### Final Draft Report



### Comparison of CAIR and CAIR Plus Propo sal using the Integrated Planning Model (IPM ® 

### )

Prepared for



### Mid-Atlantic Regional Ai r Management Association (MARAMA)

Prepared by

ICF Resources, L.L.C.

9300 Lee Highway Fairfax, VA 22031

May 30, 2007

### 2 Table of Contents

Table of Contents.............................................................................................................. ............2 A. Overview.................................................................................................................... ...............3 B. Modeling Assumptions and Changes Made to VISTAS Run....................................................3 C. Results ..................................................................................................................... ................7 1. Production Costs............................................................................................................ .......7 2. Projected Control Technology Retrofits ................................................................................9 3. Emissions................................................................................................................... .........10 4. Allowance Market............................................................................................................ ....11 5. Fuel Consumption and Prices.............................................................................................13 6. Power Plant Retirements ....................................................................................................1 4 7. Power Plant Generation...................................................................................................... 15 8. New Power Plant Builds...................................................................................................... 17 D. Limitations of Analysis..................................................................................................... .......18 Appendix 1: Summary of Changes to EPA Base Case v2.1.9 by Vistas ................................19 Appendix 2: MANE-VU IPM Global Parameter Decisions ......................................................20 Appendix 3: Detailed Assumptions Used in MARAMA analysis .............................................22 Appendix 4: Comparison of Assumptions Used in VISTAS and MARAMA analysis ..............36 Appendix 5: Emission and Cost Results .................................................................................43

### 3 A. Overview

MARAMA has awarded a contract to ICF Resources, L.L.C. (ICF), seeking ICF’s services to evaluate the impact of EPA’s CAIR Policy and the Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Visibility Union (MANE-VU) CAIR Plus proposal on the electric generating sector for the contiguous United States using the Integrated Planning Model (IPM ® 

### ).

IPM is a dynamic linear optimization model that can be used to examine air pollution control policies for various pollutants throughout the contiguous U.S. for the entire electric power system. The dynamic nature of IPM enables the pr ojection of the behavior of the power system over a specified future period. The optimizati on logic determines the least-cost means of meeting electric generation and capacity requirements while complying with specified constraints including air pollution regulations, transmission bottlenecks, and plant-specific operational constraints. The versatility of IPM allows users to specify which constraints to exercise and populate IPM with their own datasets.

This report summarizes the analysis that ICF has performed in evaluating the impact of the CAIR Plus proposal in the CAIR Plus region on the electricity generating sector by using IPM (hereafter, the analysis is referred to as the MA RAMA analysis). As part of this analysis, ICF has also developed a Base Case that implem ents EPA’s CAIR, CAMR and CAVR policies. The model assumptions and data used in this analysis are presented in Section B. The results are presented in Section C and the analysis limitations are presented in Section D.

Since the modeling is based on analyses dev eloped by U.S. EPA, VISTAS and LADCO, we have summarized only the incremental changes that were proposed by MARAMA as part of this analysis. The documentation for EPA’s v2.1.9 and v3.0 base cases is available at http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/progsregs/epa-ipm . The VISTAS study assumptions are summarized in Appendix 1 and 2.

B. Modeling Assumptions and Changes Made to VISTAS Run

The MARAMA analysis is based on the recent IPM based analysis performed for VISTAS except for changes made by MARAMA. These runs are based on the VISTASII_PC_1f run that was developed for VISTAS in 2005. As per direction from MARAMA, the following assumptions for modeling the MARAMA Base Case-CAIR/ CAMR/CAVR (MARAMA 5c) and MARAMA CAIR Plus Policy Case (MARAMA 4c) were implement ed. Detailed assumptions are summarized in Appendix 3.

a) Run year configuration : The run year configuration was updated to separate out the key analysis years of 2009, 2012 and 2018. The revised configuration is summarized in Table 1:

### 4 Table 1: Run Years in MARAMA Base Case and MARAMA CAIR Plus Policy Case Run Year Calendar Years 2008 2007-2008 2009 2009-2009 2010 2010-2011 2012 2012-2012 2015 2013-2017 2018 2018-2018 2020 2019-2022 2026 2023-2030

b) Natural Gas Prices : As per direction from MARAMA, ICF implemented the EPA Base Case v3.0 natural gas supply curves that were based on ICF’s NANGAS (North American Natural Gas Analysis System) model as part of this analysis. These gas supply curves are documented in the EPA Base Case v3.0 documentation published on its website. The gas supply curves used in the VISTAS analysis were based on the EPA Base Case v2.1.9. The gas supply curves used in the MARAMA analysis will result in higher gas prices as compared to the VISTAS analysis. For example, for a 5 quad gas consumption in the power sector, the Henry hub gas price using the EPA Base Case v3.0 gas supply curves will result in a gas price that is approximately 40-60% (based on the run year) higher than if EPA Base Case v2.1.9 gas supply curves were used.

c) Fuel Oil Prices : The fuel oil price projections from AEO 2006 were implemented in the MARAMA analysis and are higher as compared to the VISTAS analysis. The fuel oil price projections used in the VISTAS analysis were based on AEO 2005. The AEO 2006 assumptions are documented in the EPA Base Case v3.0.

d) SCR and Scrubber Feasibility Limits : Table 2 summarizes the cumulative SCR and scrubber feasibility limits that were implement ed (in the MARAMA analysis) in the years 2008, 2009 and 2010. These limits are beyond existing control installations and prevent the model from projecting a level of SCR and scrubber builds in the short-term that was higher than the industry’s capability to deliver. The feasibility limits in 2008 and 2009 are based on actual planned SCR and scrubber installations. The 2010 limit for scrubbers is based on a projection for installation of SO 2 

### scrubbers under CAIR. It is based on an internal analysis that accounted for the 2008/2009 feasibility limits. In the VISTAS study, feasibility limits for SCR and scrubbers were not applied in 2008, 2009 and 2010.

Note that in 2008, 2009 and 2010 run years, the individual unit level decisions were not hardwired but IPM will choose to build only the most economic SCRs and scrubbers up to those limits.

Table 2: Cumulative SCR and FGD Feasibility Limits in MARAMA Base Case and MARAMA CAIR Plus Policy Case Runs Year SCR (GW) Scrubbers (GW) 2008 9 31 2009 15 51 2010 No Limit 69 Note: The above limits are incremental to thos e that are already installed on existing units as assumed in NEEDS.

### 5 e) CAVR (Clean Air Visibility Rule) : Consistent with U.S. EPA’s implementation of the CAVR rule, MARAMA has implemented the C AVR rule beginning in the run year 2015 within the MARAMA Base Case and MARAMA CAIR Plus Policy Case runs.

CAVR SO 2 

### Requirements : All CAVR eligible, unscrubbed, non CAIR and non WRAP affected sources larger than 200 MW are required to meet an output emission rate of 0.15 lbs/MMBtu of SO 2 

### or achieve 95% removal. However, only the option to meet the 0.15 lbs/MMBtu of SO 2 

### emission rate was provided in IPM. This assumption was based on the results from a comparison of output SO 2 

### emission rates of unscrubbed CAVR affected units in the VISTAS analysis when adjusted for a 95% removal with 0.15 lbs/MMBtu. The 0.15 lbs/MMBtu rate limit was always higher and hence is a lower cost strategy.

CAVR NO x 

### Requirements : All CAVR eligible, non CAIR affected sources larger than 200 MW are required to install combustion controls. SCRs are also required if the affected units are cyclone fired. All existing SCRs are required to operate annually.

Note that CAVR eligible sources in the above discussion imply the list of CAVR affected sources that U.S. EPA had modeled in their C AVR analysis using IPM. A list of units affected by the CAVR SO 2 

### and NO x 

### requirements are shown in Appendix 3 (tables A3.5a and A3.5b respectively).

f) Title IV SO 2 

### Bank : The IPM modeling time period in the MARAMA analysis is 2007- 2030. In order to capture the dynamics of the SO 2 

### allowance market pre 2007, MARAMA has implemented a Title IV SO 2 

### allowance bank of 6.43 million tons going into the year 2007. This assumption is based on an internal ICF analysis of the current market conditions.

g) Applicable States for Programs: The MARAMA CAIR Plus Policy Case run is based on the MARAMA Base Case run with the MARAMA CAIR Plus Policy Case proposal implemented as a replacement of the CAIR policy. Figure 1 shows a U.S. map with states affected by CAIR and CAIR Plus policies highlighted.

### 6 Figure 1: States affected by CAIR and MARAMA CAIR Plus Policies

h) NO x 

### and SO 2 

### Budgets : Table 3 summarizes the NO x 

### budgets implemented in the MARAMA Base Case and MARAMA CAIR Plus Policy Case runs, and Table 4 summarizes SO 2 

### allowance retirement ratios implemented in the MARAMA Base Case and MARAMA CAIR Plus Policy Case runs. The NO x 

### budgets under the Base Case and CAIR Plus policy cases in Table 3 are not comparable because there are more states in the CAIR Plus domain as compared to the CAIR domain in the Base Case. In IPM, em issions budgets are modeled as a cap that all affected sources together are required to comply with. These sources can buy or sell emission allowances among themselves and bank for future use under favorable economics.

