Natural Gas Fuel Switching Consequences for Public Power Utilities 2012-2017 Theresa Pugh
description
Transcript of Natural Gas Fuel Switching Consequences for Public Power Utilities 2012-2017 Theresa Pugh
Natural Gas Fuel Switching Consequences for Public Power Utilities
2012-2017
Theresa PughApril 14, 2010
APPA CEO Climate Change Task Force
Retrofit existing fired power plant with Hazardous Air Pollutant Controls (Minimum of Scrubbers or Baghouses Activated Carbon & ESP) and CCS meeting roughly natural gas standard for CO2
Fuel Switch to Natural Gas (and deal with hedging, build new infrastructure & price volatility issues)
Door #1 Door #2 Door #3
Use Clean Air Act’s NSPS for reasonable, available and cost effective energy efficiency (DSM) and renewables [heavy lift]
3
Possible Timeline for Environmental Regulatory Requirements for the Utility Industry
Ozone
'08 '09 '10 '11 '12 '13 '14 '15 '16 '17
Beginning CAIR Phase I Seasonal NOx Cap
HAPs MACT proposed
rule
Beginning CAIR Phase II Seasonal NOx Cap
Revised Ozone NAAQS
Begin CAIR
Phase I Annual
SO2 Cap
-- adapted from Wegman (EPA 2003) Updated 2.15.10
Beginning CAIR Phase II Annual
SO2 & NOx Caps
Next PM-2.5
NAAQS Revision
Next Ozone NAAQS Revision
SO2 Primary NAAQS
SO2/NO2 Secondary
NAAQS
NO2
Primary NAAQS
SO2/NO2
New PM-2.5 NAAQS Designations
CAMR & Delisting Rule vacated
Hg/HAPS
Final EPA Nonattainment Designations
PM-2.5SIPs due (‘06)
Proposed CAIR Replacement
Rule Expected
HAPS MACT final rule expected
CAIR Vacated
HAPS MACT Compliance 3 yrs
after final rule
CAIR Remanded
CAIR
Begin CAIR
Phase I Annual
NOx Cap
PM-2.5 SIPs due (‘97)
316(b) proposedrule expected
316(b) final ruleexpected
316(b) Compliance3-4 yrs after final rule
Effluent Guidelines
proposed ruleexpected
Water
Effluent GuidelinesFinal rule expected Effluent Guidelines
Compliance 3-5 yrs after final rule
Begin Compliance Requirements
under Final CCB Rule (ground water monitoring, double monitors, closure,
dry ash conversion)
Ash
Proposed Rule for CCBs Management
Final Rule for CCBs Mgmt
Final CAIR Replacement
Rule Expected
Compliance with CAIR
Replacement Rule
CO2
CO2 Regulation
Reconsidered Ozone NAAQS
PM2.5
Retrofit Decisions Driven by HAPs & CAIR Regulations Before CO2
CURRENT CAPITAL COST AND COST-EFFECTIVENESS OF POWER
PLANT EMISSIONS CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES
Prepared by J. Edward Cichanowicz
Prepared for Utility Air Regulatory Group
January 2010
“The capital cost of retrofitting either wet FGD or SCR increased over the recent 4-year period, from about 2005 through 2009, and specifically for a 500 MW plant, by approximately $50-65/kW. This same rate of cost escalation is anticipated to continue for the next 4-6 years, elevating the cost of equipment installed in 2014 and 2015 for a CAIR Phase 2 mandate and the anticipated HAPs MACT rule.”
Update screen shot
Current Natural Gas Pipeline
Current U. S. Natural Gas Storage Maps (no differentiation for storage capacity)
Table 6: Gas Burn by State if Existing Coal-Fired MW Converted to Natural Gas State 2008 Gas
Use Additional Use If Coal Converted
Coal Use As % of Current Gas Use
Alabama 0.404 0.533 132%
Alaska 0.342 0.005 1%
Arizona 0.4 0.246 62%
Arkansas 0.235 0.166 71%
California 2.45 0.018 1%
Colorado 0.505 0.223 44%
Connecticut 0.167 0.026 15%
Delaware 0.048 0.045 94%
Florida 0.943 0.479 51%
Georgia 0.425 0.614 144%
Hawaii 0.003 0.009 316%
Idaho 0.089 0.001 1%
Illinois 1.001 0.739 74%
Indiana 0.551 0.906 164%
Iowa 0.32 0.274 85%
Kansas 0.283 0.23 81%
Kentucky 0.225 0.694 308%
Louisiana 1.239 0.158 13%
Maine 0.061 0.004 7%
Maryland 0.196 0.22 112%
Massachusetts 0.374 0.075 20%
Michigan 0.779 0.542 70%
Minnesota 0.401 0.238 59%
Additional Use If Coal Use As % of
State 2008 Gas Use Coal Converted Current Gas Use
Mississippi 0.355 0.113 32%
Missouri 0.296 0.497 168%
Montana 0.076 0.107 140%
Nebraska 0.168 0.134 80%
Nevada 0.265 0.116 44%
New Hampshire 0.071 0.026 36%
New Jersey 0.615 0.094 15%
New Mexico 0.247 0.184 75%
New York 1.18 0.18 15%
North Carolina 0.243 0.558 230%
North Dakota 0.063 0.179 283%
Ohio 0.792 1.002 126%
Oklahoma 0.67 0.241 36%
Oregon 0.268 0.025 9%
Pennsylvania 0.75 0.861 115%
Rhode Island 0.089 0 0%
South Carolina 0.17 0.272 160%
South Dakota 0.064 0.02 31%
Tennessee 0.23 0.433 188%
Texas 3.546 0.893 25%
Utah 0.224 0.214 95%
Vermont 0.009 0 0%
Virginia 0.299 0.261 87%
Washington 0.298 0.061 21%
West Virginia 0.111 0.646 580%
Wisconsin 0.409 0.299 73%
Wyoming 0.143 0.259 182%
Switching from Coal to Natural Gas: Understanding the Environmental and Operational Impacts
At APPA National Conference, June 19-23, 2010, Orlando, FLCost to Members: $375; Cost to Non-Members: $750
Sunday, June 20, 2010 - Full day • 8:30 a.m. – 4:30 p.m.The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency’s “perfect storm” of new environmental regulations (air, climate, water and waste) may lead many utilities to switch from coal to natural gas for base load energy production to reduce carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide and fine particulate matter. While natural gas may be an easier environmental choice, the utility’s operational issues may grow far more complex when producing electricity with natural gas. Operational issues range from anticipating how much gas to use in lieu of coal, the purchasing (“nomination”) process, natural gas transportation issues, and local storage when the gas is not used within 24 hours. The speaker will address all aspects of natural gas use, from nomination, to setting up procurement operations, to re-sale of natural gas in the market if storage is not available.
Instructors: Ted Chapman, Director, Standard & Poor's, Dallas, Texas; Catherine Elder, Senior Associate, Aspen Environmental Group, Sacramento, Calif.; Doug Hunter, General Manager, Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems, Salt Lake City, Utah; and Joanie Teofilo, Vice President, Risk Control & CRO, The Energy Authority, Jacksonville, Fla.
http://www.appanet.org/events/annualeventdetail.cfm?ItemNumber=26074&sn.ItemNumber=0
APPA Contacts
12
CO2, EPA liaison, CAA, & new generation (including renewables)Theresa Pugh Director, Environmental [email protected]
GHG Reporting, 316(b), biomass and effluent guidelines
J.P. BlackfordEnvironmental Services [email protected]