2020
1
$1,826,420
$1,986,891
100%
2013
2029
1
$2,372,799
$2,581,277
100%
1.00017586 1.00024788 1.00024788 1.00024788 1.000277873 1.000346996 1.000346996 1.000346996 1.000346996 1.000490929
$3,336,659
$3,388,373
$3,439,847
$3,491,321
$3,542,901
$3,594,625
$3,646,104
$3,697,583
$3,749,061
$3,801,087
$4,346,077
$4,413,436
$4,480,482
$4,547,528
$4,614,712
$4,682,083
$4,749,136
$4,816,188
$4,883,241
$4,951,006
25%
25%
25%
25%
25%
25%
25%
25%
25%
25%
40%
40%
40%
40%
40%
40%
40%
40%
40%
40%
35%
35%
35%
35%
35%
35%
35%
35%
35%
35%
0.999869095 0.999815497 0.999815497 0.999815497 0.999793179 0.999741746 0.999741746 0.999741746 0.999741746 0.999634668
$1,137,969
$1,155,461
$1,173,014
$1,190,567
$1,208,093
$1,225,583
$1,243,135
$1,260,686
$1,278,238
$1,295,651
$1,211,426
$1,230,047
$1,248,733
$1,267,419
$1,286,076
$1,304,695
$1,323,379
$1,342,064
$1,360,749
$1,379,286
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
1
$2,051,400
$2,231,638
100%
Technology Name:

Start Year
FUEL COST DATA
Fuel Use
Fuel Cost $/mmBtu)
Average
High
Low
Heat Rate (Btu/kWh)
Average
High
Low
Start Year
FUEL COST DATA
Fuel Use
Fuel Cost $/mmBtu)
Average
High
Low
Heat Rate (Btu/kWh)
Average
High
Low
Average
$17.57
$3.48
High
$28.83
$5.54
Low
$9.88
$1.90
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Technology Name:

Average
Equity
Debt Financed:
High
Equity
Debt Financed:
Low
Equity
Debt Financed:

Merchant
Capital
Cost of
Structure
Capital
40.0%
15.19%
60.0%
6.71%
8.46%
IOU
Capital
Cost of
Structure
Capital
50.0%
11.74%
50.0%
5.94%
7.63%
POU
Capital
Cost of
Structure
Capital
0.0%
0.00%
100.0%
4.35%
4.35%
60.0%
40.0%
13.17%
18.00%
10.00%
55.0%
45.0%
10.65%
15.00%
9.00%
0.0%
100.0%
7.00%
0.00%
7.00%
35.0%
65.0%
7.21%
14.00%
6.00%
50.0%
50.0%
6.76%
10.00%
5.94%
0.0%
100.0%
4.00%
0.00%
4.00%
Average
20
30
30
High
20
30
30
Low
20
30
30
Technology Name:

Federal Tax
CA State Tax
Total Tax Rate
CA Sales Tax
35.00%
8.84%
40.7%
1.07%
7.00%

Average
5
30
High
5
30
Low
5
30

Eligible For BETC
Eligible For REPTC
Eligible For REPI
Merchant
N
N
Y
N
Average
IOU
N
N
Y
N
POU
N
N
N
N

BETC Limit ($)
BETC Calculation
Amount ($/kWh)
Duration (Years)
REPTC Base Year
REPTC In Start Year
REPI Tier
REPI Duration
REPI Base Year
Merchant
N
N
Y
N
High
IOU
N
N
Y
N
POU
N
N
N
N
Merchant
N
N
Y
N
Low
IOU
N
N
Y
N
POU
N
N
N
N
$25,000
30%
$0
$25,000
30%
$0
$25,000
30%
$0
$25,000
30%
$0
$25,000
30%
$0
$25,000
30%
$0
$25,000
30%
$0
$25,000
30%
$0
$25,000
30%
$0
15%
50%
0.019
15%
50%
0.019
15%
50%
0.019
15%
50%
0.019
15%
50%
0.019
15%
50%
0.019
15%
50%
0.019
15%
50%
0.019
15%
50%
0.019
10
2005
0.019
10
2005
0.019
10
2005
0.019
10
2005
0.019
10
2005
0.019
10
2005
0.019
10
2005
0.019
10
2005
0.019
10
2005
0.019
Tier 1
10
2006
0.000
Tier 1
10
2006
0.000
Tier 1
10
2006
0.000
Tier 1
10
2006
0.000
Tier 1
10
2006
0.000
Tier 1
10
2006
0.000
Tier 1
10
2006
0.000
Tier 1
10
2006
0.000
Tier 1
10
2006
0.000
Technology Name:
Hydro - Capacity upgrade for developed sites with power

PLANT DATA
Gross Capacity (MW)
Station Service (%)
Net Capacity (MW)
Net Energy (GWh)
Transformer Losses
Tranmission losses
Curtailment (Hours)
Degradation Factors
Emission Factors
NOX (lbs/MWh)
VOC/ROG (Lbs/MWh)
CO (Lbs/MWh)
CO2 (lbs/MWh)
SOX (lbs/MWh)
PM10 (lbs/MWh)
Average
80
5.00%
76.00
202
0.50%
7.50%
69.95
30.40%
100.0%
35.35%
186
5.1%
9.40%
0.0
High
2
15.00%
1.70
2
0.50%
7.50%
1.56
12.50%
100.0%
14.81%
2
6.7%
9.56%
0.0
Low
600
5.00%
570.00
3071
0.50%
7.50%
524.61
61.50%
100.0%
70.39%
2826
3.8%
9.20%
0.0
2.00%
0
2.25%
0
1.75%
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Technology Name:

Start Year
PLANT COST DATA
Average
High
Low
Start Year
PLANT COST DATA
Average
High
Low
2009
2010
2011
2012
1
$771,000
$932,000
100%
1
$785,324
$949,315
100%
1
$799,647
$966,629
100%
1
$813,971
$983,944
100%
1
$514,000
$669,497
25%
40%
35%
1
$1,638,000
$1,871,000
100%
1
$523,549
$681,935
25%
40%
35%
1
$1,668,431
$1,905,759
100%
2020
1
$928,560
$1,122,462
100%
2021
1
$942,884
$1,139,777
100%
2013
1
$828,295
$1,001,259
100%
2014
1
$842,618
$1,018,574
100%
2015
1
$856,942
$1,035,888
100%
2016
1
$871,266
$1,053,203
100%
2017
1
$885,589
$1,070,518
100%
2018
1
$899,913
$1,087,832
100%
2019
1
$914,237
$1,105,147
100%
1 1.000098277 1.000098277 1.000098277 1.000098277 1.000123552 1.00017586 1.00017586 1.00017586

$533,098
$542,701
$552,251
$561,801
$571,351
$580,915
$590,497
$600,047
$609,598
$694,373
$706,880
$719,320
$731,759
$744,198
$756,656
$769,136
$781,576
$794,016
25%
25%
25%
25%
25%
25%
25%
25%
25%
40%
40%
40%
40%
40%
40%
40%
40%
40%
35%
35%
35%
35%
35%
35%
35%
35%
35%
1 0.999926841 0.999926841 0.999926841 0.999926841 0.999908027 0.999869095 0.999869095 0.999869095
$1,698,862
$1,729,166
$1,759,594
$1,790,023
$1,820,452
$1,850,845
$1,881,200
$1,911,627
$1,942,054
$1,940,519
$1,975,134
$2,009,891
$2,044,648
$2,079,405
$2,114,122
$2,148,794
$2,183,549
$2,218,304
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
2022
1
$957,207
$1,157,091
100%
2023
1
$971,531
$1,174,406
100%
2024
1
$985,855
$1,191,721
100%
2025
1
$1,000,178
$1,209,035
100%
2026
1
$1,014,502
$1,226,350
100%
2027
1
$1,028,826
$1,243,665
100%
2028
1
$1,043,149
$1,260,980
100%
2029
1
$1,057,473
$1,278,294
100%
1.00017586 1.00024788 1.00024788 1.00024788 1.000277873 1.000346996 1.000346996 1.000346996 1.000346996 1.000490929
$619,149
$628,745
$638,296
$647,848
$657,419
$667,017
$676,569
$686,122
$695,674
$705,328
$806,456
$818,955
$831,396
$843,837
$856,304
$868,805
$881,248
$893,690
$906,132
$918,707
25%
25%
25%
25%
25%
25%
25%
25%
25%
25%
40%
40%
40%
40%
40%
40%
40%
40%
40%
40%
35%
35%
35%
35%
35%
35%
35%
35%
35%
35%
0.999869095 0.999815497 0.999815497 0.999815497 0.999793179 0.999741746 0.999741746 0.999741746 0.999741746 0.999634668
$1,972,480
$2,002,800
$2,033,225
$2,063,650
$2,094,029
$2,124,344
$2,154,767
$2,185,190
$2,215,613
$2,245,795
$2,253,059
$2,287,691
$2,322,445
$2,357,198
$2,391,897
$2,426,525
$2,461,275
$2,496,026
$2,530,776
$2,565,252
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Technology Name:

Start Year
FUEL COST DATA
Fuel Use
Fuel Cost $/mmBtu)
Average
High
Low
Heat Rate (Btu/kWh)
Average
High
Low
Start Year
FUEL COST DATA
Fuel Use
Fuel Cost $/mmBtu)
Average
High
Low
Heat Rate (Btu/kWh)
Average
High
Low
Average
$12.59
$2.39
High
$27.05
$5.00
Low
$8.77
$1.60
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Technology Name:

Average
Equity
Debt Financed:
High
Equity
Debt Financed:
Low
Equity
Debt Financed:

Merchant
Capital
Cost of
Structure
Capital
40.0%
15.19%
60.0%
6.71%
8.46%
IOU
Capital
Cost of
Structure
Capital
50.0%
11.74%
50.0%
5.94%
7.63%
POU
Capital
Cost of
Structure
Capital
0.0%
0.00%
100.0%
4.35%
4.35%
60.0%
40.0%
13.17%
18.00%
10.00%
55.0%
45.0%
10.65%
15.00%
9.00%
0.0%
100.0%
7.00%
0.00%
7.00%
35.0%
65.0%
7.21%
14.00%
6.00%
50.0%
50.0%
6.76%
10.00%
5.94%
0.0%
100.0%
4.00%
0.00%
4.00%
Average
20
30
30
High
20
30
30
Low
20
30
30
Technology Name:

Federal Tax
CA State Tax
Total Tax Rate
CA Sales Tax
35.00%
8.84%
40.7%
1.07%
7.00%

Average
5
30
High
5
30
Low
5
30

Eligible For BETC
Eligible For REPTC
Eligible For REPI
Merchant
N
N
Y
N
Average
IOU
N
N
Y
N
POU
N
N
N
N

BETC Limit ($)
BETC Calculation
Amount ($/kWh)
Duration (Years)
REPTC Base Year
REPTC In Start Year
REPI Tier
REPI Duration
REPI Base Year
Merchant
N
N
Y
N
High
IOU
N
N
Y
N
POU
N
N
N
N
Merchant
N
N
Y
N
Low
IOU
N
N
Y
N
POU
N
N
N
N
$25,000
25%
$0
$25,000
25%
$0
$25,000
25%
$0
$25,000
25%
$0
$25,000
25%
$0
$25,000
25%
$0
$25,000
25%
$0
$25,000
25%
$0
$25,000
25%
$0
15%
50%
0.019
15%
50%
0.019
15%
50%
0.019
15%
50%
0.019
15%
50%
0.019
15%
50%
0.019
15%
50%
0.019
15%
50%
0.019
15%
50%
0.019
10
2005
0.019
10
2005
0.019
10
2005
0.019
10
2005
0.019
10
2005
0.019
10
2005
0.019
10
2005
0.019
10
2005
0.019
10
2005
0.019
Tier 1
10
2006
0.000
Tier 1
10
2006
0.000
Tier 1
10
2006
0.000
Tier 1
10
2006
0.000
Tier 1
10
2006
0.000
Tier 1
10
2006
0.000
Tier 1
10
2006
0.000
Tier 1
10
2006
0.000
Tier 1
10
2006
0.000
Technology Name:
Solar - Parabolic Trough (no storage)