The SO 2 

### allowance retirement ratio is the number of Title IV SO 2 

### allowances that need to be surrendered for each ton of SO 2 

### emissions in the CAIR/CAIR Plus region. In IPM, a CAIR/CAIR Plus policy affected source is required to surrender the applicable number of Title IV SO 2 

### allowances determined by the SO 2 

### retirement ratio for every ton of SO 2 

### emission. A non CAIR/CAIR Plus policy affected source surrenders one Title IV SO 2 

### allowance for every ton of SO 2 

### emissions. CAIR Plus Policy & CAIR Annual NO x

CAIR Plus Policy & CAIR Annual NO x and SO 2 Policy & CAIR ozone season NO x Policy

CAIR Plus Policy & CAIR ozone season NO x

Policy MN

RI

MO

A R

T X

L A WI

MI

IL IN OH

KY

TN

MS A L G A

FL SC

NC VA W V

P A NY ME

V T NH

MD DE NJ CT I A M A

DC

CAIR Plus Policy

### 7 Table 3: NO x 

### Budgets in the CAIR/CAIR Plus Region (Thousand Tons)

NO x Ozone Season Budget NO x Annual Budget

Year MARAMA Base Case MARAMA CAIR Plus Policy Case MARAMA Base Case MARAMA CAIR Plus Policy Case

2009 568 623 1,722* 1,553*

2010 568 623 1,522 1,353 2012 568 415 1,522 902 2015 518 395 1,370 858 2018 485 382 1,268 829

* Includes NO x Compliance Supplement Pool of 199,997 tons included in 2009. Note: The 2015 budgets as modeled in IPM are the aver age of the budgets over the period 2013-2017. The actual ozone season NO x budgets proposed are 485 thousand tons in CAIR and 382 thousand tons in CAIR plus for 2015. The actual annual NO x budgets proposed are 1,268 thousand tons in CAIR and 829 thousand tons in CAIR plus for 2015.



### Table 4: SO 2 

### Allowance Retirement Ratios in the CAIR/CAIR Plus Region

SO 2 Allowance Retirement Ratio

Year MARAMA Base Case MARAMA CAIR Plus Policy Case

2009 1.00 1.00

2010 2.00 2.50

2012 2.00 2.94

2015 2.52 3.32

2018 2.86 4.16 Note: The 2015 retirement ratios as modeled in IPM are the average of the retireme nt ratios over the period 2013-2017. The actual retirement ratios are 2.86 for CAIR and 3.57 for CAIR Plus for 2015.



### i) SO 2 

### and NO x 

### emission allowances were allowed to be banked in any year and then withdrawn from the bank in a future year under the CAIR program in the base case and the CAIR Plus programs.

C. Results

In this section, ICF has presented the costs, control installations, emissions, allowance market impacts, delivered fuel prices, generation, po wer plant retirements and new builds from the MARAMA Base Case and then compared these results with those from the MARAMA CAIR Plus Policy Case run. Appendix 5 summarizes the SO 2 

### and NO x 

### emission results and production cost components on a state and RPO level. The following paragraphs discuss the results from the two runs.

1. Production Costs

IPM projects the production cost of the U.S. power sector for each of the modeled run years. The production cost includes the annualized capital co sts of new investment decisions (includes control equipment costs and new build costs), fuel costs and the total variable and fixed operation and maintenance (O&M) costs of power pl ants. Allowance costs are not listed as a separate category because on a region wide basis the net cost is zero (number of allowances

### 8 purchased is equal to the number of allowances so ld). The administrative costs related to the purchase and sale of allowances are not modeled in IPM. The annualized incremental cost 1 

### of the MARAMA CAIR Plus Policy as compared to MARAMA Base Case is summarized in Table 5. The analysis projects a total cost of $10.7 billion in 2009 & $2.6 billion in 2018 respectively. Note that the cost of the policy is highest in 2009 (higher fuel costs being the main contributor of higher production costs) and then decreases starting 2010. This is because in 2009 there are limitations to the number of units that can install SCRs. In 2010 however, these limits are relaxed. In order to comply with the tight NO x 

### regulations and the limitations on SCR installations, the power sector increases natural gas-fired generation. In 2009 in the MARAMA CAIR Plus Policy Case the gas consumption increases by 812 TBtu and $0.85/MMBtu. This increase in gas consumption and the gas price result in a spike in fuel costs. Note that these costs are for the entire U.S. power sector and the policy could affect states that are within and outside the CAIR Plus region.

Table 5: Incremental Cost of the MARAMA CAIR Plus Policy Case Compared to MARAMA Base Case -- US Power Sector (1999 Billion Dollars) 2008 2009 2010 2012 2015 2018 Variable O&M Cost 0.04 0.01 0.32 0.51 0.41 0.28 Fixed O&M Cost 0.01 -0 .03 0.12 0.29 0.20 0.13 Fuel Cost 0.04 10.40 0.17 -0.90 0.04 0.23 Annualized Capital Cost 0. 26 0.31 1.58 2.43 2.12 1.93 Total Production Cost 0.36 10.69 2.19 2.33 2.77 2.57 Note: To convert year 1999 dollars to year 2006 dollars, use a conversion factor of 1.1856



### The marginal costs 2 

### of emission reductions as manifested in the projected allowance prices in the MARAMA Base Case and the MARAMA CAIR Pl us Policy Case are shown in Table 6. The SO 2 

### and NO x 

### allowance prices in the CAIR Plus region in the MARAMA CAIR Plus Policy Case run are high starting in 2009 due to the relatively tighter policies applied to the CAIR Plus region as compared to the SO 2 

### and NO x 

### policies in the MARAMA Base Case. Tighter policies result in more expensive compliance options being chosen resulting in higher allowance prices. The NO x 

### allowance prices are high in 2009 and drop in 2010 because the SCR feasibility limits are relaxed starting in 2010. In 2009, due to limitations on SCR installations, a significant increase in natural gas fired generation occurs, driving up the annual NO x 

### allowance prices. Starting in 2010, SCRs are installed resulting in a reduction in the use of more expensive NO x 

### reduction options such as natural gas generation, driving down the annual NO x 

### allowance prices.

The compliance options available to power plants to reduce both annual NO x 

### emissions and the ozone season NO x 

### emissions are same. In addition the plants affected by the ozone season NO x 

### policy and the annual NO x 

### policy in the MARAMA CAIR Plus Policy Case are identical. A plant that installs a NO x 

### control option such as a SCR will be able to reduce emissions in both the ozone season and the non ozone season and hence simultaneously affect CAIR/CAIR Plus annual NO x 

### and ozone season NO x 

### allowance markets. It appears that complying with the annual NO x 

### policy results in an over compliance with the ozone season NO x 

### policy and is highlighted by the zero ozone season NO x 

### allowance price starting 2010.

1 Annual Incremental Production Cost = Annualized Produ ction Cost of MARAMA CAIR Plus Policy Case – Annualized Production Cost of MARAMA Base Case.

2 Marginal cost is defined as the cost of reducing one additional ton of emissions.

### 9 Table 6: Allowance prices ( Marginal Costs) of Emission Reductions in MARAMA Base Case and MARAMA CAIR Plus Policy Case (1999 $/ton)
CAIR/CAIR Plus Policy 2008 2009 2010 2012 2015 2018 MARAMA Base Case SO 2 640 692 748 809 943 1,106 NO x – Ozone 3 14,580 15,760 0 0 0 0 NO x - Annual NA 3,047 1,149 1,155 1,337 1,567 MARAMA CAIR Pl us Policy Case SO 2 806 872 942 1,019 1,188 1,392

difference wrt MARAMA Base Case 166 180 194 210 245 286 NO x – Ozone 14,710 11,150 0 0 0 0

difference wrt MARAMA Base Case 130 -4,610 0 0 0 0 NO x - Annual NA 17,920 4,240 4,586 5,346 6,266

difference wrt MARAMA Base Case NA 14,873 3,091 3,431 4,009 4,699 Note: To convert year 1999 dollars to year 2006 dollars, use a conversion factor of 1.1856.



### 2. Projected Control Technology Retrofits Installation of controls is one of the strategies that the power sector opts for complying with the CAIR Plus proposal requirements. This strategy is in addition to other compliance strategies such as changes to fuel switching, plant retirements, plant dispatch and new builds. Under the MARAMA CAIR Plus Policy Case, an additional 19.5 GW of SO 2 

### scrubbers and 77.8 GW of selective catalytic reduction (SCRs) are instal led by 2012 (see Table 7). In the MARAMA CAIR Plus Policy Case, the SCR feasibility limits in 2008 and 2009 run years and the SO 2 

### scrubber limits in 2008 and 2010 run years are achieved.

Table 7: Incremental Pollution Control Installations by Technology in the MARAMA CAIR Plus Policy Case with the MARAMA Base Case (GW) Technology 2008 2009 2010 2012 2015 2018 MARAMA Base Case Scrubber 24.9 31.4 59.7 65.6 87.5 98.7

SCR 9.0 15.0 38.5 42.1 58.6 66.3 MARAMA CAIR Pl us Policy Case Scrubber 30.5 38.9 69.5 85.1 106.4 115.3

difference wrt MARAMA Base Case 5.6 7.5 9.8 19.5 18.9 16.6 SCR 9.0 15.0 115.2 120.0 124.5 131.2

difference wrt MARAMA Base Case 0.0 0.0 76.8 77.8 65.9 64.9

3 The 2008 NO x ozone season allowance price is for the SIP Call po licy. Starting 2009 it is for the CAIR/CAIR Plus ozone season NO xpolicy.

### 10 3. Emissions

Tables 8 and 9 summarize the SO 2 

### and NO x 

### emissions from all units including both fossil and nonfossil units in the MARAMA Base Case and the MARAMA CAIR Plus Policy Case in the 2008, 2009, 2010, 2012, 2015 and 2018 run years. The projected state-level emissions for SO 2 

### and NO x 

### for the MARAMA CAIR Plus Policy Case and the MARAMA Base Case are presented in Tables A5.1-A5.3 in Appendix 5.

Note, that the CAIR/CAIR Plus policies are not applied to the WRAP region in the MARAMA Base Case and MARAMA CAIR Plus Policy Case runs, and hence the SO 2 

### and NO x 

### emissions in the two runs in the WRAP region are similar. The CAIR/CAIR Plus NO x 

### programs start in 2009. Hence, the NO x 

### emissions are lower starting in 2009. The NO x 

### emissions in CAIR Plus region in Table 9 do not match the corresponding NO x 

### budgets in Table 3 because NO x 

### emissions in Table 9 include emissions from both CAIR Plus affected and not affected units.

The CAIR/CAIR Plus SO 2 

### programs start in 2010. However, the SO 2 

### emissions are lower prior to 2010 because Title IV SO 2 

### allowances that are banked prior to 2010 can be used to comply with the CAIR/CAIR Plus provisions starting 2010.

Both the CAIR and CAIR Plus programs are cap and trade policies. Therefore, while the CAIR Plus policy is more stringent than the CAIR policy, emissions can still go up in individual states in MARAMA CAIR Plus Policy Case as compared to MARAMA Base Case.

Table 8: Annual SO 2 

### Emissions from the U.S. Electric Power Sector (All Units including Fossil and Non-fossil units) (Thousand Tons)

2008 2009 2010 2012 2015 2018 MARAMA Base Case MANE-VU 802.1 650.2 518.3 462.7 410.5 393.8

LADCO 1,950.5 1,785.1 1,594. 8 1,593.4 1,490.5 1,437.7 VISTAS 2,879.6 2,702.0 2,094. 5 1,981.2 1,689.7 1,398.2 CENRAP 1,395.3 1,391.1 1,397. 3 1,385.4 1,158.9 1,136.8

WRAP 508.1 507.5 533.2 533.6 477.8 419.1 CAIR Plus Policy States 6,760.0 6,260.7 5,334.7 5,150. 3 4,605.0 4,219.8
National Total 7,535.6 7,036.0 6,138.1 5,956.3 5,227.4 4,785.6 MARAMA CAIR Pl us Policy Case MANE-VU 734.6 555.5 396.4 376.7 311.9 270.7

difference wrt MARAMA Base Case -67.5 -94.8 -121.8 -86.0 -98.6 -123.1 LADCO 1,775.5 1,660.3 1,454. 9 1,448.0 1,332.6 1,275.1

difference wrt MARAMA Base Case -174.9 -124.8 -139.9 -145.4 -157.9 -162.6 VISTAS 2,696.8 2,049.4 1, 769.9 1,461.5 1,190.6 991.8

difference wrt MARAMA Base Case -182.9 -652.6 -324.7 -519.7 -499.1 -406.4 CENRAP 1,390.5 1,325.0 1, 385.1 1,314.1 1,014.8 961.8

difference wrt MARAMA Base Case -4.8 -66.1 -12.2 -71.3 -144.1 -175.0 WRAP 503.0 506.1 550.4 552.3 497.8 440.8

difference wrt MARAMA Base Case -5.1 -1.4 17.1 18.7 20.0 21.7 CAIR Plus Policy States 6,331.6 5,324.1 4,735.4 4,325.7 3,705.2 3,350.8

difference wrt MARAMA Base Case -428.4 -936.6 -599.3 -824.6 -899.8 -869.1 National Total 7,100.4 6,096.3 5,556.7 5,152.6 4,347.6 3,940.3

difference wrt MARAMA Base Case -435.2 -939.7 -581.5 -803.8 -879.8 -845.3

### 11 Table 9: Annual NO x 

### Emissions from the U.S. Electric Power Sector (All Units including Fossil and Non-fossil units) (Thousand Tons)

2008 2009 2010 2012 2015 2018 MARAMA Base Case MANE-VU 386.0 271.9 213.2 208.7 202.3 198.8

LADCO 803.9 483.4 413. 0 409.0 389.5 382.1 VISTAS 1,207.6 699.9 622.0 621.1 502.0 452.9 CENRAP 754.5 604.1 603.0 616.0 539.4 538.3

WRAP 601.1 606.3 610.1 613.5 483.4 493.5 CAIR Plus Policy States 2,944.5 1,847.6 1,642.5 1,643. 8 1,488.0 1,426.5
National Total 3,753.1 2,665.6 2,461.3 2,468.5 2,116.6 2,065.6 MARAMA CAIR Plus Policy Case MANE-VU 375.9 228.0 158.8 162.1 152.7 145.6

difference wrt MARAMA Base Case -10.1 -43.9 -54.4 -46.7 -49.6 -53.2 LADCO 804.2 425.9 251. 2 249.2 244.7 241.8

difference wrt MARAMA Base Case 0.4 -57.5 -161.8 -159.8 -144.8 -140.3 VISTAS 1,215.7 597.6 350.8 351.2 346.2 350.3

difference wrt MARAMA Base Case 8.0 -102.3 -271.2 -269.9 -155.8 -102.6 CENRAP 754.5 577.5 420.9 431.6 361.6 351.7

difference wrt MARAMA Base Case 0.1 -26.6 -182.1 -184.4 -177.8 -186.6 WRAP 600.5 606.5 610.0 615.2 485.5 495.7

difference wrt MARAMA Base Case -0.6 0.2 -0.1 1.7 2.1 2.2 CAIR Plus Policy States 2,942.9 1,614.1 972.8 982.6 957.1 941.4

difference wrt MARAMA Base Case -1.6 -233.4 -669.7 -661.2 -530.9 -485.1 National Total 3,750.9 2,435.5 1,791.6 1,809.3 1,590.7 1,585.1

difference wrt MARAMA Base Case -2.2 -230.2 -669.7 -659.1 -525.8 -480.5



### 4. Allowance Market Tables 10a and 10b summarize the CAIR/CAIR Plus SO 2 

### and NO x 

### allowance market as implemented in the CAIR/CAIR Plus region in the MARAMA Base Case and the MARAMA CAIR Plus Policy Case.

The going into 2007 Title IV SO 2 

### bank is assumed to be 6.43 million tons. In IPM, SO 2 

### emission allowances are banked in 2008 and 2009 and withdrawn in subsequent years. Allowances are not banked in later years as the CAIR/CAIR Plus policy starts in 2010 resulting in reduced opportunities for over complying. Annual NO x 

### emission allowances are banked in 2010 and not in 2009 in the MARAMA CAIR Plus Policy Case because restrictions on SCR installations prevent over compliance of the NO x 

### cap in 2009.

Starting 2010 in both the CAIR/CAIR Plus ozone season NO x 

### policies, the number of ozone season NO x 

### allowances that are withdrawn from the bank are less than the allowances that are banked. This occurs because of a surplus of ozone season NO x 

### allowance availability and is highlighted by the zero ozone season NO x 

### allowance price. On a separate note, the allowances banked in the SIP Call budget program are allowed to be banked and used in the ozone season NO x 

### program starting in 2009. The going into 2007 NO x 

### SIP Call bank is assumed to be zero.

### 12 Table 10a: Summary of SO 2 

### and NO x 

### Allowance Market in MARAMA Base Case (Thousand Tons)

Run Year 2008 2009 2010 2012 2015 2018 2020

Years Mapped to Run Year 2007- 2008 2009 2010- 2011 2012- 2012 2013- 2017 2018 2019- 2022 CAIR - SO 2 Annual Emissions at Affected Units (Fossil Units > 25 MW) 7,333 6,831 5,942 5,760 5,029 4,586 4,171 Allowances Banked 5,245 2,449 0 0 0 0 0 Allowances Withdrawn from Bank 0 0 -1,072 -888 -1,072 -1,143 -722 CAIR – Ozone Season NO x Ozone Season Emission Budget 497 568 568 568 518 485 485 Ozone Season Emissions at Affected Units (Fossil Units > 25 MW in CAIR Region) 492 579 558 558 502 482 465 Allowances Banked 5 0 10 10 16 3 20 Allowances Withdrawn from Bank 0 -11 0 0 0 0 0 CAIR – Annual NO x Annual Emission Budget NA 1,722 1,522 1,522 1,370 1,268 1,268 Annual Emissions at Affected Units (Fossil Units > 25 MW in CAIR Region) NA

1,722 1,522 1,522 1,363 1,298 1,268 Allowances Banked NA 0 0 0 6 0 0 Allowances Withdrawn from Bank NA 0 0 0 0 -30 0 Note: The 2008 NO xozone season results reflect those from the SIP Call NO xprogram and starting 2009 reflect those from the CAIR ozone season NO xpolicy.



### Table 10b: Summary of SO 2 

### and NO x 

### Allowance Market in MARAMA CAIR Plus Policy Case (Thousand Tons)

Run Year 2008 2009 2010 2012 2015 2018 2020

Years Mapped to Run Year 2007- 2008 2009 2010- 2011 2012- 2012 2013- 2017 2018 2019- 2022 CAIR Plus - SO 2 Annual Emissions at Affected Units (Fossil Units > 25 MW) 6,898 5,900 5,360 4,956 4,151 3,739 3,205 Allowances Banked 5,680 3,380 0 0 0 0 0 Allowances Withdrawn from Bank 0 0 -1,353 -1,424 -1,094 -1,234 -691 CAIR Plus – Ozone Season NO x Ozone Season Emission Budget 497 623 623 416 395 382 382 Ozone Season Emissions at Affected Units (Fossil Units > 25 MW in CAIR Plus Region) 497 623 404 412 398 395 389 Allowances Banked 0 0 219 4 0 0 0 Allowances Withdrawn from Bank 0 0 0 0 -3 -13 -7 CAIR Plus – Annual NO x Annual Emission Budget NA 1,553 1,353 902 858 829 829 Annual Emissions at Affected Units (Fossil Units > 25 MW in CAIR Plus Region) NA

1,553 918 927 898 882 867 Allowances Banked NA 0 436 0 0 0 0 Allowances Withdrawn from Bank NA 0 0 -25 -39 -53 -38

### 13 Note: The 2008 NO xozone season results reflect those from the SIP Call NO xprogram and starting 2009 reflect those from the CAIR ozone season NO xpolicy.



### 5. Fuel Consumption and Prices

Table 11a summarizes the coal and natural gas consumption in the U.S. power sector as projected by IPM in the MARAMA Base Case and MARAMA CAIR Plus Policy Case runs. Table 11b summarizes the delivered coal and natural gas prices solved by IPM in the MARAMA Base Case and MARAMA CAIR Plus Policy Case runs. The delivered gas prices are not inputs to the model but are determined endogenously by equilibrating demand and supply.