PLANT DATA
Gross Capacity (MW)
Station Service (%)
Net Capacity (MW)
Net Energy (GWh)
Transformer Losses
Tranmission losses
Curtailment (Hours)
Degradation Factors
Emission Factors
NOX (lbs/MWh)
VOC/ROG (Lbs/MWh)
CO (Lbs/MWh)
CO2 (lbs/MWh)
SOX (lbs/MWh)
PM10 (lbs/MWh)
Average
250
22.40%
194.00
459
0.50%
5.00%
183.38
27.00%
27.44%
90.0%
433.73
1.60%
2.20%
0
High
50
24.00%
38.00
87
0.50%
5.00%
35.92
26.00%
27.58%
100.0%
81.81
1.60%
4.20%
0
Low
300
20.40%
238.80
586
0.50%
5.00%
225.73
28.00%
29.10%
80.0%
553.66
1.60%
2.20%
0
0.50%
0.00%
1.00%
0.00%
0.25%
0.00%
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Technology Name:

Start Year
PLANT COST DATA
Average
High
Low
Start Year
PLANT COST DATA
Average
High
Low
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
$3,687,000
$4,018,830
100%
0%
$3,331,000
$3,630,790
100%
0%
$3,298,000
$3,594,820
100%
0%
$3,265,000
$3,558,850
100%
0%
$3,232,000
$3,522,880
100%
0%
$3,199,000
$3,486,910
100%
0%
$3,165,000
$3,449,850
100%
0%
$3,077,000
$3,353,930
100%
0%
$2,989,000
$3,258,010
100%
0%
$2,901,000
$3,162,090
100%
0%
$2,813,000
$3,066,170
100%
0%
$3,900,000
$4,251,000
100%
0%
$3,562,000
$3,882,580
100%
0%
$3,527,000
$3,844,430
100%
0%
$3,492,000
$3,806,280
100%
0%
$3,457,000
$3,768,130
100%
0%
$3,422,000
$3,729,980
100%
0%
$3,389,000
$3,694,010
100%
0%
$3,355,000
$3,656,950
100%
0%
$3,321,000
$3,619,890
100%
0%
$3,287,000
$3,582,830
100%
0%
$3,253,000
$3,545,770
100%
0%
$3,408,000
$3,714,720
100%
$2,876,000
$3,134,840
100%
$2,810,000
$3,062,900
100%
$2,744,000
$2,990,960
100%
$2,678,000
$2,919,020
100%
$2,612,000
$2,847,080
100%
$2,546,000
$2,775,140
100%
$2,481,000
$2,704,290
100%
$2,416,000
$2,633,440
100%
$2,351,000
$2,562,590
100%
$2,286,000
$2,491,740
100%
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
$2,725,000
$2,970,250
100%
0%
$2,692,000
$2,934,280
100%
0%
$2,659,000
$2,898,310
100%
0%
$2,626,000
$2,862,340
100%
0%
$2,593,000
$2,826,370
100%
0%
$2,560,000
$2,790,400
100%
0%
$2,527,000
$2,754,430
100%
0%
$2,494,000
$2,718,460
100%
0%
$2,461,000
$2,682,490
100%
0%
$2,428,000
$2,646,520
100%
0%
$3,220,000
$3,509,800
100%
0%
$3,190,000
$3,477,100
100%
0%
$3,160,000
$3,444,400
100%
0%
$3,130,000
$3,411,700
100%
0%
$3,100,000
$3,379,000
100%
0%
$3,070,000
$3,346,300
100%
0%
$3,040,000
$3,313,600
100%
0%
$3,010,000
$3,280,900
100%
0%
$2,980,000
$3,248,200
100%
0%
$2,950,000
$3,215,500
100%
0%
$2,221,000
$2,420,890
100%
$2,188,000
$2,384,920
100%
$2,155,000
$2,348,950
100%
$2,122,000
$2,312,980
100%
$2,089,000
$2,277,010
100%
$2,056,000
$2,241,040
100%
$2,023,000
$2,205,070
100%
$1,990,000
$2,169,100
100%
$1,957,000
$2,133,130
100%
$1,924,000
$2,097,160
100%
Technology Name:

Start Year
FUEL COST DATA
Fuel Use
Fuel Cost $/mmBtu)
Average
High
Low
Heat Rate (Btu/kWh)
Nominal
High
Low
Start Year
FUEL COST DATA
Fuel Use
Fuel Cost $/mmBtu)
Average
High
Low
Heat Rate (Btu/kWh)
Nominal
High
Low
Average
$68.0
$0.00
High
$92.00
$0.00
Low
$60.00
$0.00
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Technology Name:

Average
Equity
Debt Financed:
High
Equity
Debt Financed:
Low
Equity
Debt Financed:

Merchant
Capital
Cost of
Structure
Capital
40.0%
15.2%
60.0%
6.7%
9.7%
IOU
Capital
Cost of
Structure
Capital
50.0%
11.7%
50.0%
5.9%
8.6%
POU
Capital
Cost of
Structure
Capital
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
4.3%
4.3%
60.0%
40.0%
14.4%
18.0%
10.0%
55.0%
45.0%
11.9%
15.0%
9.0%
0.0%
100.0%
7.0%
0.0%
7.0%
35.0%
65.0%
8.5%
14.0%
6.0%
50.0%
50.0%
7.7%
10.0%
5.9%
0.0%
100.0%
4.0%
0.0%
4.0%
Average
15
20
20
High
20
20
20
Low
10
20
20
Technology Name:

Federal Tax
CA State Tax
Total Tax Rate
CA Sales Tax
35.00%
8.84%
40.7%
1.07%
7.00%

Average
5
20
High
5
20
Low
5
20

Eligible For BETC
Eligible For REPTC
Eligible For REPI
TDMA
Merchant
Y
N
N
Y
Y
Average
IOU
Y
N
N
Y
Y
POU
N
N
N
Y
N

BETC Limit ($)
BETC Calculation
Amount ($/kWh)
Duration (Years)
REPTC Base Year
REPTC In Start Year
REPI Tier
REPI Duration
REPI Base Year
Merchant
Y
N
N
Y
Y
High
IOU
Y
N
N
Y
Y
POU
N
N
N
Y
N
Merchant
Y
N
N
Y
Y
Low
IOU
Y
N
N
Y
Y
POU
N
N
N
Y
N
$25,000
30%
$0
$25,000
30%
$0
$25,000
30%
$0
$25,000
30%
$0
$25,000
30%
$0
$25,000
30%
$0
$25,000
30%
$0
$25,000
30%
$0
$25,000
30%
$0
15%
50%
0.019
15%
50%
0.019
15%
50%
0.019
15%
50%
0.019
15%
50%
0.019
15%
50%
0.019
15%
50%
0.019
15%
50%
0.019
15%
50%
0.019
10
2009
0.021
10
2009
0.021
10
2009
0.021
10
2009
0.021
10
2009
0.021
10
2009
0.021
10
2009
0.021
10
2009
0.021
10
2009
0.021
Tier 1
10
2009
0.021
Tier 1
10
2009
0.021
Tier 1
10
2009
0.021
Tier 1
10
2009
0.021
Tier 1
10
2009
0.021
Tier 1
10
2009
0.021
Tier 1
10
2009
0.021
Tier 1
10
2009
0.021
Tier 1
10
2009
0.021
Technology Name:
Solar - Parabolic Trough (Storage Case - 6 hour molten salt)

PLANT DATA
Gross Capacity (MW)
Station Service (%)
Net Capacity (MW)
Net Energy (GWh)
Transformer Losses
Tranmission losses
Curtailment (Hours)
Degradation Factors
Emission Factors
NOX (lbs/MWh)
VOC/ROG (Lbs/MWh)
CO (Lbs/MWh)
CO2 (lbs/MWh)
SOX (lbs/MWh)
PM10 (lbs/MWh)
Average
250
29.40%
176.50
1005
0.50%
5.00%
166.84
65.00%
66.06%
90.0%
949.97
1.60%
2.20%
0
High
50
31.00%
34.50
181
0.50%
5.00%
32.61
60.00%
63.65%
100.0%
171.40
1.60%
4.20%
0
Low
300
27.40%
217.80
1336
0.50%
5.00%
205.88
70.00%
72.74%
80.0%
1262.43
1.60%
2.20%
0
0.50%
0.00%
1.00%
0.00%
0.25%
0.00%
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Note: Parabolic Trough with Storage assumes 57% greater solar area
due to recharge of thermal storage system per NREL, 2/2003
Also assumes that the solar field direct cost is 58% of the total instant cost.
$
500,000
Technology Name:

Start Year
PLANT COST DATA
Average
High
Low
Start Year
PLANT COST DATA
Average
High
Low
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
$5,406,000 $ 4,932,000 $ 4,899,000 $ 4,866,000 $ 4,833,000 $ 4,800,000

$5,892,540
$5,375,880
$5,339,910
$5,303,940
$5,267,970
$5,232,000
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
$4,711,350
$5,135,372
100%
0%
$4,623,350
$5,039,452
100%
0%
$4,535,350
$4,943,532
100%
0%
$4,447,350
$4,847,612
100%
0%
$4,359,350
$4,751,692
100%
0%
$5,789,300
$6,310,337
100%
0%
$5,340,000
$5,820,600
100%
0%
$5,305,000
$5,782,450
100%
0%
$5,270,000
$5,744,300
100%
0%
$5,235,000
$5,706,150
100%
0%
$5,200,000
$5,668,000
100%
0%
$5,109,400
$5,569,246
100%
0%
$5,075,400
$5,532,186
100%
0%
$5,041,400
$5,495,126
100%
0%
$5,007,400
$5,458,066
100%
0%
$4,973,400
$5,421,006
100%
0%
$5,034,700
$5,487,823
100%
$4,327,000
$4,716,430
100%
$4,261,000
$4,644,490
100%
$4,195,000
$4,572,550
100%
$4,129,000
$4,500,610
100%
$4,063,000
$4,428,670
100%
$3,888,000
$4,237,920
100%
$3,823,000
$4,167,070
100%
$3,758,000
$4,096,220
100%
$3,693,000
$4,025,370
100%
$3,628,000
$3,954,520
100%
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
$4,126,000
$4,497,340
100%
0%
$4,093,000
$4,461,370
100%
0%
$4,060,000
$4,425,400
100%
0%
$4,027,000
$4,389,430
100%
0%
$3,994,000
$4,353,460
100%
0%
$3,961,000
$4,317,490
100%
0%
$3,928,000
$4,281,520
100%
0%
$3,895,000
$4,245,550
100%
0%
$3,862,000
$4,209,580
100%
0%
$3,829,000
$4,173,610
100%
0%
$4,885,000
$5,324,650
100%
0%
$4,855,000
$5,291,950
100%
0%
$4,825,000
$5,259,250
100%
0%
$4,795,000
$5,226,550
100%
0%
$4,765,000
$5,193,850
100%
0%
$4,735,000
$5,161,150
100%
0%
$4,705,000
$5,128,450
100%
0%
$4,675,000
$5,095,750
100%
0%
$4,645,000
$5,063,050
100%
0%
$4,615,000
$5,030,350
100%
0%
$3,455,000
$3,765,950
100%
$3,422,000
$3,729,980
100%
$3,389,000
$3,694,010
100%
$3,356,000
$3,658,040
100%
$3,323,000
$3,622,070
100%
$3,290,000
$3,586,100
100%
$3,257,000
$3,550,130
100%
$3,224,000
$3,514,160
100%
$3,191,000
$3,478,190
100%
$3,158,000
$3,442,220
100%
Technology Name:

Start Year
FUEL COST DATA
Fuel Use
Fuel Cost $/mmBtu)
Average
High
Low
Heat Rate (Btu/kWh)
Nominal
High
Low
Start Year
FUEL COST DATA
Fuel Use
Fuel Cost $/mmBtu)
Average
High
Low
Heat Rate (Btu/kWh)
Nominal
High
Low
Average
$68.0
$10.30
High
$92.00
$23.30
Low
$60.00
$5.70
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Technology Name:

Average
Equity
Debt Financed:
High
Equity
Debt Financed:
Low
Equity
Debt Financed:

Merchant
Capital
Cost of
Structure
Capital
40.0%
15.2%
60.0%
6.7%
9.7%
IOU
Capital
Cost of
Structure
Capital
50.0%
11.7%
50.0%
5.9%
8.6%
POU
Capital
Cost of
Structure
Capital
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
4.3%
4.3%
60.0%
40.0%
14.4%
18.0%
10.0%
55.0%
45.0%
11.9%
15.0%
9.0%
0.0%
100.0%
7.0%
0.0%
7.0%
35.0%
65.0%
8.5%
14.0%
6.0%
50.0%
50.0%
7.7%
10.0%
5.9%
0.0%
100.0%
4.0%
0.0%
4.0%
Average
15
20
20
High
20
20
20
Low
10
20
20
Technology Name:

Federal Tax
CA State Tax
Total Tax Rate
CA Sales Tax
35.00%
8.84%
40.7%
1.07%
7.00%

Average
5
20
High
5
20
Low
5
20

Eligible For BETC
Eligible For REPTC
Eligible For REPI
TDMA
Merchant
Y
N
N
Y
Y
Average
IOU
Y
N
N
Y
Y
POU
N
N
N
Y
N

BETC Limit ($)
BETC Calculation
Amount ($/kWh)
Duration (Years)
REPTC Base Year
REPTC In Start Year
REPI Tier
REPI Duration
REPI Base Year
Merchant
Y
N
N
Y
Y
High
IOU
Y
N
N
Y
Y
POU
N
N
N
Y
N
Merchant
Y
N
N
Y
Y
Low
IOU
Y
N
N
Y
Y
POU
N
N
N
Y
N
$25,000
30%
$0
$25,000
30%
$0
$25,000
30%
$0
$25,000
30%
$0
$25,000
30%
$0
$25,000
30%
$0
$25,000
30%
$0
$25,000
30%
$0
$25,000
30%
$0
15%
50%
0.019
15%
50%
0.019
15%
50%
0.019
15%
50%
0.019
15%
50%
0.019
15%
50%
0.019
15%
50%
0.019
15%
50%
0.019
15%
50%
0.019
10
2009
0.021
10
2009
0.021
10
2009
0.021
10
2009
0.021
10
2009
0.021
10
2009
0.021
10
2009
0.021
10
2009
0.021
10
2009
0.021
Tier 1
10
2009
0.021
Tier 1
10
2009
0.021
Tier 1
10
2009
0.021
Tier 1
10
2009
0.021
Tier 1
10
2009
0.021
Tier 1
10
2009
0.021
Tier 1
10
2009
0.021
Tier 1
10
2009
0.021
Tier 1
10
2009
0.021
Technology Name:
Solar - Photovoltaic (1-axis)
PLANT DATA
Gross Capacity (MW)
Station Service (%)
Net Capacity (MW)
Net Energy (GWh)
Transformer Losses
Tranmission losses
Curtailment (Hours)
Degradation Factors
Emission Factors
NOX (lbs/MWh)
VOC/ROG (Lbs/MWh)
CO (Lbs/MWh)
CO2 (lbs/MWh)
SOX (lbs/MWh)
PM10 (lbs/MWh)
Average
25
22.40%
19.40
46
0.50%
5.00%
18.34
27.00%
27.55%
90.0%
43.37
2.00%
0.00%
0
High
50
24.00%
38.00
87
0.50%
5.00%
35.92
26.00%
28.26%
100.0%
81.81
8.00%
0.00%
0
Low
15
20.00%
12.00
29
0.50%
5.00%
11.34
28.00%
28.28%
80.0%
27.82
1.00%
0.00%
0
0.50%
0.00%
1.00%
0.00%
0.25%
0.00%
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Technology Name:
Start Year
PLANT COST DATA
Average
High
Low
Start Year
PLANT COST DATA
Average
High
Low
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
1
$4,550,000
$4,959,500
100%
0%
0.955246582
$4,550,000
$4,959,500
100%
0%
0.919362587
$4,355,000
$4,746,950
100%
0%
0.889603159
$4,160,000
$4,534,400
100%
0%
0.860093106
$3,965,000
$4,321,850
100%
0%
0.832455091
$3,770,000
$4,109,300
100%
0%
0.808933193
$3,575,000
$3,896,750
100%
0%
0.787880134
$3,380,000
$3,684,200
100%
0%
0.769425285
$3,185,000
$3,471,650
100%
0%
0.753040763
$2,990,000
$3,259,100
100%
0%
0.736033428
$2,795,000
$3,046,550
100%
0%
1
$5,005,000
$5,455,450
100%
0%
0.965860094
$5,005,000
$5,455,450
100%
0%
0.938206754
$4,790,500
$5,221,645
100%
0%
0.91507518
$4,576,000
$4,987,840
100%
0%
0.891952274
$4,361,500
$4,754,035
100%
0%
0.870121997
$4,147,000
$4,520,230
100%
0%
0.851404823
$3,932,500
$4,286,425
100%
0%
0.834540533
$3,718,000
$4,052,620
100%
0%
0.819667882
$3,503,500
$3,818,815
100%
0%
0.806391416
$3,289,000
$3,585,010
100%
0%
0.792536317
$3,074,500
$3,351,205
100%
0%
1
$4,095,000
$4,463,550
100%
0.941541914
$4,095,000
$4,463,550
100%
0.895287967
$3,919,500
$4,272,255
100%
0.857357495
$3,744,000
$4,080,960
100%
0.820138277
$3,568,500
$3,889,665
100%
0.78564355
$3,393,000
$3,698,370
100%
0.756569058
$3,217,500
$3,507,075
100%
0.730771321
$3,042,000
$3,315,780
100%
0.708335425
$2,866,500
$3,124,485
100%
0.688558179
$2,691,000
$2,933,190
100%
0.668172354
$2,515,500
$2,741,895
100%
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
0.720871631
$2,600,000
$2,834,000
100%
0%
0.707222058
$2,470,000
$2,692,300
100%
0%
0.694832011
$2,340,000
$2,550,600
100%
0%
0.683505687
$2,210,000
$2,408,900
100%
0%
0.673088501
$2,080,000
$2,267,200
100%
0%
0.663456374
$1,950,000
$2,125,500
100%
0%
0.654508386
$1,820,000
$1,983,800
100%
0%
0.646161325
$1,690,000
$1,842,100
100%
0%
0.638345911
$1,560,000
$1,700,400
100%
0%
0.631003863
$1,430,000
$1,558,700
100%
0%
0.780119434
$2,860,000
$3,117,400
100%
0%
0.768886996
$2,717,000
$2,961,530
100%
0%
0.758645666
$2,574,000
$2,805,660
100%
0%
0.749244966
$2,431,000
$2,649,790
100%
0%
0.7405656
$2,288,000
$2,493,920
100%
0%
0.732511443
$2,145,000
$2,338,050
100%
0%
0.725004028
$2,002,000
$2,182,180
100%
0%
0.717978434
$1,859,000
$2,026,310
100%
0%
0.711380442
$1,716,000
$1,870,440
100%
0%
0.705164297
$1,573,000
$1,714,570
100%
0%
0.650123508
$2,340,000
$2,550,600
100%
0.633976938
$2,223,000
$2,423,070
100%
0.619405178
$2,106,000
$2,295,540
100%
0.606155975
$1,989,000
$2,168,010
100%
0.594031252
$1,872,000
$2,040,480
100%
0.582872829
$1,755,000
$1,912,950
100%
0.572552651
$1,638,000
$1,785,420
100%
0.562965602
$1,521,000
$1,657,890
100%
0.554024534
$1,404,000
$1,530,360
100%
0.545656418
$1,287,000
$1,402,830
100%
Technology Name:
Start Year
FUEL COST DATA
Fuel Use
Fuel Cost $/mmBtu)
Average
High
Low
Heat Rate (Btu/kWh)
Nominal
High
Low
Start Year
FUEL COST DATA
Fuel Use
Fuel Cost $/mmBtu)
Average
High
Low
Heat Rate (Btu/kWh)
Nominal
High
Low
Average
$68.0
$0.00
High
$92.00
$0.00
Low
$60.00
$0.00
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Technology Name:
Average
Equity
Debt Financed:
High
Equity
Debt Financed:
Low
Equity
Debt Financed:

Merchant
Capital
Cost of
Structure
Capital
40.0%
15.2%
60.0%
6.7%
9.7%
IOU
Capital
Cost of
Structure
Capital
50.0%
11.7%
50.0%
5.9%
8.6%
POU
Capital
Cost of
Structure
Capital
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
4.3%
4.3%
60.0%
40.0%
14.4%
18.0%
10.0%
55.0%
45.0%
11.9%
15.0%
9.0%
0.0%
100.0%
7.0%
0.0%
7.0%
35.0%
65.0%
8.5%
14.0%
6.0%
50.0%
50.0%
7.7%
10.0%
5.9%
0.0%
100.0%
4.0%
0.0%
4.0%
Average
15
20
20
High
20
20
20
Low
10
20
20
Technology Name:
Federal Tax
CA State Tax
Total Tax Rate
CA Sales Tax
35.00%
8.84%
40.7%
1.07%
7.00%

Average
5
20
High
5
20
Low
5
20

Eligible For BETC
Eligible For REPTC
Eligible For REPI
TDMA
Merchant
Y
N
N
Y
Y
Average
IOU
Y
N
N
Y
Y
POU
N
N
N
Y
N

BETC Limit ($)
BETC Calculation
Amount ($/kWh)
Duration (Years)
REPTC Base Year
REPTC In Start Year
REPI Tier
REPI Duration
REPI Base Year
Merchant
Y
N
N
Y
Y
High
IOU
Y
N
N
Y
Y
POU
N
N
N
Y
N
Merchant
Y
N
N
Y
Y
Low
IOU
Y
N
N
Y
Y
POU
N
N
N
Y
N
$25,000
30%
$0
$25,000
30%
$0
$25,000
30%
$0
$25,000
30%
$0
$25,000
30%
$0
$25,000
30%
$0
$25,000
30%
$0
$25,000
30%
$0
$25,000
30%
$0
15%
50%
0.019
15%
50%
0.019
15%
50%
0.019
15%
50%
0.019
15%
50%
0.019
15%
50%
0.019
15%
50%
0.019
15%
50%
0.019
15%
50%
0.019
10
2009
0.000
10
2009
0.000
10
2009
0.000
10
2009
0.000
10
2009
0.000
10
2009
0.000
10
2009
0.000
10
2009
0.000
10
2009
0.000
Tier 1
10
2009
0.021
Tier 1
10
2009
0.021
Tier 1
10
2009
0.021
Tier 1
10
2009
0.021
Tier 1
10
2009
0.021
Tier 1
10
2009
0.021
Tier 1
10
2009
0.021
Tier 1
10
2009
0.021
Tier 1
10
2009
0.021
Technology Name:

PLANT DATA
Gross Capacity (MW)
Station Service (%)
Net Capacity (MW)
Net Energy (GWh)
Transformer Losses
Tranmission losses
Curtailment (Hours)
Degradation Factors
Emission Factors
NOX (lbs/MWh)
VOC/ROG (Lbs/MWh)
CO (Lbs/MWh)
CO2 (lbs/MWh)
SOX (lbs/MWh)
PM10 (lbs/MWh)
Average
100
0.10%
99.90
368
0.50%
5.00%
94.43
42%
100.0%
43.46%
347
2.0%
1.39%
0.0
High
50
0.10%
49.95
175
0.50%
5.00%
47.22
40%
100.0%
41.88%
165
2.7%
1.83%
0.0
Low
200
0.10%
199.80
770
0.50%
5.00%
188.86
44%
100.0%
45.01%
728
1.3%
0.96%
0.0
1.00%
0
1.00%
0
1.00%
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Technology Name:

Start Year
PLANT COST DATA
Average
High
Low
1
$1,990,000
$2,331,817
5%
95%
2010
0.99855948
$2,042,773
$2,393,655
5%
95%
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
0.99855948 0.992858959 0.992858959 0.992858959 0.992426353

$2,099,971
$2,146,446
$2,206,547
$2,268,330
$2,330,827
$2,460,677
$2,515,136
$2,585,559
$2,657,955
$2,731,187
5%
5%
5%
5%
5%
95%
95%
95%
95%
95%
2016
0.98644194
$2,381,642
$2,790,730
5%
95%
2017
0.98644194
$2,448,328
$2,868,871
5%
95%
2018
2019
0.98644194 0.986325258
$2,516,881
$2,587,047
$2,949,199
$3,031,418
5%
5%
95%
95%
1 0.999680986 0.999680986 0.998415036 0.998415036 0.998415036 0.998318733 0.996983179 0.996983179 0.996983179 0.996957076
$3,025,000
$3,108,708
$3,195,752
$3,281,073
$3,372,943
$3,467,385
$3,564,128
$3,659,022
$3,761,475
$3,866,796
$3,974,962
$3,784,917
$3,889,653
$3,998,564
$4,105,318
$4,220,267
$4,338,434
$4,459,480
$4,578,213
$4,706,403
$4,838,182
$4,973,521
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
1 0.997952035 0.997952035 0.98985993 0.98985993 0.98985993 0.989246628 0.980774168 0.980774168 0.980774168 0.98060919
$1,440,000
$1,477,288
$1,518,652
$1,548,516
$1,591,874
$1,636,446
$1,681,225
$1,713,497
$1,761,475
$1,810,796
$1,861,185
$1,644,029
$1,686,601
$1,733,826
$1,767,920
$1,817,422
$1,868,310
$1,919,432
$1,956,277
$2,011,053
$2,067,362
$2,124,891
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
90%
90%
90%
90%
90%
90%
90%
90%
90%
90%
90%
Start Year
PLANT COST DATA
Average
High
Low
2009
2020
2021
2022
0.981196149 0.974971867 0.971135258

$2,614,772
$2,639,756
$2,671,438
$3,063,904
$3,093,180
$3,130,304
5%
5%
5%
95%
95%
95%
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
0.96493117 0.962109094 0.956894598 0.950522181 0.949490099 0.942596731 0.940398379

$2,696,841
$2,731,977
$2,760,645
$2,786,137
$2,827,641
$2,852,026
$2,890,901
$3,160,071
$3,201,242
$3,234,834
$3,264,704
$3,313,338
$3,341,912
$3,387,463
5%
5%
5%
5%
5%
5%
5%
95%
95%
95%
95%
95%
95%
95%
0.995807266 0.994405643 0.993538217 0.99212986 0.991486901 0.990294999 0.98883154 0.988593799 0.98700072 0.986490767
$4,033,904
$4,092,677
$4,154,533
$4,215,022
$4,279,687
$4,342,935
$4,405,902
$4,475,320
$4,539,598
$4,609,848
$5,047,269
$5,120,808
$5,198,202
$5,273,887
$5,354,797
$5,433,934
$5,512,718
$5,599,575
$5,680,000
$5,767,898
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
0.973365236 0.964595993 0.959202437 0.950499672 0.946548815 0.939261478 0.930378667 0.92894236 0.919366048 0.916318284
$1,876,995
$1,889,846
$1,909,348
$1,922,297
$1,944,935
$1,960,841
$1,973,374
$2,001,852
$2,012,915
$2,038,342
$2,142,941
$2,157,613
$2,179,877
$2,194,661
$2,220,507
$2,238,667
$2,252,975
$2,285,489
$2,298,119
$2,327,149
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
90%
90%
90%
90%
90%
90%
90%
90%
90%
90%
Technology Name:

Start Year
FUEL COST DATA
Fuel Use
Fuel Cost $/mmBtu)
Average
High
Low
Heat Rate (Btu/kWh)
Average
High
Low
Start Year
FUEL COST DATA
Fuel Use
Fuel Cost $/mmBtu)
Average
High
Low
Heat Rate (Btu/kWh)
Average
High
Low
Average
$13.70
$5.50
High
$17.13
$7.66
Low
$10.28
$4.82
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Technology Name:

Average
Equity
Debt Financed:
High
Equity
Debt Financed:
Low
Equity
Debt Financed:

Merchant
Capital
Cost of
Structure
Capital
40.0%
15.19%
60.0%
6.71%
8.46%
IOU
Capital
Cost of
Structure
Capital
50.0%
11.74%
50.0%
5.94%
7.63%
POU
Capital
Cost of
Structure
Capital
0.0%
0.00%
100.0%
4.35%
4.35%
60.0%
40.0%
13.17%
18.00%
10.00%
55.0%
45.0%
10.65%
15.00%
9.00%
0.0%
100.0%
7.00%
0.00%
7.00%
35.0%
65.0%
7.21%
14.00%
6.00%
50.0%
50.0%
6.76%
10.00%
5.94%
0.0%
100.0%
4.00%
0.00%
4.00%
Average
20
30
30
High
20
30
30
Low
20
30
30
Technology Name:

Federal Tax
CA State Tax
Total Tax Rate
CA Sales Tax
35.00%
8.84%
40.7%
1.07%
7.00%

Average
5
30
High
5
30
Low
5
30

Eligible For BETC
Eligible For REPTC
Eligible For REPI
Merchant
N
N
Y
Y
Average
IOU
N
N
Y
Y
POU
N
N
N
Y

BETC Limit ($)
BETC Calculation
Amount ($/kWh)
Duration (Years)
REPTC Base Year
REPTC In Start Year
REPI Tier
REPI Duration
REPI Base Year
Merchant
N
N
Y
Y
High
IOU
N
N
Y
Y
POU
N
N
N
Y
Merchant
N
N
Y
Y
Low
IOU
N
N
Y
Y
POU
N
N
N
Y
$25,000
25%
$0
$25,000
25%
$0
$25,000
25%
$0
$25,000
25%
$0
$25,000
25%
$0
$25,000
25%
$0
$25,000
25%
$0
$25,000
25%
$0
$25,000
25%
$0
15%
50%
0.019
15%
50%
0.019
15%
50%
0.019
15%
50%
0.019
15%
50%
0.019
15%
50%
0.019
15%
50%
0.019
15%
50%
0.019
15%
50%
0.019
10
2005
0.019
10
2005
0.019
10
2005
0.019
10
2005
0.019
10
2005
0.019
10
2005
0.019
10
2005
0.019
10
2005
0.019
10
2005
0.019
Tier 1
10
2009
0.021
Tier 1
10
2009
0.021
Tier 1
10
2009
0.021
Tier 1
10
2009
0.021
Tier 1
10
2009
0.021
Tier 1
10
2009
0.021
Tier 1
10
2009
0.021
Tier 1
10
2009
0.021
Tier 1
10
2009
0.021
Technology Name:

PLANT DATA
Gross Capacity (MW)
Station Service (%)
Net Capacity (MW)
Net Energy (GWh)
Transformer Losses
Tranmission losses
Curtailment (Hours)
Degradation Factors
Emission Factors
NOX (lbs/MWh)
VOC/ROG (Lbs/MWh)
CO (Lbs/MWh)
CO2 (lbs/MWh)
SOX (lbs/MWh)
PM10 (lbs/MWh)
Average
50
0.10%
49.95
162
0.50%
5.00%
47.22
37%
100.0%
38.29%
153
2.0%
1.39%
0.0
High
30
0.10%
29.97
108
0.50%
5.00%
28.33
41%
100.0%
42.92%
102
2.7%
1.83%
0.0
Low
100
0.10%
99.90
298
0.50%
5.00%
94.43
34%
100.0%
34.78%
281
1.3%
0.96%
0.0
1.00%
0
1.00%
0
1.00%
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Technology Name:

Start Year
PLANT COST DATA
Average
High
Low
1
$1,990,000
$2,331,817
5%
95%
2010
0.99855948
$2,042,773
$2,393,655
5%
95%
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
0.99855948 0.992858959 0.992858959 0.992858959 0.992426353

$2,099,971
$2,146,446
$2,206,547
$2,268,330
$2,330,827
$2,460,677
$2,515,136
$2,585,559
$2,657,955
$2,731,187
5%
5%
5%
5%
5%
95%
95%
95%
95%
95%
2016
0.98644194
$2,381,642
$2,790,730
5%
95%
2017
0.98644194
$2,448,328
$2,868,871
5%
95%
2018
2019
0.98644194 0.986325258
$2,516,881
$2,587,047
$2,949,199
$3,031,418
5%
5%
95%
95%
1 0.999680986 0.999680986 0.998415036 0.998415036 0.998415036 0.998318733 0.996983179 0.996983179 0.996983179 0.996957076
$3,025,000
$3,108,708
$3,195,752
$3,281,073
$3,372,943
$3,467,385
$3,564,128
$3,659,022
$3,761,475
$3,866,796
$3,974,962
$3,784,917
$3,889,653
$3,998,564
$4,105,318
$4,220,267
$4,338,434
$4,459,480
$4,578,213
$4,706,403
$4,838,182
$4,973,521
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
1 0.997952035 0.997952035 0.98985993 0.98985993 0.98985993 0.989246628 0.980774168 0.980774168 0.980774168 0.98060919
$1,440,000
$1,477,288
$1,518,652
$1,548,516
$1,591,874
$1,636,446
$1,681,225
$1,713,497
$1,761,475
$1,810,796
$1,861,185
$1,644,029
$1,686,601
$1,733,826
$1,767,920
$1,817,422
$1,868,310
$1,919,432
$1,956,277
$2,011,053
$2,067,362
$2,124,891
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
90%
90%
90%
90%
90%
90%
90%
90%
90%
90%
90%
Start Year
PLANT COST DATA
Average
High
Low
2009
2020
2021
2022
0.981196149 0.974971867 0.971135258

$2,614,772
$2,639,756
$2,671,438
$3,063,904
$3,093,180
$3,130,304
5%
5%
5%
95%
95%
95%
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
0.96493117 0.962109094 0.956894598 0.950522181 0.949490099 0.942596731 0.940398379

$2,696,841
$2,731,977
$2,760,645
$2,786,137
$2,827,641
$2,852,026
$2,890,901
$3,160,071
$3,201,242
$3,234,834
$3,264,704
$3,313,338
$3,341,912
$3,387,463
5%
5%
5%
5%
5%
5%
5%
95%
95%
95%
95%
95%
95%
95%
0.995807266 0.994405643 0.993538217 0.99212986 0.991486901 0.990294999 0.98883154 0.988593799 0.98700072 0.986490767
$4,033,904
$4,092,677
$4,154,533
$4,215,022
$4,279,687
$4,342,935
$4,405,902
$4,475,320
$4,539,598
$4,609,848
$5,047,269
$5,120,808
$5,198,202
$5,273,887
$5,354,797
$5,433,934
$5,512,718
$5,599,575
$5,680,000
$5,767,898
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
0.973365236 0.964595993 0.959202437 0.950499672 0.946548815 0.939261478 0.930378667 0.92894236 0.919366048 0.916318284
$1,876,995
$1,889,846
$1,909,348
$1,922,297
$1,944,935
$1,960,841
$1,973,374
$2,001,852
$2,012,915
$2,038,342
$2,142,941
$2,157,613
$2,179,877
$2,194,661
$2,220,507
$2,238,667
$2,252,975
$2,285,489
$2,298,119
$2,327,149
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
90%
90%
90%
90%
90%
90%
90%
90%
90%
90%
Technology Name:

Start Year
FUEL COST DATA
Fuel Use
Fuel Cost $/mmBtu)
Average
High
Low
Heat Rate (Btu/kWh)
Average
High
Low
Start Year
FUEL COST DATA
Fuel Use
Fuel Cost $/mmBtu)
Average
High
Low
Heat Rate (Btu/kWh)
Average
High
Low
Average
$13.70
$5.50
High
$17.13
$7.66
Low
$10.28
$4.82
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Technology Name:

Average
Equity
Debt Financed:
High
Equity
Debt Financed:
Low
Equity
Debt Financed:

Merchant
Capital
Cost of
Structure
Capital
40.0%
15.19%
60.0%
6.71%
8.46%
IOU
Capital
Cost of
Structure
Capital
50.0%
11.74%
50.0%
5.94%
7.63%
POU
Capital
Cost of
Structure
Capital
0.0%
0.00%
100.0%
4.35%
4.35%
60.0%
40.0%
13.17%
18.00%
10.00%
55.0%
45.0%
10.65%
15.00%
9.00%
0.0%
100.0%
7.00%
0.00%
7.00%
35.0%
65.0%
7.21%
14.00%
6.00%
50.0%
50.0%
6.76%
10.00%
5.94%
0.0%
100.0%
4.00%
0.00%
4.00%
Average
20
30
30
High
20
30
30
Low
20
30
30
Technology Name:

Federal Tax
CA State Tax
Total Tax Rate
CA Sales Tax
35.00%
8.84%
40.7%
1.07%
7.00%

Average
5
30
High
5
30
Low
5
30

Eligible For BETC
Eligible For REPTC
Eligible For REPI
Merchant
N
N
Y
Y
Average
IOU
N
N
Y
Y
POU
N
N
N
Y

BETC Limit ($)
BETC Calculation
Amount ($/kWh)
Duration (Years)
REPTC Base Year
REPTC In Start Year
REPI Tier
REPI Duration
REPI Base Year
Merchant
N
N
Y
Y
High
IOU
N
N
Y
Y
POU
N
N
N
Y
Merchant
N
N
Y
Y
Low
IOU
N
N
Y
Y
POU
N
N
N
Y
$25,000
25%
$0
$25,000
25%
$0
$25,000
25%
$0
$25,000
25%
$0
$25,000
25%
$0
$25,000
25%
$0
$25,000
25%
$0
$25,000
25%
$0
$25,000
25%
$0
15%
50%
0.021
15%
50%
0.021
15%
50%
0.021
15%
50%
0.021
15%
50%
0.021
15%
50%
0.021
15%
50%
0.021
15%
50%
0.021
15%
50%
0.021
10
2009
0.021
10
2009
0.021
10
2009
0.021
10
2009
0.021
10
2009
0.021
10
2009
0.021
10
2009
0.021
10
2009
0.021
10
2009
0.021
Tier 1
10
2009
0.021
Tier 1
10
2009
0.021
Tier 1
10
2009
0.021
Tier 1
10
2009
0.021
Tier 1
10
2009
0.021
Tier 1
10
2009
0.021
Tier 1
10
2009
0.021
Tier 1
10
2009
0.021
Tier 1
10
2009
0.021
Technology Name:

PLANT DATA
Gross Capacity (MW)
Station Service (%)
Net Capacity (MW)
Net Energy (GWh)
Transformer Losses
Tranmission losses
Curtailment (Hours)
Degradation Factors
Emission Factors
NOX (lbs/MWh)
VOC/ROG (Lbs/MWh)
CO (Lbs/MWh)
CO2 (lbs/MWh)
SOX (lbs/MWh)
PM10 (lbs/MWh)
Average
100
0.10%
99.90
394
0.50%
5.00%
94.43
45%
100.0%
47.15%
372
2.0%
2.62%
0.0
High
50
0.10%
49.95
184
0.50%
5.00%
47.22
42%
100.0%
44.63%
174
2.7%
3.29%
0.0
Low
350
0.10%
349.65
1470
0.50%
5.00%
330.51
48%
100.0%
49.60%
1390
1.3%
1.96%
0.0
1.00%
0
1.00%
0
1.00%
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Technology Name:

Start Year
PLANT COST DATA
Average
High
Low
2010
2011
1 0.931857019 0.891021848
$5,587,937
$5,284,651
$5,134,323
$6,547,763
$6,192,382
$6,016,232
5%
5%
5%
95%
95%
95%
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
0.85855458 0.826608704 0.798099338 0.772699122 0.748455365

$5,022,499
$4,912,766
$4,816,651
$4,737,886
$4,663,611
$5,885,201
$5,756,620
$5,643,994
$5,551,701
$5,464,668
5%
5%
5%
5%
5%
95%
95%
95%
95%
95%
2017
0.72529479
$4,592,277
$5,381,081
5%
95%
2018
0.70181175
$4,515,023
$5,290,557
5%
95%
2019
0.67858922
$4,435,474
$5,197,344
5%
95%
1.00000
0.97506
0.95955
0.94689
0.93413
0.92247
0.91186
0.90151
0.89143
0.88099
0.87045
$5,587,937
$5,529,669
$5,529,209
$5,539,259
$5,551,790
$5,567,248
$5,591,138
$5,617,310
$5,644,175
$5,667,760
$5,689,522
$6,991,695
$6,918,789
$6,918,214
$6,930,788
$6,946,467
$6,965,809
$6,995,700
$7,028,447
$7,062,061
$7,091,570
$7,118,800
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
1 0.920587662 0.873472411 0.836275958 0.799912775 0.767664996 0.739100692 0.711987429 0.686226537 0.660251412 0.634711382
$5,587,937
$5,220,742
$5,033,198
$4,892,170
$4,754,105
$4,632,975
$4,531,874
$4,436,380
$4,344,912
$4,247,649
$4,148,674
$6,379,675
$5,960,453
$5,746,336
$5,585,327
$5,427,700
$5,289,407
$5,173,981
$5,064,958
$4,960,530
$4,849,486
$4,736,487
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
90%
90%
90%
90%
90%
90%
90%
90%
90%
90%
90%
Start Year
PLANT COST DATA
Average
High
Low
2009
2020
2021
0.656668505 0.638029178
$4,360,868
$4,304,879
$5,109,923
$5,044,318
5%
5%
95%
95%
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
0.62220396 0.608458307 0.596311246 0.585431062 0.575684613

$4,265,274
$4,237,783
$4,219,632
$4,208,924
$4,205,074
$4,997,909
$4,965,696
$4,944,427
$4,931,880
$4,927,369
5%
5%
5%
5%
5%
95%
95%
95%
95%
95%
2027
2028
2029
0.56685994 0.558799059 0.551381156

$4,206,864
$4,213,394
$4,223,982
$4,929,466
$4,937,118
$4,949,524
5%
5%
5%
95%
95%
95%
0.86028
0.85146
0.84384
0.83712
0.83111
0.82565
0.82070
0.81618
0.81201
0.80813
$5,713,030
$5,744,936
$5,784,632
$5,830,392
$5,881,086
$5,935,941
$5,994,794
$6,057,135
$6,122,590
$6,190,876
$7,148,213
$7,188,134
$7,237,802
$7,295,057
$7,358,487
$7,427,121
$7,500,759
$7,578,761
$7,660,659
$7,746,100
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
0.610740874 0.590466668 0.573333261 0.558512108 0.545462544 0.533812803 0.523408613 0.514014553 0.505455562 0.497598059
$4,055,867
$3,983,968
$3,930,260
$3,889,918
$3,859,815
$3,837,817
$3,823,225
$3,814,680
$3,811,179
$3,811,964
$4,630,531
$4,548,444
$4,487,127
$4,441,069
$4,406,701
$4,381,586
$4,364,926
$4,355,170
$4,351,174
$4,352,070
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
90%
90%
90%
90%
90%
90%
90%
90%
90%
90%
Technology Name:

Start Year
FUEL COST DATA
Fuel Use
Fuel Cost $/mmBtu)
Average
High
Low
Heat Rate (Btu/kWh)
Average
High
Low
Start Year
FUEL COST DATA
Fuel Use
Fuel Cost $/mmBtu)
Average
High
Low
Heat Rate (Btu/kWh)
Average
High
Low
Average
$27.40
$11.00
High
$34.25
$15.32
Low
$20.55
$9.64
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Technology Name:

Average
Equity
Debt Financed:
High
Equity
Debt Financed:
Low
Equity
Debt Financed:

Merchant
Capital
Cost of
Structure
Capital
40.0%
15.19%
60.0%
6.71%
8.46%
IOU
Capital
Cost of
Structure
Capital
50.0%
11.74%
50.0%
5.94%
7.63%
POU
Capital
Cost of
Structure
Capital
0.0%
0.00%
100.0%
4.35%
4.35%
60.0%
40.0%
13.17%
18.00%
10.00%
55.0%
45.0%
10.65%
15.00%
9.00%
0.0%
100.0%
7.00%
0.00%
7.00%
35.0%
65.0%
7.21%
14.00%
6.00%
50.0%
50.0%
6.76%
10.00%
5.94%
0.0%
100.0%
4.00%
0.00%
4.00%
Average
20
30
30
High
20
30
30
Low
20
30
30
Technology Name:

Federal Tax
CA State Tax
Total Tax Rate
CA Sales Tax
35.00%
8.84%
40.7%
1.07%
7.00%

Average
5
30
High
5
30
Low
5
30

Eligible For BETC
Eligible For REPTC
Eligible For REPI
Merchant
N
N
Y
Y
Average
IOU
N
N
Y
Y
POU
N
N
N
Y

BETC Limit ($)
BETC Calculation
Amount ($/kWh)
Duration (Years)
REPTC Base Year
REPTC In Start Year
REPI Tier
REPI Duration
REPI Base Year
Merchant
N
N
Y
Y
High
IOU
N
N
Y
Y
POU
N
N
N
Y
Merchant
N
N
Y
Y
Low
IOU
N
N
Y
Y
POU
N
N
N
Y
$25,000
25%
$0
$25,000
25%
$0
$25,000
25%
$0
$25,000
25%
$0
$25,000
25%
$0
$25,000
25%
$0
$25,000
25%
$0
$25,000
25%
$0
$25,000
25%
$0
15%
50%
0.019
15%
50%
0.019
15%
50%
0.019
15%
50%
0.019
15%
50%
0.019
15%
50%
0.019
15%
50%
0.019
15%
50%
0.019
15%
50%
0.019
10
2009
0.021
10
2009
0.021
10
2009
0.021
10
2009
0.021
10
2009
0.021
10
2009
0.021
10
2009
0.021
10
2009
0.021
10
2009
0.021
Tier 1
10
2006
0.000
Tier 1
10
2006
0.000
Tier 1
10
2006
0.000
Tier 1
10
2006
0.000
Tier 1
10
2006
0.000
Tier 1
10
2006
0.000
Tier 1
10
2006
0.000
Tier 1
10
2006
0.000
Tier 1
10
2006
0.000
Technology Name:
Ocean Wave

PLANT DATA
Gross Capacity (MW)
Station Service (%)
Net Capacity (MW)
Net Energy (GWh)
Transformer Losses
Tranmission losses
Curtailment (Hours)
Degradation Factors
Emission Factors
NOX (lbs/MWh)
VOC/ROG (Lbs/MWh)
CO (Lbs/MWh)
CO2 (lbs/MWh)
SOX (lbs/MWh)
PM10 (lbs/MWh)
Average
40
1.00%
39.60
90
0.50%
5.00%
37.43
26.00%
100.0%
30.24%
85
5.1%
9.40%
0.0
High
5
1.00%
4.95
9
0.50%
5.00%
4.68
21.00%
100.0%
24.87%
9
6.7%
9.56%
0.0
Low
100
1.00%
99.00
260
0.50%
5.00%
93.58
30.00%
100.0%
34.34%
246
3.8%
9.20%
0.0
1.00%
0
1.00%
0
1.00%
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Technology Name:
Ocean Wave