In the MARAMA Base Case, the natural gas prices in 2008 are higher than 2009. This is due to differences in the supply curves for the two year s. As an example, for a gas consumption level of 5,696 TBtu, the gas price in 2008 is $7.23/MMbtu. However, at the same level of gas consumption, the gas price in 2009 would be at $6.12.

The fuel costs shown in Table 5 are incremental costs (i.e. MARAMA CAIR Plus Policy Case – MARAMA Base Case). The increase in fuel costs of $10.4 billion dollars in 2009 is a result of the incremental increase in natural gas prices of $0.85MMBtu between the two cases (i.e. $7.83/MMBtu in the CAIR Plus Policy case versus $6.98 in the MARAMA Base Case) and an increase in natural gas consumption 812 TBtu.

The gas prices are higher in most years in the MARAMA CAIR Plus Policy Case, in comparison to the MARAMA Base Case. This is a result of an increase in gas consumption as shifting from coal to gas is a compliance option leading to higher gas prices. In 2009 the gas prices increase is the highest because of restrictions on new SCR builds which result in an increase in gas consumption by 812 TBtu.

Table 11a: Fuel Consumption in MARAMA Base Case and MARAMA CAIR Plus Policy Case (TBtu)

2008 2009 2010 2012 2015 2018 MARAMA Base Case Coal 22,938 22,706 25,594 26,050 27,489 29,198 Natural Gas 5,696 6,598 4,619 5,314 5,191 5,444 MARAMA CAIR Pl us Policy Case Coal 22,863 21,503 25,396 26,099 27,318 28,699

difference wrt MARAMA Base Case -76 -1,203 -198 49 -171 -500 Natural Gas 5,728 7,410 4,679 5,186 5,209 5,647

difference wrt MARAMA Base Case 32 812 60 -129 18 203

### 14 Table 11b: Delivered Fuel Prices in MARAM A Base Case and MARAMA CAIR Plus Policy Case (1999 $/MMBtu)

2008 2009 2010 2012 2015 2018 MARAMA Base Case Coal 1.09 1.08 1.07 1.05 1.03 1 Natural Gas 7.39 6.98 4.82 4.75 4.15 4.01 MARAMA CAIR Pl us Policy Case Coal 1.09 1.06 1.06 1.04 1.02 0.99

difference wrt MARAMA Base Case 0 -0.02 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 Natural Gas 7.39 7.83 4.88 4.75 4.19 4.05

difference wrt MARAMA Base Case 0 0.85 0.06 0 0.04 0.04



### 6. Power Plant Retirements

A tighter environmental policy increases the total production costs of a power plant, including its compliance costs, and thus could make it uneconomic. Table 12 summarizes the power plant retirements in the MARAMA Base Case and the MARAMA CAIR Plus Policy Case. Note that the more stringent CAIR Plus policy results in an increase in total retirements by 4.9 GW in 2009. Oil/gas steam units that are uneconomic to run under the CAIR Plus policy retire. Increase in natural gas use as presented in Table 11a is accounted for by the remaining gas fired units that have relatively lower costs of operation.

Table 12: Power Plant Retirements in MARAMA CAIR Plus Policy Case with the MARAMA Base Case (MW)

2008 2009 2010 2012 2015 2018 MARAMA Base Case Coal Steam 196 196 196 196 196 196 Combined Cycle 2,669 2, 669 3,340 3,340 3,464 3,464 Combustion Turbine 2,804 2,804 3,143 3,143 3,143 3,143 Oil/Gas Steam 53,826 53, 826 60,763 60,763 60,858 60,858 Other 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
National Total 59,495 59,495 67,442 67,442 67,661 67,661 MARAMA CAIR Plus Policy Case Coal Steam 279 2,269 2,689 2,689 2,689 2,689

difference wrt MARAMA Base Case 83 2,073 2,493 2,493 2,493 2,493 Combined Cycle 2,822 2, 822 3,540 3,540 3,541 3,541

difference wrt MARAMA Base Case 153 153 200 200 77 77 Combustion Turbine 2,804 2,804 3,143 3,143 3,143 3,143

difference wrt MARAMA Base Case 0 0 0 0 0 0 Oil/Gas Steam 56,467 56, 467 63,023 63,023 63,023 63,023

difference wrt MARAMA Base Case 2,641 2,641 2,260 2,260 2,165 2,165 Other 0 0 0 0 0 0

difference wrt MARAMA Base Case 0 0 0 0 0 0 National Total 62,372 64,362 72,395 72,395 72,396 72,396

difference wrt MARAMA Base Case 2,877 4,867 4,953 4,953 4,735 4,735 Note: The category “Other” includes all plant types other than coal steam, oil/gas steam, combined cycle and combustion turbines.

### 15 7. Power Plant Generation

Changes in power plant generation is one of the compliance strategies for meeting a tighter environmental policy. In the MARAMA CAIR Plus Policy Case as compared to the MARAMA Base Case, the generation mix changes towards lower emission intensive fuel and plant types. Table 13 summarizes the generation mix in the MARAMA Base Case and the MARAMA CAIR Plus Policy Case. Note that there is an increase in natural gas fired generation (from combined cycles, combustion turbines and oil/gas steam units) and a reduction in coal fired generation (from coal steam and IGCC units) in all years except 2012. The overall increase in coal fired generation in 2012 occurs because it is the first year when the scrubber feasibility limits are no longer applicable resulting in an increase in scrubber installations and a relatively lower drop in generation from the coal steam units. Coal generation in 2010 is also not higher due to the presence of scrubber limits. In years after 2012, the SO 2 

### and NO x 

### policies in the MARAMA CAIR Plus Policy Case continue to become more stringent resulting in an increase in gas based generation.

The electricity demand in both the MARAMA Base Case and the MARAMA CAIR Plus Policy Case are identical. However the power generation in the two runs is different due to differences in transmission and pump storage losses.

### 16 Table 13: Generation by Plant Type in the U.S. Electric Power Sector (GWh)

2008 2009 2010 2012 2015 2018 MARAMA Base Case Coal Steam 2,202,868 2,180,582 2, 491,528 2,541,830 2,560,775 2,735,709 Combined Cycle 698,066 785,335 589,215 665,117 664,622 687,933 Combustion Turbine 37,735 49,113 30,941 38,341 36,254 49,527 Oil/Gas Steam 48,477 53,885 13,752 20,565 18,459 17,581 IGCC 4,702 4,702 14,142 14,148 192,239 226,262 Nuclear 796,130 796,715 797,725 801,460 810,065 807,698 Hydro (includes Pump Storage) 295,81 4 289,778 293,886 292,400 295,679 295,911 Biomass 14,301 14,929 17,039 22,183 25,969 29,742 Landfill Gas 13,715 13,747 13,747 13,747 16,063 16,384 Wind 32,308 32,414 32,664 32,782 34,486 36,289 Other 69,259 69,420 75,569 75,931 78,123 75,889

National Total 4,213,375 4,290,620 4,370,208 4 ,518,504 4,732,734 4,978,925 MARAMA CAIR Plus Policy Case Coal Steam 2,194,992 2,067,557 2, 451,724 2,530,526 2,541,139 2,663,300

difference wrt MARAMA Base Case -7,876 -113,025 -39,804 -11,304 -19,636 -72,409 Combined Cycle 703,266 889,217 598,711 650,084 671,380 736,610

difference wrt MARAMA Base Case 5,200 103,882 9,496 -15,033 6,758 48,677 Combustion Turbine 38,778 54,216 31,351 36,534 33,886 37,414

difference wrt MARAMA Base Case 1,043 5,103 410 -1,807 -2,368 -12,113 Oil/Gas Steam 46,979 55,463 12,714 19,655 18,028 17,755

difference wrt MARAMA Base Case -1,498 1,578 -1,038 -910 -431 174 IGCC 4,702 4,702 41,408 41,408 205,343 259,435

difference wrt MARAMA Base Case 0 0 27,266 27,260 13,104 33,173 Nuclear 796,130 796,715 797,725 801,460 810,065 807,698

difference wrt MARAMA Base Case 0 0 0 0 0 0 Hydro (includes Pump Storage) 294,85 7 289,566 292,858 292,016 294,154 294,310

difference wrt MARAMA Base Case -957 -212 -1,028 -384 -1,525 -1,601 Biomass 14,307 14,935 17,421 20,998 26,426 30,466

difference wrt MARAMA Base Case 6 6 382 -1,185 457 724 Landfill Gas 14,259 14,290 14,290 14,290 16,607 16,607

difference wrt MARAMA Base Case 544 543 543 543 544 223 Wind 34,522 34,627 34,877 34,936 35,383 37,187

difference wrt MARAMA Base Case 2,214 2,213 2,213 2,154 897 898 Other 69,259 68,125 75,569 75,931 78,123 75,889

difference wrt MARAMA Base Case 0 -1,295 0 0 0 0 National Total 4,212,051 4,289,413 4,368,648 4 ,517,838 4,730,534 4,976,671

difference wrt MARAMA Base Case -1,324 -1,207 -1,560 -666 -2,200 -2,254 

### Note: The plant type “Other” includes solar, geothermal and waste fired units.

### 17 8. New Power Plant Builds

Table 14 summarizes the new power plant builds in the MARAMA Base Case and the MARAMA CAIR Plus Policy Case. In the MARAMA CAIR Plus Policy Case, new builds are higher than in the MARAMA Base Case because of a need to compensate for the increase in power plant retirements as presented in Table 12 and to take advantage of the relatively cleaner emission profiles of the new technologies.

New IGCC’s have lower emission rates and lower heat rates making them more valuable under a stringent environmental policy. Hence IGCC’s are built in 2010 and 2012 in the MARAMA CAIR Plus Policy Case and not in the MARAMA Base Case.

In 2018, the SO 2 

### allowance retirement ratio increases from 3.32 to 4.16. This increase results in a drop in coal fired generation and an increase in natural gas fired generation. In order to support this increase, in 2018 there is a significant increase in new combined cycle capacity that is more cost effective for base and intermediate load operation and a corresponding decrease in new combustion turbine capacity that is cost effective for peak load operation.

Table 14: New Power Plant Builds by Plant Type in the United States (MW)

2008 2009 2010 2012 2015 2018 MARAMA Base Case Coal Steam 0 0 38,084 44,332 48,833 75,341 IGCC 0 0 0 0 23,187 27,617 Combined Cycle 6,550 6, 550 6,550 8,580 20,518 24,265 Combustion Turbine 4,625 4,625 4,625 4,625 4,848 16,302 Biomass 0 0 349 978 1,570 2,099 Landfill Gas 1,241 1,241 1,241 1,241 1,552 1,595 Wind 5,153 5,153 5,153 5,193 5,739 6,283

National Total 17,569 17,569 56,002 64,949 106,247 153,502 MARAMA CAIR Plus Policy Case Coal Steam 0 0 35,674 46,627 52,245 72,806

difference wrt MARAMA Base Case 0 0 -2,410 2,295 3,412 -2,535 IGCC 0 0 3,651 3,651 24,995 32,038

difference wrt MARAMA Base Case 0 0 3,651 3,651 1,808 4,421 Combined Cycle 6,814 6, 814 6,814 8,163 21,120 33,615

difference wrt MARAMA Base Case 264 264 264 -417 602 9,350 Combustion Turbine 4,781 4,781 4,781 4,781 4,781 10,473

difference wrt MARAMA Base Case 156 156 156 156 -67 -5,829 Biomass 0 0 349 815 1,570 2,099

difference wrt MARAMA Base Case 0 0 0 -163 0 0 Landfill Gas 1,314 1,314 1,314 1,314 1,625 1,625

difference wrt MARAMA Base Case 73 73 73 73 73 30 Wind 5,843 5,843 5,843 5,863 5,985 6,529

difference wrt MARAMA Base Case 690 690 690 670 246 246 National Total 18,752 18,752 58,426 71,214 112,321 159,185

difference wrt MARAMA Base Case 1,183 1,183 2,424 6,265 6,074 5,683

### 18 D. Limitations of Analysis

MARAMA modeling using IPM is based on various economic and engineering input assumptions that are inherently uncertain, such as assumptions for future fuel prices, electricity demand growth and the cost and performance of control technologies. As configured, IPM does not take into account demand response (i.e., consumer reaction to changes in electricity prices).

### 19 Appendix 1: Summary of Changes to EPA Base Case v2.1.9 by Vistas

The EPA Base Case v.2.1.9 was dev eloped by ICF under th e direction of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). It serves as the starting point for the anal ysis presented in this report. Subsequent to its release the VISTAS Regional Pl anning Organization initiated a two-phase study using IPM. Starting with the EPA 2.1.9 as a base, VIST AS, along with study parti cipants from CENRAP and LADCO RPOs, made several changes to the underlyi ng datasets and modeling assumptions. The starting point for the MARAMA analyses discussed in this re port was work from the VISTAS study as modeled in the run VISTASII_PC_1f.

VISTAS and its workgroup initiated a review of N EEDS and recommended a large number of changes to the data. This occurred in two phases. In addition to unit level changes, VISTAS and its workgroup made a number of global changes that are reflected in this case. These are briefly described below:

• Demand forecast were changed to reflect unadju sted EIA AEO 2005 national electricity and peak demand values.

• AEO 2005 data was used for all assumptions regarding new builds of conventional technologies. The cost and performance assumpti ons for these units were as per the AEO 2005 documentation, while assumptions for r enewable capacity were the same as those used in the EPA Base Case 2004 v.2.1.9.

• For nuclear units, the cost of continued operation was updated to approximately $27 per kilowatt-year based on AEO 2005.

• Hardwired Duke Power and Progress Energy cont rol technology investment strategies for complying with the North Carolina Clean Smoke Stacks rule.

• The renewable portfolio standards (RPS) is modeled based on the most recent RGGI documentation using a single RPS region fo r Massachusetts (MA), Rhode Island (RI), New York (NY), New Jersey (NJ), Maryland (MD) and Connecticut (CT). The RPS requirements within these states can be met by renew able generation from New England, New York and PJM. EPA Base Case 2004 v.2.1.9 methodology and EIA AEO 2004 projected renewable builds were used for the rest of the regions.

• The run years used were 2008 (2007-2008), 2009 (2009), 2012 (2010-2013), 2015 (2014- 2017), 2018 (2018), 2020 (2019-2022), and 2026 (2023-2030).

• The Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR) was modeled.

### 20 Appendix 2: MANE-VU IPM Global Parameter Decisions

This section summarizes the decisions as made by MANE-VU for global assumptions to be used in EGU forecasting with IPM as part of the VISTAS analysis. These decisions and changes are made to EPA Base Case version 2.1.9 assumptions.

A. Market Assumptions

1. National Electricity and Peak Demand Decision : Use unadjusted EIA AEO 2005 national electricity and peak demand values. (This is the same as the assumption used by VISTAS, MRPO, and CENRAP. See 5/11/05 Inter-RPO IPM Global Decisions memo.)

2. Regional Electricity and Demand Breakout Decision : Use the existing IPM region breakdown as conducted in earlier modeling. (This is the same as the assumption used by VISTAS, MRPO, and CENRAP. See 5/11/05 Inter-RPO IPM Global Decisions memo.)

3. Natural Gas Supply Curve and Price Forecast Decision : Use fuel supply curves and fuel price forecast s from IPM version 2.1.9. These are the same fuel price forecasts and supply curve assu mptions used in EPA’s latest CAIR runs.

(This is the same as the assumption used by VIST AS, MRPO, and CENRAP. See e-mail from Megan Schuster dated 7/5/05.)

4. Oil Price Forecast Decision : Use fuel supply curves and fuel price forecast s from IPM version 2.1.9. These are the same fuel price forecasts and supply curve assu mptions used in EPA’s latest CAIR runs.

(This is the same as the assumption used by VIST AS, MRPO, and CENRAP. See e-mail from Meagan Schuster dated 7/5/05.)

5. Coal Supply and Price Forecast Decision : Use fuel supply curves and fuel price forecast s from IPM version 2.1.9. These are the same fuel price forecasts and supply curve assu mptions used in EPA’s latest CAIR runs.

(This is the same as the assumption used by VIST AS, MRPO, and CENRAP. See e-mail from Megan Schuster dated 7/1/05.)

B. Technical Assumptions

1. Firmly Planned Capacity Assumptions Decision : Use revisions and new data as pr ovided by RPOs and stakeholders. Decision : Allow NC Clean Smokestacks 2009 data as provided to define “must run” units. (These are the same as the assumptions used by VISTAS, MRPO, and CENRAP. See 5/11/05 Inter-RPO IPM Global Decisions memo.)

2. Pollution Control Retrofit Cost and Performance [SO2, NOx, Hg] Decision : Retain pollution control retrofit cost and performance values. (This is the same as the assumption used by VISTAS, MRPO, and CENRAP. See 5/11/05 Inter-RPO IPM Global Decisions memo.)

3. New Conventional Capacity cost and performance assumptions Decision : Use EIA AEO 2005 cost and performance assumptions for new conventional capacity. Decision : Retain existing 2.1.9 framework cost and performance for new renewable capacity. Decision : Exclude constraint on new capacity type builds (i.e., no new coal). (These are the same as the assumptions used by VISTAS, MRPO, and CENRAP. See 5/11/05 Inter-RPO IPM Global Decisions memo.)

4. SO 2 Title IV Allowance Bank

### 21 Decision : Use existing SO2 allowance bank value (4.99 million tons) for 2007. (This is the same as the assumption used by VISTAS, MRPO, and CENRAP. See 5/11/05 Inter-RPO IPM Global Decisions memo.)

5. Nuclear Re-licensing and Uprate Decision : Use existing IPM configuration with updat ed EIA AEO 2005 (~$27/kW) incurrence cost for continued operation. (This is the same as the assumption used by VISTAS, MRPO, and CENRAP. See 5/11/05 Inter-RPO IPM Global Decisions memo.)

C. Strategy Assumptions

1. Clear Air Mercury Rule (CAMR) Decision : Include CAMR in future rounds of IPM modeling. (This is the same as the assumption used by VISTAS, MRPO, and CENRAP. See 5/11/05 Inter-RPO IPM Global Decisions memo.)

2. Renewable Portfolio Standards Decision : Model RPS based on the most recent RGGI doc umentation using a single RPS region for MA, RI, NY, NJ, MD and CT. The RPS requirements within these states can be met by renewable generation from New England, New York and PJM. EPA 2.1.9 methodology and ha rdwired EIA AEO 2004 projected renewable builds for the remainder of the country. (This is the same as the assumption used by VISTAS, MRPO, and CENRAP. See 5/11/05 Inter-RPO IPM Global Decisions memo.)

D. Other Assumptions

1. Run Years Decision : Parsed output data will be provided for 2009, 2012 and 2018. Run years to 2008, 2009, 2012, 2015, 2018, 2020, and 2026. (Run Year 2008 [2007-2008], Run Year 2009 [2009], Run Year 2012 [2010-2013], Run Year 2015 [2014-2017], Run Year 2018 [2018], Run Year 2020 [2019-2022] and Run Year 2026 [2023-2030] (This is the same as the assumption used by VISTAS, MRPO, and CENRAP. See 5/11/05 Inter-RPO IPM Global Decisions memo.)

2. Canadian Sources Decision : Utilize existing v.2.1.9 configurati on (no Canadian site specific sources). (This is the same as the assumption used by VISTAS, MRPO, and CENRAP. See 5/11/05 Inter-RPO IPM Global Decisions memo.)