Start Year
PLANT COST DATA
Average
High
Low
Start Year
PLANT COST DATA
Average
High
Low
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
$2,586,645
$2,696,059
100%
$2,625,140
$2,736,182
100%
$2,667,351
$2,780,179
100%
$2,707,929
$2,822,473
100%
$2,751,132
$2,867,504
100%
$2,793,660
$2,911,831
100%
$2,838,308
$2,958,367
100%
$2,884,309
$3,006,314
100%
$2,930,886
$3,054,861
100%
$2,978,000
$3,103,968
100%
$3,029,989
$3,158,157
100%
$2,854,169
$3,485,311
40%
60%
$2,896,645
$3,537,179
40%
60%
$2,943,222
$3,594,056
40%
60%
$2,987,997
$3,648,732
40%
60%
$3,035,669
$3,706,945
40%
60%
$3,082,595
$3,764,248
40%
60%
$3,131,861
$3,824,408
40%
60%
$3,182,619
$3,886,391
40%
60%
$3,234,013
$3,949,149
40%
60%
$3,286,000
$4,012,632
40%
60%
$3,029,989
$3,700,010
40%
60%
$2,365,156
$2,450,431
100%
$2,400,354
$2,486,898
100%
$2,438,951
$2,526,886
100%
$2,476,055
$2,565,328
100%
$2,515,559
$2,606,256
100%
$2,554,445
$2,646,544
100%
$2,595,270
$2,688,841
100%
$2,637,332
$2,732,419
100%
$2,679,920
$2,776,543
100%
$2,723,000
$2,821,176
100%
$3,029,989
$3,139,234
100%
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
$3,081,979
$3,212,345
100%
$3,133,968
$3,266,534
100%
$3,185,958
$3,320,722
100%
$3,237,947
$3,374,911
100%
$3,289,936
$3,429,099
100%
$3,341,926
$3,483,288
100%
$3,393,915
$3,537,476
100%
$3,445,904
$3,591,665
100%
$3,497,894
$3,645,853
100%
$3,549,883
$3,700,042
100%
$3,081,979
$3,763,496
40%
60%
$3,133,968
$3,826,982
40%
60%
$3,185,958
$3,890,468
40%
60%
$3,237,947
$3,953,953
40%
60%
$3,289,936
$4,017,439
40%
60%
$3,341,926
$4,080,925
40%
60%
$3,393,915
$4,144,411
40%
60%
$3,445,904
$4,207,896
40%
60%
$3,497,894
$4,271,382
40%
60%
$3,549,883
$4,334,868
40%
60%
$3,081,979
$3,193,098
100%
$3,133,968
$3,246,962
100%
$3,185,958
$3,300,826
100%
$3,237,947
$3,354,690
100%
$3,289,936
$3,408,553
100%
$3,341,926
$3,462,417
100%
$3,393,915
$3,516,281
100%
$3,445,904
$3,570,145
100%
$3,497,894
$3,624,009
100%
$3,549,883
$3,677,873
100%
Technology Name:
Ocean Wave

Start Year
FUEL COST DATA
Fuel Use
Fuel Cost $/mmBtu)
Average
High
Low
Heat Rate (Btu/kWh)
Average
High
Low
Start Year
FUEL COST DATA
Fuel Use
Fuel Cost $/mmBtu)
Average
High
Low
Heat Rate (Btu/kWh)
Average
High
Low
Average
$36.00
$12.00
High
$43.00
$14.00
Low
$27.00
$9.00
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Technology Name:
Ocean Wave

Average
Equity
Debt Financed:
High
Equity
Debt Financed:
Low
Equity
Debt Financed:

Merchant
Capital
Cost of
Structure
Capital
40.0%
15.19%
60.0%
6.71%
8.46%
IOU
Capital
Cost of
Structure
Capital
50.0%
11.74%
50.0%
5.94%
7.63%
POU
Capital
Cost of
Structure
Capital
0.0%
0.00%
100.0%
4.35%
4.35%
60.0%
40.0%
13.17%
18.00%
10.00%
55.0%
45.0%
10.65%
15.00%
9.00%
0.0%
100.0%
7.00%
0.00%
7.00%
35.0%
65.0%
7.21%
14.00%
6.00%
50.0%
50.0%
6.76%
10.00%
5.94%
0.0%
100.0%
4.00%
0.00%
4.00%
Average
20
30
30
High
20
30
30
Low
20
30
30
Technology Name:
Ocean Wave

Federal Tax
CA State Tax
Total Tax Rate
CA Sales Tax
35.00%
8.84%
40.7%
1.07%
7.00%

Average
5
30
High
5
30
Low
5
30

Eligible For BETC
Eligible For REPTC
Eligible For REPI
Merchant
N
N
Y
N
Average
IOU
N
N
Y
N
POU
N
N
N
Y

BETC Limit ($)
BETC Calculation
Amount ($/kWh)
Duration (Years)
REPTC Base Year
REPTC In Start Year
REPI Tier
REPI Duration
REPI Base Year
Merchant
N
N
Y
N
High
IOU
N
N
Y
N
POU
N
N
N
Y
Merchant
N
N
Y
N
Low
IOU
N
N
Y
N
POU
N
N
N
Y
$25,000
25%
$0
$25,000
25%
$0
$25,000
25%
$0
$25,000
25%
$0
$25,000
25%
$0
$25,000
25%
$0
$25,000
25%
$0
$25,000
25%
$0
$25,000
25%
$0
15%
50%
0.019
15%
50%
0.019
15%
50%
0.019
15%
50%
0.019
15%
50%
0.019
15%
50%
0.019
15%
50%
0.019
15%
50%
0.019
15%
50%
0.019
10
2005
0.019
10
2005
0.019
10
2005
0.019
10
2005
0.019
10
2005
0.019
10
2005
0.019
10
2005
0.019
10
2005
0.019
10
2005
0.019
Tier 1
10
2006
0.000
Tier 1
10
2006
0.000
Tier 1
10
2006
0.000
Tier 1
10
2006
0.000
Tier 1
10
2006
0.000
Tier 1
10
2006
0.000
Tier 1
10
2006
0.000
Tier 1
10
2006
0.000
Tier 1
10
2006
0.000
Technology Name:
Coal - IGCC

PLANT DATA
Gross Capacity (MW)
Station Service (%)
Net Capacity (MW)
Net Energy (GWh)
Transformer Losses
Tranmission losses
Curtailment (Hours)
Degradation Factors
Emission Factors
NOX (lbs/MWh)
VOC/ROG (Lbs/MWh)
CO (Lbs/MWh)
CO2 (lbs/MWh)
SOX (lbs/MWh)
PM10 (lbs/MWh)
Average
300
6.00%
282.00
1976
0.50%
5.00%
266.56
80.00%
84.21%
100.0%
1868.06
5.00%
15.00%
0
High
300
7.00%
279.00
1711
0.50%
5.00%
263.72
70.00%
97.65%
100.0%
1617.16
7.50%
22.50%
0
Low
600
5.00%
570.00
4494
0.50%
5.00%
538.79
90.00%
99.79%
100.0%
4247.84
2.50%
7.50%
0
0.05%
0.10%
0.10%
0.20%
0.00%
0.10%
0.220
0.009
0.079
1532.000
0.063
0.031
0.314
0.009
0.079
1631.000
0.094
0.031
0.126
0.009
0.079
1433.000
0.031
0.031
Technology Name:
Coal - IGCC

Start Year
PLANT COST DATA
Average
High
Low
Start Year
PLANT COST DATA
Average
High
Low
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
1
$2,250,000
$2,517,373
80%
20%
0.996056451
$2,283,735
$2,565,233
80%
20%
0.992128453
$2,317,976
$2,614,003
80%
20%
0.988215946
$2,352,730
$2,663,700
80%
20%
0.984318868
$2,388,005
$2,714,342
80%
20%
0.980437158
$2,423,809
$2,765,946
80%
20%
0.976570756
$2,460,150
$2,818,532
80%
20%
0.972719601
$2,497,036
$2,872,118
80%
20%
0.968883633
$2,534,475
$2,926,722
80%
20%
0.965062793
$2,572,475
$2,982,364
80%
20%
0.96125702
$2,611,045
$3,039,065
80%
20%
1
$2,800,000
$3,389,673
60%
40%
0%
1
$1,700,000
$1,874,918
80%
20%
1.00217739
$2,859,446
$3,454,117
60%
40%
0%
0.989942125
$1,714,897
$1,910,563
80%
1.004359521
$2,920,154
$3,519,786
60%
40%
0%
0.979985411
$1,729,924
$1,946,887
80%
1.006546404
$2,982,150
$3,586,704
60%
40%
0%
0.970128841
$1,745,083
$1,983,901
80%
1.008738048
$3,045,463
$3,654,894
60%
40%
0%
0.960371406
$1,760,375
$2,021,618
80%
1.010934464
$3,110,121
$3,724,380
60%
40%
0%
0.950712111
$1,775,800
$2,060,053
80%
1.013135663
$3,176,150
$3,795,188
60%
40%
0%
0.941149968
$1,791,361
$2,099,218
80%
1.015341655
$3,243,582
$3,867,341
60%
40%
0%
0.931683999
$1,807,059
$2,139,128
80%
1.01755245
$3,312,445
$3,940,866
60%
40%
0%
0.922313238
$1,822,893
$2,179,797
80%
1.019768058
$3,382,771
$4,015,790
60%
40%
0%
0.913036727
$1,838,867
$2,221,239
80%
1.021988491
$3,454,589
$4,092,137
60%
40%
0%
0.903853518
$1,854,980
$2,263,469
80%
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
0.957466256
$2,650,194
$3,096,843
80%
20%
0.953690441
$2,689,929
$3,155,720
80%
20%
0.949929516
$2,730,260
$3,215,716
80%
20%
0.946183422
$2,771,196
$3,276,852
80%
20%
0.942452101
$2,812,745
$3,339,152
80%
20%
0.938735495
$2,854,917
$3,402,635
80%
20%
0.935033545
$2,897,722
$3,467,325
80%
20%
0.931346194
$2,941,169
$3,533,246
80%
20%
0.927673385
$2,985,267
$3,600,419
80%
20%
0.924015059
$3,030,026
$3,668,870
80%
20%
1.024213759
$3,527,932
$4,169,936
60%
40%
0%
0.894762672
$1,871,235
$2,306,502
80%
1.026443872
$3,602,833
$4,249,215
60%
40%
0%
0.885763261
$1,887,632
$2,350,353
80%
1.028678841
$3,679,323
$4,330,000
60%
40%
0%
0.876854365
$1,904,173
$2,395,037
80%
1.030918676
$3,757,437
$4,412,321
60%
40%
0%
0.868035074
$1,920,859
$2,440,571
80%
1.033163388
$3,837,210
$4,496,208
60%
40%
0%
0.859304486
$1,937,691
$2,486,971
80%
1.035412988
$3,918,677
$4,581,689
60%
40%
0%
0.850661709
$1,954,671
$2,534,253
80%
1.037667486
$4,001,873
$4,668,795
60%
40%
0%
0.84210586
$1,971,799
$2,582,434
80%
1.039926893
$4,086,835
$4,757,558
60%
40%
0%
0.833636065
$1,989,077
$2,631,531
80%
1.042191219
$4,173,601
$4,848,008
60%
40%
0%
0.825251458
$2,006,507
$2,681,561
80%
1.044460476
$4,262,209
$4,940,178
60%
40%
0%
0.816951182
$2,024,090
$2,732,542
80%
Technology Name:
Coal - IGCC