### 22 Appendix 3: Detailed Assumptions Used in MARAMA analysis

Table A.3.1 shows the run year configuration used in the MARAMA Base Case and Policy Case.

Table A.3.1 Run Year Configuration

Run Year Calendar Years

2008 2007-2008

2009 2009-2009

2010 2010-2011

2012 2012-2012

2015 2013-2017

2018 2018-2018

2020 2019-2022

2026 2023-2030

### 23 Table A3.2 shows the natural gas prices used in t he MARAMA analysis. These supply curves are based on ICF’s NANGAS model.

Table A3.2 Natural Gas Supply Curve in the MARAMA Analysis

Year Price (1999$/MMBtu) Non electric gas demand (TBtu) Total gas supply (TBtu) Gas supply to electric sector (TBtu) 2008 3.50 20987 21160 173 2008 3.63 20734 21230 496 2008 3.78 20493 21300 807 2008 3.91 20264 21360 1096 2008 4.05 20045 21420 1375 2008 4.19 19836 21480 1644 2008 4.32 19635 21540 1905 2008 4.47 19443 21600 2157 2008 4.60 19258 21660 2402 2008 4.75 19080 21710 2630 2008 4.88 18909 21760 2851 2008 5.01 18744 21810 3066 2008 5.16 18585 21860 3275 2008 5.29 18432 21910 3478 2008 5.44 18284 21960 3676 2008 5.57 18141 22010 3869 2008 5.71 18002 22060 4058 2008 5.85 17868 22100 4232 2008 5.98 17738 22140 4402 2008 6.12 17612 22180 4568 2008 6.26 17489 22220 4731 2008 6.40 17370 22260 4890 2008 6.54 17254 22300 5046 2008 6.67 17141 22340 5199 2008 6.81 17031 22380 5349 2008 6.95 16924 22420 5496 2008 7.09 16820 22460 5640 2008 7.23 16719 22500 5781 2008 7.36 16620 22540 5920 2008 7.50 16524 22570 6046 2008 7.64 16430 22600 6170 2008 7.78 16338 22630 6292 2008 7.92 16248 22660 6412 2008 8.06 16160 22690 6530 2008 8.19 16074 22720 6646 2008 8.33 15990 22750 6760 2008 8.47 15908 22780 6872 2008 8.61 15828 22810 6982 2008 8.75 15749 22840 7091 2008 8.88 15672 22870 7198 2008 9.02 15596 22900 7304 2008 9.16 15522 22930 7408 2008 9.30 15449 22960 7511 2008 9.44 15378 22990 7612 2008 9.57 15308 23020 7712

### 24 Year Price (1999$/MMBtu) Non electric gas demand (TBtu) Total gas supply (TBtu) Gas supply to electric sector (TBtu) 2008 9.72 15239 23050 7811 2009 3.22 21520 22270 750 2009 3.36 21235 22340 1105 2009 3.50 20965 22410 1445 2009 3.63 20709 22480 1771 2009 3.78 20465 22540 2075 2009 3.91 20233 22600 2367 2009 4.05 20011 22660 2649 2009 4.19 19799 22720 2921 2009 4.32 19596 22780 3184 2009 4.47 19401 22830 3429 2009 4.60 19214 22880 3666 2009 4.75 19034 22930 3896 2009 4.88 18861 22980 4119 2009 5.01 18695 23030 4335 2009 5.16 18535 23080 4545 2009 5.29 18380 23130 4750 2009 5.44 18230 23180 4950 2009 5.57 18085 23220 5135 2009 5.71 17945 23260 5315 2009 5.85 17809 23300 5491 2009 5.98 17677 23340 5663 2009 6.12 17549 23380 5831 2009 6.26 17425 23420 5995 2009 6.40 17305 23460 6155 2009 6.54 17188 23500 6312 2009 6.67 17074 23540 6466 2009 6.81 16963 23580 6617 2009 6.95 16855 23620 6765 2009 7.09 16750 23660 6910 2009 7.23 16648 23690 7042 2009 7.36 16548 23720 7172 2009 7.50 16451 23750 7299 2009 7.64 16356 23780 7424 2009 7.78 16263 23810 7547 2009 7.92 16172 23840 7668 2009 8.06 16083 23870 7787 2009 8.19 15996 23900 7904 2009 8.33 15911 23930 8019 2009 8.47 15828 23960 8132 2009 8.61 15747 23990 8243 2009 8.75 15668 24020 8352 2009 8.88 15590 24050 8460 2009 9.02 15514 24080 8566 2009 9.16 15439 24110 8671 2009 9.30 15366 24140 8774 2009 9.44 15294 24170 8876 2009 9.57 15224 24200 8976 2009 9.72 15155 24230 9075

### 25 Year Price (1999$/MMBtu) Non electric gas demand (TBtu) Total gas supply (TBtu) Gas supply to electric sector (TBtu) 2010 3.22 21688 23220 1532 2010 3.36 21387 23300 1913 2010 3.50 21102 23370 2268 2010 3.63 20832 23440 2608 2010 3.78 20575 23510 2935 2010 3.91 20330 23580 3250 2010 4.05 20097 23640 3543 2010 4.19 19874 23700 3826 2010 4.32 19661 23760 4099 2010 4.47 19457 23820 4363 2010 4.60 19261 23880 4619 2010 4.75 19073 23940 4867 2010 4.88 18892 23990 5098 2010 5.01 18717 24040 5323 2010 5.16 18549 24090 5541 2010 5.29 18387 24140 5753 2010 5.44 18230 24190 5960 2010 5.57 18078 24240 6162 2010 5.71 17931 24290 6359 2010 5.85 17789 24340 6551 2010 5.98 17651 24390 6739 2010 6.12 17518 24430 6912 2010 6.26 17388 24470 7082 2010 6.40 17262 24510 7248 2010 6.54 17140 24550 7410 2010 6.67 17021 24590 7569 2010 6.81 16905 24630 7725 2010 6.95 16793 24670 7877 2010 7.09 16683 24710 8027 2010 7.23 16576 24750 8174 2010 7.36 16472 24790 8318 2010 7.50 16371 24830 8459 2010 7.64 16272 24870 8598 2010 7.78 16175 24910 8735 2010 7.92 16081 24940 8859 2010 8.06 15989 24970 8981 2010 8.19 15899 25000 9101 2010 8.33 15811 25030 9219 2010 8.47 15725 25060 9335 2010 8.61 15641 25090 9449 2010 8.75 15558 25120 9562 2010 8.88 15477 25150 9673 2010 9.02 15398 25180 9782 2010 9.16 15320 25210 9890 2010 9.30 15244 25240 9996 2010 9.44 15169 25270 10101 2010 9.57 15096 25300 10204 2010 9.72 15024 25330 10306 2012 3.22 22121 24260 2139

### 26 Year Price (1999$/MMBtu) Non electric gas demand (TBtu) Total gas supply (TBtu) Gas supply to electric sector (TBtu) 2012 3.36 21813 24350 2537 2012 3.50 21522 24430 2908 2012 3.63 21246 24510 3264 2012 3.78 20983 24590 3607 2012 3.91 20733 24670 3937 2012 4.05 20494 24740 4246 2012 4.19 20266 24810 4544 2012 4.32 20048 24880 4832 2012 4.47 19839 24950 5111 2012 4.60 19638 25020 5382 2012 4.75 19445 25080 5635 2012 4.88 19259 25140 5881 2012 5.01 19080 25200 6120 2012 5.16 18908 25260 6352 2012 5.29 18742 25320 6578 2012 5.44 18582 25380 6798 2012 5.57 18427 25430 7003 2012 5.71 18277 25480 7203 2012 5.85 18132 25530 7398 2012 5.98 17991 25580 7589 2012 6.12 17854 25630 7776 2012 6.26 17722 25680 7958 2012 6.40 17593 25730 8137 2012 6.54 17468 25780 8312 2012 6.67 17346 25830 8484 2012 6.81 17228 25880 8652 2012 6.95 17113 25920 8807 2012 7.09 17001 25960 8959 2012 7.23 16892 26000 9108 2012 7.36 16786 26040 9254 2012 7.50 16682 26080 9398 2012 7.64 16581 26120 9539 2012 7.78 16482 26160 9678 2012 7.92 16385 26200 9815 2012 8.06 16291 26240 9949 2012 8.19 16199 26280 10081 2012 8.33 16109 26320 10211 2012 8.47 16021 26360 10339 2012 8.61 15935 26400 10465 2012 8.75 15851 26440 10589 2012 8.88 15768 26480 10712 2012 9.02 15687 26520 10833 2012 9.16 15608 26550 10942 2012 9.30 15530 26580 11050 2012 9.44 15454 26610 11156 2012 9.57 15379 26640 11261 2012 9.72 15306 26670 11364 2015 3.22 22107 25450 3343 2015 3.36 21844 25540 3696

### 27 Year Price (1999$/MMBtu) Non electric gas demand (TBtu) Total gas supply (TBtu) Gas supply to electric sector (TBtu) 2015 3.50 21595 25620 4025 2015 3.63 21358 25700 4342 2015 3.78 21132 25780 4648 2015 3.91 20917 25850 4933 2015 4.05 20711 25920 5209 2015 4.19 20514 25990 5476 2015 4.32 20325 26060 5735 2015 4.47 20144 26130 5986 2015 4.60 19970 26190 6220 2015 4.75 19802 26250 6448 2015 4.88 19641 26310 6669 2015 5.01 19485 26370 6885 2015 5.16 19335 26430 7095 2015 5.29 19190 26490 7300 2015 5.44 19050 26540 7490 2015 5.57 18914 26590 7676 2015 5.71 18782 26640 7858 2015 5.85 18654 26690 8036 2015 5.98 18530 26740 8210 2015 6.12 18410 26790 8380 2015 6.26 18293 26840 8547 2015 6.40 18180 26890 8710 2015 6.54 18070 26940 8870 2015 6.67 17963 26980 9017 2015 6.81 17858 27020 9162 2015 6.95 17756 27060 9304 2015 7.09 17657 27100 9443 2015 7.23 17560 27140 9580 2015 7.36 17466 27180 9714 2015 7.50 17374 27220 9846 2015 7.64 17284 27260 9976 2015 7.78 17196 27300 10104 2015 7.92 17110 27340 10230 2015 8.06 17026 27380 10354 2015 8.19 16944 27420 10476 2015 8.33 16863 27460 10597 2015 8.47 16784 27500 10716 2015 8.61 16707 27540 10833 2015 8.75 16631 27570 10939 2015 8.88 16557 27600 11043 2015 9.02 16484 27630 11146 2015 9.16 16413 27660 11247 2015 9.30 16343 27690 11347 2015 9.44 16274 27720 11446 2015 9.57 16207 27750 11543 2015 9.72 16141 27780 11639 2018 3.22 23169 26880 3711 2018 3.36 22871 27010 4139 2018 3.50 22589 27130 4541

### 28 Year Price (1999$/MMBtu) Non electric gas demand (TBtu) Total gas supply (TBtu) Gas supply to electric sector (TBtu) 2018 3.63 22321 27250 4929 2018 3.78 22066 27360 5294 2018 3.91 21823 27470 5647 2018 4.05 21591 27580 5989 2018 4.19 21369 27680 6311 2018 4.32 21156 27780 6624 2018 4.47 20952 27880 6928 2018 4.60 20756 27980 7224 2018 4.75 20568 28070 7502 2018 4.88 20387 28160 7773 2018 5.01 20212 28250 8038 2018 5.16 20044 28340 8296 2018 5.29 19881 28420 8539 2018 5.44 19724 28500 8776 2018 5.57 19572 28580 9008 2018 5.71 19425 28660 9235 2018 5.85 19282 28740 9458 2018 5.98 19144 28820 9676 2018 6.12 19010 28890 9880 2018 6.26 18880 28960 10080 2018 6.40 18753 29030 10277 2018 6.54 18630 29100 10470 2018 6.67 18510 29170 10660 2018 6.81 18394 29240 10846 2018 6.95 18281 29310 11029 2018 7.09 18170 29380 11210 2018 7.23 18062 29440 11378 2018 7.36 17957 29500 11543 2018 7.50 17854 29560 11706 2018 7.64 17754 29620 11866 2018 7.78 17656 29680 12024 2018 7.92 17560 29740 12180 2018 8.06 17467 29800 12333 2018 8.19 17376 29860 12484 2018 8.33 17287 29920 12633 2018 8.47 17200 29980 12780 2018 8.61 17114 30030 12916 2018 8.75 17030 30080 13050 2018 8.88 16948 30130 13182 2018 9.02 16868 30180 13312 2018 9.16 16789 30230 13441 2018 9.30 16712 30280 13568 2018 9.44 16636 30330 13694 2018 9.57 16562 30380 13818 2018 9.72 16489 30430 13941 2020 3.22 23815 26120 2305 2020 3.36 23496 26280 2784 2020 3.50 23194 26440 3246 2020 3.63 22907 26590 3683

### 29 Year Price (1999$/MMBtu) Non electric gas demand (TBtu) Total gas supply (TBtu) Gas supply to electric sector (TBtu) 2020 3.78 22634 26740 4106 2020 3.91 22374 26880 4506 2020 4.05 22126 27020 4894 2020 4.19 21889 27150 5261 2020 4.32 21662 27280 5618 2020 4.47 21445 27410 5965 2020 4.60 21236 27530 6294 2020 4.75 21035 27650 6615 2020 4.88 20842 27770 6928 2020 5.01 20656 27880 7224 2020 5.16 20477 27990 7513 2020 5.29 20304 28100 7796 2020 5.44 20137 28210 8073 2020 5.57 19975 28310 8335 2020 5.71 19818 28410 8592 2020 5.85 19666 28510 8844 2020 5.98 19519 28610 9091 2020 6.12 19376 28710 9334 2020 6.26 19238 28800 9562 2020 6.40 19104 28890 9786 2020 6.54 18973 28980 10007 2020 6.67 18846 29070 10224 2020 6.81 18722 29160 10438 2020 6.95 18602 29250 10648 2020 7.09 18485 29340 10855 2020 7.23 18371 29420 11049 2020 7.36 18260 29500 11240 2020 7.50 18151 29580 11429 2020 7.64 18045 29660 11615 2020 7.78 17941 29740 11799 2020 7.92 17840 29820 11980 2020 8.06 17741 29900 12159 2020 8.19 17644 29980 12336 2020 8.33 17550 30050 12500 2020 8.47 17458 30120 12662 2020 8.61 17368 30190 12822 2020 8.75 17279 30260 12981 2020 8.88 17192 30330 13138 2020 9.02 17107 30400 13293 2020 9.16 17024 30470 13446 2020 9.30 16942 30540 13598 2020 9.44 16862 30610 13748 2020 9.57 16783 30680 13897 2020 9.72 16706 30750 14044

### 30 Table A3.3 shows the fuel oil prices used in t he MARAMA analysis. These prices based on AEO 2006.

Table A3.3 Residual and Distillate Fuel Oil Prices (1999$/MMBtu)

Residual Oil Distillate Oil

Year MAAC New England MAAC New England 2008 5.13 4.41 8.63 8.69 2009 5.00 4.13 8.30 8.38 2010 4.88 3.87 7.98 8.05 2012 4.75 3.83 8.06 8.12 2015 4.75 3.77 7.90 7.96 2018 5.03 3.90 8.27 8.33 2020 5.06 3.98 8.41 8.47 Source: AEO 2006

Table A3.4 summarizes the cumulative SCR and scrubbe r feasibility limits that were implemented in the years 2008, 2009 and 2010. These limits are based on projections of planned installations.

Table A3.4 SCR and Scrubber Feasibility Limits

Year SCR (GW) Scrubbers (GW)

2008 9 31 2009 15 51 2010 No Limit 69

### 31 Tables A3.5a and 3.5b show the list of CAVR eligible sources for SO 2 and NO x requirements.

Table A3.5a CAVR SO 2 Requirements: All CAVR eligible, unscrubbed, non CAIR and non WRAP affected sources larger than 200 MW

Unique ID Plant Name State 6138_B_1 Flint Creek Arkansas 6641_B_1 Independence Arkansas 6009_B_1 White Bluff Arkansas 6009_B_2 White Bluff Arkansas 469_B_4 Cherokee Colorado 470_B_1 Comanche Colorado 470_B_2 Comanche Colorado 6248_B_1 Pawnee Colorado 8219_B_1 Rray d Nixon Colorado 568_B_BHB3 Bridgeport Harbor Connecticut 1241_B_2 La Cygne Kansas 6064_B_N1 Nearman Creek Kansas 1619_B_1 Brayton Point Massachusetts 1619_B_2 Brayton Point Massachusetts 1619_B_3 Brayton Point Massachusetts 2817_B_1 leland Olds North Dakota 2817_B_2 leland Olds North Dakota 2823_B_B1 Milton R Young North Dakota 6077_B_1 Gerald Gentleman Nebraska 6077_B_2 Gerald Gentleman Nebraska 6096_B_1 Nebraska City Nebraska 2291_B_5 North Omaha Nebraska 2364_B_2 Merrimack New Hampshire 8224_B_1 North Valmy Nevada 2952_B_4 Muskogee Oklahoma 2952_B_5 Muskogee Oklahoma 2963_B_3313 Northeastern Oklahoma 2963_B_3314 Northeastern Oklahoma 6095_B_1 Sooner Oklahoma 6095_B_2 Sooner Oklahoma 6098_B_1 Big Stone South Dakota

### 32 Table A3.5b CAVR NO X Requirements: CAVR eligible, non CAIR affected sources larger than 200 MW

Unique ID Plant Name State 6138_B_1 Flint Creek Arkansas 6641_B_1 Independence Arkansas 6009_B_1 White Bluff Arkansas 6009_B_2 White Bluff Arkansas 113_B_2 Cholla Arizona 113_B_3 Cholla Arizona 113_B_4 Cholla Arizona 6177_B_U1B Coronado Arizona 6177_B_U2B Coronado Arizona 4941_B_1 Navajo Arizona 4941_B_2 Navajo Arizona 4941_B_3 Navajo Arizona 469_B_4 Cherokee Colorado 470_B_1 Comanche Colorado 470_B_2 Comanche Colorado 6021_B_C1 Craig Colorado 6021_B_C2 Craig Colorado 525_B_H2 Hayden Colorado 6248_B_1 Pawnee Colorado 8219_B_1 Ray D Nixon Colorado 568_B_BHB3 Bridgeport Harbor Connecticut 6068_B_1 Jeffrey Energy Center Kansas 6068_B_2 Jeffrey Energy Center Kansas 1241_B_1 La Cygne Kansas 1241_B_2 La Cygne Kansas 1250_B_5 Lawrence Kansas 6064_B_N1 Nearman Creek Kansas 1619_B_1 Brayton Point Massachusetts 1619_B_2 Brayton Point Massachusetts 1619_B_3 Brayton Point Massachusetts 6076_B_1 Colstrip Montana 6076_B_2 Colstrip Montana 6030_B_1 Coal Creek North Dakota 6030_B_2 Coal Creek North Dakota 2817_B_1 Leland Olds North Dakota 2817_B_2 Leland Olds North Dakota 2823_B_B1 Milton R Young North Dakota 2823_B_B2 Milton R Young North Dakota 6077_B_1 Gerald Gentleman Nebraska 6077_B_2 Gerald Gentleman Nebraska 6096_B_1 Nebraska City Nebraska 2291_B_5 North Omaha Nebraska 2364_B_2 Merrimack New Hampshire 2442_B_3 Four Corners New Mexico 2442_B_4 Four Corners New Mexico 2442_B_5 Four Corners New Mexico 2451_B_1 San Juan New Mexico 2451_B_2 San Juan New Mexico