Start Year
FUEL COST DATA
Fuel Use
Fuel Cost $/mmBtu)
Average
High
Low
Heat Rate (Btu/kWh)
Nominal
High
Low
High
$52.00
$8.33
Low
$31.67
$5.00
2009
2010
2011
15,936,192
Start Year
FUEL COST DATA
Fuel Use
Fuel Cost $/mmBtu)
Average
High
Low
Heat Rate (Btu/kWh)
Nominal
High
Low
Average
$41.7
$6.67
15,915,168
15,894,144
2012
15,873,120
2013
15,852,096
2014
15,831,072
2015
15,810,048
2016
15,789,024
2017
15,768,000
2018
15,746,976
2019
15,725,952
$1.80
$3.13
$1.31
$2.10
$3.65
$1.53
$2.15
$3.74
$1.57
$2.20
$3.82
$1.60
$2.24
$3.90
$1.64
$2.29
$3.99
$1.67
$2.34
$4.07
$1.71
$2.39
$4.15
$1.74
$2.43
$4.23
$1.78
$2.48
$4.31
$1.81
$2.52
$4.39
$1.84
7580
8025
7100
7570
8015
7090
7560
8005
7080
7550
7995
7070
7540
7985
7060
7530
7975
7050
7520
7965
7040
7510
7955
7030
7500
7945
7020
7490
7935
7010
7480
7925
7000
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
15,704,928
15,683,904
15,662,880
15,641,856
15,620,832
15,599,808
15,578,784
15,557,760
15,536,736
15,515,712
$2.57
$4.47
$1.88
$2.61
$4.55
$1.91
$2.66
$4.62
$1.94
$2.70
$4.70
$1.97
$2.75
$4.78
$2.00
$2.79
$4.85
$2.04
$2.84
$4.95
$2.08
$2.90
$5.04
$2.11
$2.95
$5.14
$2.16
$3.01
$5.23
$2.20
7470
7915
6990
7460
7905
6980
7450
7895
6970
7440
7885
6960
7430
7875
6950
7420
7865
6940
7410
7855
6930
7400
7845
6920
7390
7835
6910
7380
7825
6900
Technology Name:
Coal - IGCC

Average
Equity
Debt Financed:
High
Equity
Debt Financed:
Low
Equity
Debt Financed:

Merchant
Capital
Cost of
Structure
Capital
40.0%
15.2%
60.0%
6.7%
9.7%
IOU
Capital
Cost of
Structure
Capital
50.0%
11.7%
50.0%
5.9%
8.6%
POU
Capital
Cost of
Structure
Capital
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
4.3%
4.3%
60.0%
40.0%
14.4%
18.0%
10.0%
55.0%
45.0%
11.9%
15.0%
9.0%
0.0%
100.0%
7.0%
0.0%
7.0%
35.0%
65.0%
8.5%
14.0%
6.0%
50.0%
50.0%
7.7%
10.0%
5.9%
0.0%
100.0%
4.0%
0.0%
4.0%
Average
15
40
20
High
20
40
20
Low
10
40
20
Technology Name:
Coal - IGCC

Federal Tax
CA State Tax
Total Tax Rate
CA Sales Tax
35.00%
8.84%
40.7%
1.07%
7.00%

Average
15
20
High
15
20
Low
15
20

Eligible For BETC
Eligible For REPTC
Eligible For REPI
TDMA
Merchant
N
N
N
N
Y
Average
IOU
N
N
N
N
Y
POU
N
N
N
N
N

BETC Limit ($)
BETC Calculation
Amount ($/kWh)
Duration (Years)
REPTC Base Year
REPTC In Start Year
REPI Tier
REPI Duration
REPI Base Year
Merchant
N
N
N
N
Y
High
IOU
N
N
N
N
Y
POU
N
N
N
N
N
Merchant
N
N
N
N
Y
Low
IOU
N
N
N
N
Y
POU
N
N
N
N
N
$25,000
25%
$0
$25,000
25%
$0
$25,000
25%
$0
$25,000
25%
$0
$25,000
25%
$0
$25,000
25%
$0
$25,000
25%
$0
$25,000
25%
$0
$25,000
25%
$0
15%
50%
0.019
15%
50%
0.019
15%
50%
0.019
15%
50%
0.019
15%
50%
0.019
15%
50%
0.019
15%
50%
0.019
15%
50%
0.019
15%
50%
0.019
10
2005
0.019
10
2005
0.019
10
2005
0.019
10
2005
0.019
10
2005
0.019
10
2005
0.019
10
2005
0.019
10
2005
0.019
10
2005
0.019
Tier 1
10
2006
0.000
Tier 1
10
2006
0.000
Tier 1
10
2006
0.000
Tier 1
10
2006
0.000
Tier 1
10
2006
0.000
Tier 1
10
2006
0.000
Tier 1
10
2006
0.000
Tier 1
10
2006
0.000
Tier 1
10
2006
0.000
Technology Name:
Nuclear Reactor - WESTINGHOUSE AP 1000

Year=2009
PLANT DATA
Average
Gross Capacity (MW)
960
Station Service (%)
2.20%
Net Capacity (MW)
938.88
Net Energy (GWh)
7081
Transformer Losses
0.60%
Tranmission losses
1.70%
917.38
86.10%
88.51%
91.0%
6919.22
2.72%
11.12%
Curtailment (% or Hours)
Degradation Factors
0.20%
0.20%
Emission Factors
NOX (lbs/MWh)
0.000
VOC/ROG (Lbs/MWh)
0.000
CO (Lbs/MWh)
0.000
CO2 (lbs/MWh)
0.000
SOX (lbs/MWh)
0.000
PM10 (lbs/MWh)
0.000
High
900
3.00%
873.00
6202
0.70%
2.00%
849.55
81.10%
99.46%
95.0%
6035.52
2.93%
16.00%
-
Low
1117
1.50%
1100.25
8906
0.50%
1.40%
1,079.42
92.40%
99.82%
87.0%
8737.06
2.59%
4.97%
-
0.20%
0.20%
0.20%
0.20%
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Technology Name:

Start Year
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
PLANT COST DATA
THESE ARE START YEAR VALUES. THE COSTS CHANGE EACH YEAR DUE TO CHANGES IN TECHNOLOGY COSTS.
Average
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 0.996023857 0.979874265
Capital Cost per KW US
$4,000,000
$4,259,528
$4,540,996
$4,837,128
$5,156,157
$5,493,670
$5,856,153
$6,219,046
$6,522,919
Installed Cost US$/KW) Projected
$6,039,075
$6,430,902
$6,855,854
$7,302,944
$7,784,605
$8,294,172
$8,841,437
$9,389,322
$9,848,099
% Year0 (Last Year of Contruction)
2.5%
2.5%
2.5%
2.5%
2.5%
2.5%
2.5%
2.5%
2.5%
% Year1 (Next to Last Year of Contruction)
2.0%
2.0%
2.0%
2.0%
2.0%
2.0%
2.0%
2.0%
2.0%
% Year2 (2 years Before Last Year)
7.0%
7.0%
7.0%
7.0%
7.0%
7.0%
7.0%
7.0%
7.0%
% Year3 (3rd years Before Last Year)
15.5%
15.5%
15.5%
15.5%
15.5%
15.5%
15.5%
15.5%
15.5%
% Year4 (4th Year before Last Year)
22.0%
22.0%
22.0%
22.0%
22.0%
22.0%
22.0%
22.0%
22.0%
21.0%
21.0%
21.0%
21.0%
21.0%
21.0%
21.0%
21.0%
21.0%
18.0%
18.0%
18.0%
18.0%
18.0%
18.0%
18.0%
18.0%
18.0%
10.0%
10.0%
10.0%
10.0%
10.0%
10.0%
10.0%
10.0%
10.0%
2.0%
2.0%
2.0%
2.0%
2.0%
2.0%
2.0%
2.0%
2.0%
2018
2019
0.974109281
$6,913,009
$10,437,045
2.5%
2.0%
7.0%
15.5%
22.0%
21.0%
18.0%
10.0%
2.0%
0.967761131
$7,183,374
$10,845,233
2.5%
2.0%
7.0%
15.5%
22.0%
21.0%
18.0%
10.0%
2.0%
High
1
$5,000,000
$8,847,984
2.5%
2.0%
7.0%
15.5%
22.0%
21.0%
18.0%
10.0%
2.0%
1
$5,424,410
$9,599,018
2.5%
2.0%
7.0%
15.5%
22.0%
21.0%
18.0%
10.0%
2.0%
1
$5,891,341
$10,425,299
2.5%
2.0%
7.0%
15.5%
22.0%
21.0%
18.0%
10.0%
2.0%
1
$6,393,360
$11,313,669
2.5%
2.0%
7.0%
15.5%
22.0%
21.0%
18.0%
10.0%
2.0%
1
$6,942,897
$12,286,128
2.5%
2.0%
7.0%
15.5%
22.0%
21.0%
18.0%
10.0%
2.0%
1
$7,536,225
$13,336,079
2.5%
2.0%
7.0%
15.5%
22.0%
21.0%
18.0%
10.0%
2.0%
1
$8,184,204
$14,482,740
2.5%
2.0%
7.0%
15.5%
22.0%
21.0%
18.0%
10.0%
2.0%
0.996786884
$8,861,177
$15,680,710
2.5%
2.0%
7.0%
15.5%
22.0%
21.0%
18.0%
10.0%
2.0%
0.983710945
$9,498,296
$16,808,154
2.5%
2.0%
7.0%
15.5%
22.0%
21.0%
18.0%
10.0%
2.0%
0.979033168
$10,266,809
$18,168,111
2.5%
2.0%
7.0%
15.5%
22.0%
21.0%
18.0%
10.0%
2.0%
0.973876043
$10,886,009
$19,263,846
2.5%
2.0%
7.0%
15.5%
22.0%
21.0%
18.0%
10.0%
2.0%
Low
1
$3,000,000
$4,324,384
2.5%
2.0%
7.0%
15.5%
22.0%
21.0%
18.0%
10.0%
2.0%
1
$3,134,646
$4,518,471
2.5%
2.0%
7.0%
15.5%
22.0%
21.0%
18.0%
10.0%
2.0%
1
$3,279,089
$4,726,680
2.5%
2.0%
7.0%
15.5%
22.0%
21.0%
18.0%
10.0%
2.0%
1
$3,427,347
$4,940,388
2.5%
2.0%
7.0%
15.5%
22.0%
21.0%
18.0%
10.0%
2.0%
1
$3,584,848
$5,167,420
2.5%
2.0%
7.0%
15.5%
22.0%
21.0%
18.0%
10.0%
2.0%
1
$3,747,809
$5,402,322
2.5%
2.0%
7.0%
15.5%
22.0%
21.0%
18.0%
10.0%
2.0%
1
$3,920,140
$5,650,731
2.5%
2.0%
7.0%
15.5%
22.0%
21.0%
18.0%
10.0%
2.0%
0.995255749
$4,081,822
$5,883,788
2.5%
2.0%
7.0%
15.5%
22.0%
21.0%
18.0%
10.0%
2.0%
0.976024204
$4,187,677
$6,036,374
2.5%
2.0%
7.0%
15.5%
22.0%
21.0%
18.0%
10.0%
2.0%
0.969173843
$4,349,878
$6,270,181
2.5%
2.0%
7.0%
15.5%
22.0%
21.0%
18.0%
10.0%
2.0%
0.961639602
$4,384,799
$6,320,518
2.5%
2.0%
7.0%
15.5%
22.0%
21.0%
18.0%
10.0%
2.0%
Technology Name:

Start Year
2020
PLANT COST DATA
Average
0.964644349
$7,488,175
$11,305,412
2.5%
2.0%
7.0%
15.5%
22.0%
21.0%
18.0%
10.0%
2.0%
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
0.963676037
$7,973,430
$12,038,035
2.5%
2.0%
7.0%
15.5%
22.0%
21.0%
18.0%
10.0%
2.0%
0.960713192
$8,471,698
$12,790,304
2.5%
2.0%
7.0%
15.5%
22.0%
21.0%
18.0%
10.0%
2.0%
0.959457743
$9,016,143
$13,612,290
2.5%
2.0%
7.0%
15.5%
22.0%
21.0%
18.0%
10.0%
2.0%
0.955852449
$9,572,496
$14,452,255
2.5%
2.0%
7.0%
15.5%
22.0%
21.0%
18.0%
10.0%
2.0%
0.953573079
$10,174,249
$15,360,763
2.5%
2.0%
7.0%
15.5%
22.0%
21.0%
18.0%
10.0%
2.0%
0.949859107
$10,796,543
$16,300,283
2.5%
2.0%
7.0%
15.5%
22.0%
21.0%
18.0%
10.0%
2.0%
0.944158759
$11,430,101
$17,256,809
2.5%
2.0%
7.0%
15.5%
22.0%
21.0%
18.0%
10.0%
2.0%
0.940201511
$12,121,367
$18,300,460
2.5%
2.0%
7.0%
15.5%
22.0%
21.0%
18.0%
10.0%
2.0%
0.932995402
$12,809,145
$19,338,847
2.5%
2.0%
7.0%
15.5%
22.0%
21.0%
18.0%
10.0%
2.0%
High
0.971341646
$11,572,110
$20,477,968
2.5%
2.0%
7.0%
15.5%
22.0%
21.0%
18.0%
10.0%
2.0%
0.970553946
$12,324,394
$21,809,208
2.5%
2.0%
7.0%
15.5%
22.0%
21.0%
18.0%
10.0%
2.0%
0.968142796
$13,102,311
$23,185,807
2.5%
2.0%
7.0%
15.5%
22.0%
21.0%
18.0%
10.0%
2.0%
0.967120687
$13,947,854
$24,682,078
2.5%
2.0%
7.0%
15.5%
22.0%
21.0%
18.0%
10.0%
2.0%
0.964184047
$14,819,245
$26,224,087
2.5%
2.0%
7.0%
15.5%
22.0%
21.0%
18.0%
10.0%
2.0%
0.962326321
$15,758,052
$27,885,398
2.5%
2.0%
7.0%
15.5%
22.0%
21.0%
18.0%
10.0%
2.0%
0.959297539
$16,734,420
$29,613,175
2.5%
2.0%
7.0%
15.5%
22.0%
21.0%
18.0%
10.0%
2.0%
0.954644414
$17,736,931
$31,387,215
2.5%
2.0%
7.0%
15.5%
22.0%
21.0%
18.0%
10.0%
2.0%
0.951410986
$18,824,811
$33,312,323
2.5%
2.0%
7.0%
15.5%
22.0%
21.0%
18.0%
10.0%
2.0%
0.945516215
$19,922,390
$35,254,596
2.5%
2.0%
7.0%
15.5%
22.0%
21.0%
18.0%
10.0%
2.0%
Low
0.957943976
$4,436,960
$6,395,706
2.5%
2.0%
7.0%
15.5%
22.0%
21.0%
18.0%
10.0%
2.0%
0.9567963
$4,501,987
$6,489,439
2.5%
2.0%
7.0%
15.5%
22.0%
21.0%
18.0%
10.0%
2.0%
0.953286026
$4,556,196
$6,567,580
2.5%
2.0%
7.0%
15.5%
22.0%
21.0%
18.0%
10.0%
2.0%
0.951799247
$4,620,324
$6,660,018
2.5%
2.0%
7.0%
15.5%
22.0%
21.0%
18.0%
10.0%
2.0%
0.947531733
$4,671,872
$6,734,322
2.5%
2.0%
7.0%
15.5%
22.0%
21.0%
18.0%
10.0%
2.0%
0.944835296
$4,730,334
$6,818,594
2.5%
2.0%
7.0%
15.5%
22.0%
21.0%
18.0%
10.0%
2.0%
0.940444434
$4,780,450
$6,890,833
2.5%
2.0%
7.0%
15.5%
22.0%
21.0%
18.0%
10.0%
2.0%
0.933711637
$4,817,767
$6,944,625
2.5%
2.0%
7.0%
15.5%
22.0%
21.0%
18.0%
10.0%
2.0%
0.929042276
$4,865,297
$7,013,137
2.5%
2.0%
7.0%
15.5%
22.0%
21.0%
18.0%
10.0%
2.0%
0.920549195
$4,892,664
$7,052,585
2.5%
2.0%
7.0%
15.5%
22.0%
21.0%
18.0%
10.0%
2.0%
Technology Name:

Year=2009
Average
$147.7
$5.27
Costs this Year
FUEL COST DATA
Fuel Use - Delete this item
Fuel Cost $/mmBtu)
Average
High
Low
Heat Rate (Btu/kWh)
Average
High
Low
Low
$147.7
$5.27
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
$0.75
$0.87
$0.64
$0.79
$0.92
$0.67
$0.82
$0.94
$0.69
$0.85
$0.96
$0.73
$0.88
$0.99
$0.76
$0.91
$1.01
$0.80
$0.94
$1.04
$0.84
10,400
10,400
10,400
10,400
10,400
10,400
10,400
10,400
10,400
10,400
10,400
10,400
10,400
10,400
10,400
10,400
10,400
10,400
10,400
10,400
10,400
$0.63
$0.65
$0.68
$0.72
$0.74
$0.74
$0.78
$0.83
$0.53
$0.57
$0.59
$0.62
NEEDS TO ACCOUNT FOR EFFEICIENCY IMPROVEMENTS
10,400
10,400
10,400
10,400
10,400
10,400
10,400
10,400
10,400
10,400
10,400
10,400
Costs this Year
FUEL COST DATA

Fuel Use - Delete this item
Fuel Cost $/mmBtu)
Average
High
Low
Heat Rate (Btu/kWh)
Average
High
Low
High
$147.7
$5.27
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
$0.97
$1.06
$0.88
$1.00
$1.10
$0.89
$1.02
$1.14
$0.90
$1.05
$1.17
$0.91
$1.07
$1.21
$0.93
$1.10
$1.25
$0.94
$1.12
$1.29
$0.95
$1.15
$1.33
$0.96
$1.17
$1.36
$0.98
$1.20
$1.40
$0.99
10,400
10,400
10,400
10,400
10,400
10,400
10,400
10,400
10,400
10,400
10,400
10,400
10,400
10,400
10,400
10,400
10,400
10,400
10,400
10,400
10,400
10,400
10,400
10,400
10,400
10,400
10,400
10,400
10,400
10,400
Technology Name:

Average
Equity
Debt Financed:
High
Equity
Debt Financed:
Low
Equity
Debt Financed:

Merchant
Capital
Cost of
Structure
Capital
40.0%
15.19%
60.0%
6.71%
8.46%
IOU
Capital
Cost of
Structure
Capital
50.0%
11.74%
50.0%
5.94%
7.63%
POU
Capital
Cost of
Structure
Capital
0.0%
0.00%
100.0%
4.35%
4.35%
60.0%
40.0%
13.17%
18.00%
10.00%
55.0%
45.0%
10.65%
15.00%
9.00%
0.0%
100.0%
7.00%
0.00%
7.00%
35.0%
65.0%
7.21%
14.00%
6.00%
50.0%
50.0%
6.76%
10.00%
5.94%
0.0%
100.0%
4.00%
0.00%
4.00%
Average
20
40
40
High
20
30
40
Low
20
60
40
Technology Name:

Federal Tax
CA State Tax
Total Tax Rate
CA Sales Tax
35.00%
8.84%
40.7%
1.07%
7.00%

Average
20
30
High
20
30
Low
20
30

Eligible For BETC
Eligible For REPTC
Eligible For REPI
TDMA
Merchant
N
N
N
N
N
Average
IOU
N
N
N
N
N
POU
N
N
N
N
N

BETC Limit ($)
BETC Calculation
Amount ($/kWh)
Duration (Years)
REPTC Base Year
REPTC In Start Year
REPI Tier
REPI Duration
REPI Base Year
Westinghouse
Nuclear Energy Institute
Earth Track
Keystone Center
Moody's Investors Service
Florida P&L
KEMA (average $5,000)
including escalation and financing costs
Merchant
N
N
N
N
N
High
IOU
N
N
N
N
N
POU
N
N
N
N
N
Merchant
N
N
N
N
N
Low
IOU
N
N
N
N
N
POU
N
N
N
N
N
$25,000
25%
$0
$25,000
25%
$0
$25,000
25%
$0
$25,000
25%
$0
$25,000
25%
$0
$25,000
25%
$0
$25,000
25%
$0
$25,000
25%
$0
$25,000
25%
$0
15%
50%
0.019
15%
50%
0.019
15%
50%
0.019
15%
50%
0.019
15%
50%
0.019
15%
50%
0.019
15%
50%
0.019
15%
50%
0.019
15%
50%
0.019
8
2006
0.0108
8
2006
0.0108
8
2006
0.0108
8
2006
0.0108
8
2006
0.0108
8
2006
0.0108
8
2006
0.0108
8
2006
0.0108
8
2006
0.0108
Tier 1
10
2006
0.000
Tier 1
10
2006
0.000
Tier 1
10
2006
0.000
Tier 1
10
2006
0.000
Tier 1
10
2006
0.000
Tier 1
10
2006
0.000
Tier 1
10
2006
0.000
Tier 1
10
2006
0.000
Tier 1
10
2006
0.000
Low
$3,200
$3,500
$3,100
$3,600
$5,000
$5,500
$4,000
High
$3,600
$4,500
$8,200
$4,000
$6,000
$8,100
$6,000
Appendix B
Responses to Workshop Comments
InAppendixBoftheFinalProjectReport,wewillincludeasummaryofcommentsreceivedat
theApril16workshopandcommentsreceivedinresponsetotheInterimProjectReport.The
summarywillincludeadescriptionofhowtheresearchteamrespondedtoeachcomment(e.g.,
whetherchangeswereincorporated,whetherthecommentwasdeemedoutofscope,or
whetheraresponsetothecommentwasdeferredduetotheneedforadditionalresearch).
APB1

Cec 500 2009 084

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cec 500 2009 084

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Arnold Schwarzenegger

California Energy Commission

PIER INTERIM PROJECT REPORT

Public Interest Energy Research (PIER)

California Energy Commission

SB 1 establishes in statute the California Solar Initiative with a

Global Warming Solutions Act sets mandatory targets for

Source: California Energy Commission

2.0 Project Approach

2.1. Task 1: Technologies

2.2. Task 2: Cost Drivers

2.3. Task 3: Current Costs

2.4. Task 4: Expected Cost Trajectories

2.5. Task 5: Price/Cost Reconciliation

2.6. Task 6: Community and Building Scale Renewable Energy

3.0 Project Outcomes

3.1.1. Technical and Analytical Critique of Reference Documents

Table 3. Comparison between 2009 KEMA analysis and 2007 IEPR

Biomass Combustion Fluidized Bed Boiler

Hydro Small Scale or

Source: KEMA and 2007 Integrated Energy Policy Report

Comparison of 2009 Analysis With the CPUC GHG Modeling Project

Hydro - Small Scale

Onshore Wind Class 5

Onshore Wind Class 3/4

Offshore Wind Class 5 (2018 start

Ocean Wave (2018

Hydro - Developed Sites

Solar - Parabolic Trough

Onshore Wind - Class 5**

Onshore Wind - Class 3/4

Offshore Wind - Class 5

3.1.2. Method for Selecting Technologies

3.1.3. Utility-Scale Technologies

Data Start Date

Data Start Date

3.1.4. Community-Scale Technologies

3.1.5. Building-Scale Technologies

Figure 1. Utility-scale fluidized bed gasifier

Figure 2. Biomass IGCC plant representation

Figure 3. Schematic diagram of biomass IGCC process

Figure 4. Utility-scale biomass fluidized bed gasifier

3.2.2. Biomass Combustion Fluidized Bed Boiler

Figure 5. Circulating fluidized bed schematic diagram

Installed Capacity (MW)

Source: Tavoulareas, Stratos. Advanced Power Generation Technologies An Overview

Figure 6. Bubbling fluidized bed boiler

Average Carbon Steel Price ($/Ton)

Source: Purchasing Magazine

3.2.3. Biomass Combustion Stoker Boiler

Figure 7. Stoker boiler schematic diagram

Figure 8. Flow schematic for a stoker boiler configuration

Primary Commercial Embodiment

Average Carbon Steel Price ($/Ton)

Source: Purchasing Magazine

3.2.4. Biomass Cofiring

Figure 9. Biomass cofiring schematic for a pulverized coal boiler system

Heat Input from

Source: Haq, Zia. Biomass for Electricity Generation

Figure 10. Primary biomass cofiring locations

3.2.5. Biomass Co-Gasification IGCC

Primary Commercial Embodiment