### 33 Unique ID Plant Name State 2451_B_3 San Juan New Mexico 2451_B_4 San Juan New Mexico 2341_B_1 Mohave Nevada 2341_B_2 Mohave Nevada 8224_B_1 North Valmy Nevada 2952_B_4 Muskogee Oklahoma 2952_B_5 Muskogee Oklahoma 2963_B_3313 Northeastern Oklahoma 2963_B_3314 Northeastern Oklahoma 6095_B_1 Sooner Oklahoma 6095_B_2 Sooner Oklahoma 6106_B_1SG Boardman Oregon 6098_B_1 Big Stone South Dakota 6165_B_1 Hunter (Emery) Utah 6165_B_2 Hunter (Emery) Utah 8069_B_1 Huntington Utah 8069_B_2 Huntington Utah 3845_B_BW21 Centralia Washington 3845_B_BW22 Centralia Washington 4158_B_BW43 Dave Johnston Wyoming 4158_B_BW44 Dave Johnston Wyoming 8066_B_BW71 Jim Bridger Wyoming 8066_B_BW72 Jim Bridger Wyoming 8066_B_BW73 Jim Bridger Wyoming 8066_B_BW74 Jim Bridger Wyoming 6204_B_1 Laramie River Wyoming 6204_B_2 Laramie River Wyoming 6204_B_3 Laramie River Wyoming 4162_B_2 Naughton Wyoming 4162_B_3 Naughton Wyoming 6101_B_BW91 Wyodak Wyoming

Title IV SO 2 bank – In order to capture the dynamics of the SO 2 allowance market pre 2007, MARAMA has implemented a Title IV SO 2 allowance bank of 6.43 million t ons, going into the year 2007.Tables A3.6 and A3.7 show the national regulations modeled in the MARAMA base case and policy cases respectively, along with the detailsregarding affected units, policy structure and amount of allowances.Table A3.6 Trading and Banking Rules in the MARAMA Base CaseTitle IV SO2CAIR Annual NOxCAIR Ozone SeasonNOxCAVR Rule – SO2CAVR Rule – NOxCAMR (CleanAir MercuryRule)CoverageAll Fossil units >25MWAll Fossil units >25MW *All Fossil units >25 MW**All Coal, CAVR Eligible,Non CAIR Unscrubbedand Non WRAP > 200MW ***All Coal & CAVR EligibleOutside CAIR > 200 MWAll Coal Units >25 MWTimingAnnualAnnualOzone Season (May –September)AnnualAnnualAnnualSize of Initial Bank6,437 thousand tonsstarting in 2007The bank starting in2009 is assumed tobe zero.The bank starting in2007 is assumed to bezero.N/AN/A-Policy StructureTrading and BankingallowedTrading and BankingallowedTrading and BankingallowedNo Trading or banking No Trading or banking Trading andBanking allowedRulesTotal Allowances(thousand tons except forCAMR is in tons)2007-2009: 9,4702010-2030: 8,9502009: 1,7222010-2014: 1,5222015-2030: 1,2682007-2008: 49712009-2014: 5682015-2030: 485N/AN/A2010-2017: 382018-2030: 15Total Allowances Pre 2007Bank Less NSR and NorthCarolina SO2AllowanceRetirements (thousandtons)2007: 15,8052008: 9,3502009: 9,2802010-2012: 8,8132013-2030: 8,6112009: 1,7222010-2014: 1,5222015-2030: 1,2682007-2008: 49712009-2014: 5682015-2030: 485N/AN/A2010-2017: 382018-2030: 15Non Cap and Trade PolicySpecificationsN/AN/AN/A0.15 lbs/MMBtuCombustion Controls onunits >200MW and SCRson cyclone fired unitsN/ARetirement Ratio2010: 2.02012: 2.02015: 2.522018: 2.862009-2030: 1.02007-2030: 1.0N/AN/A2007-2030: 1.0*CAIR Region States: Alabama, District of Columbia, Florida,Georgia, Illinois, Indiana,Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota,Mississippi, Missouri, New York,North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, WestVirginia, Wisconsin, New Jersey, Delaware.**CAIR Ozone Season States: Alabama, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts,Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia,West Virginia, Wisconsin.***WRAP States: Arizona, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Wyoming1. SIP Call35Table A3.7 Trading and Banking Rules in the MARAMA Policy CaseTitle IV SO2MARAMA CAIR Plus -Annual NOxMARAMA SIP Call and CAIRPlus - Ozone season NOxCAVR Rule – SO2CAVR Rule – NOxCAMR (Clean AirMercury Rule)CoverageAll Fossil units >25 MWAll Fossil units >25 MW *All Fossil units >25 MW **All Coal, CAVR Eligible,Non CAIR Unscrubbed andNon WRAP > 200 MW ***All Coal & CAVREligible Outside CAIR> 200 MWAll Coal Units > 25MWTimingAnnualAnnualOzone Season (May –September)AnnualAnnualAnnualSize of Initial Bank6,437 thousand tonsstarting in 2007The bank starting in 2009 isassumed to be zero.The bank starting in 2007 isassumed to be zero.N/AN/A-Policy StructureTrading and BankingallowedTrading and Banking allowed Trading and Banking allowedNo Trading or banking No Trading orbankingTrading andBanking allowedRulesTotal Allowances (thousandtons except for CAMR is inTons)2007-2009: 9,4702010-2030: 8,9502009: 1,5532010-2011: 1,3532012-2014: 9022015-2030: 8292007-2008: 49712009-2011: 6232012-2014: 4162015-2030: 382N/AN/A2010-2017: 382018-2030: 15Total Allowances Pre 2007Bank Less NSR and NorthCarolina SO2AllowanceRetirements (thousand tons)2007: 15,8052008: 9,3502009: 9,2802010-2012: 8,8132013-2030: 8,6112009: 1,5532010-2011: 1,3532012-2014: 9022015-2030: 8292007-2008: 49712009-2011: 6232012-2014: 4162015-2030: 382N/AN/A2010-2017: 382018-2030: 15Non Cap and Trade PolicySpecificationsN/AN/AN/A0.15 lbs/MMBtuCombustion Controlson units >200MW andSCRs on cyclone firedunitsN/ARetirement Ratio2010: 2.52012: 2.942015: 3.322018: 4.162009-2030: 1.02007-2030: 1.0N/AN/A2007-2030: 1.0*CAIR Plus Policy States: Alabama, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Illinois,Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota,Mississippi, Missouri, New York, North Carolina,Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia,West Virginia, Wisconsin, Maine,New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island,New Jersey, Delaware, Arkansas.** CAIR Ozone Season States: Alabama, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi,Missouri, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin.*** WRAP States: Arizona, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Wyoming1. SIP CallAppendix 4: Comparison of Assumptions Used in VISTAS and MARAMA analysis

Table 4.1 Differences in assumptions between the VISTAS and MARAMA projects

.

Parameter VISTAS MARAMA Run Years 2007,2010,2015,2020,2026 2008, 2009, 2010,2012,2015,2018,2020,2026 Gas Supply Curve EPA Base Case v.2.19 (see table below) EPA Base Case v.3.0 (refer to table A3.2 in Appendix 3.) Fuel Oil Prices AEO 2004 (See table below) AEO 2006 (Refer to table A3.3 in Appendix 3) SCR and Scrubber Feasibility Limits No limits applied in 2008, 2009 and 2010 Limits applied in 2008, 2009 and 2010. (Refer to table A3.4 in Appendix 3) Clean Air Visibility Rule Not modeled Implemented the CAVR rule for SO 2 and NO X Title IV SO 2 Bank (2007) 4.98 milli on tons 6.43 million tons

### 37 Table A4.2: Natural Gas Supply Curve Used in VISTAS Run

Year Price (1999$/Mmbtu) Non electric gas demand (TBtu) Total gas supply (TBtu) Gas supply to power sector (TBtu) 2007 2.75 19411 23560 4149 2007 2.80 19314 23580 4266 2007 2.85 19220 23600 4380 2007 2.90 19128 23620 4492 2007 2.95 19038 23640 4602 2007 3.00 18950 23660 4710 2007 3.05 18863 23680 4817 2007 3.10 18778 23700 4922 2007 3.15 18695 23720 5025 2007 3.20 18614 23730 5116 2007 3.25 18534 23740 5206 2007 3.26 18514 23740 5226 2007 3.30 18457 23790 5333 2007 3.35 18378 23800 5422 2007 3.40 18299 23810 5511 2007 3.44 18243 23820 5577 2007 3.45 18224 23820 5596 2007 3.50 18157 23830 5673 2007 3.55 18090 23840 5750 2007 3.57 18066 23840 5774 2007 3.60 18021 23850 5829 2007 3.65 17952 23860 5908 2007 3.70 17884 23870 5986 2007 3.75 17818 23880 6062 2007 3.80 17753 23890 6137 2007 3.85 17689 23900 6211 2007 3.90 17626 23910 6284 2007 3.95 17564 23920 6356 2007 4.00 17503 23930 6427 2007 4.05 17443 23940 6497 2007 4.10 17384 23950 6566 2007 4.15 17326 23960 6634 2007 4.20 17269 23970 6701 2007 4.25 17212 23980 6768 2007 4.30 17156 23990 6834 2007 4.35 17101 24000 6899 2007 4.40 17047 24010 6963 2007 4.45 16994 24020 7026 2007 4.50 16941 24030 7089 2007 4.55 16889 24040 7151 2007 4.60 16838 24050 7212 2007 4.65 16788 24060 7272 2007 4.70 16738 24070 7332 2007 4.75 16689 24080 7391 2007 4.80 16641 24090 7449 2007 4.85 16593 24100 7507 2007 4.90 16546 24110 7564 2007 4.95 16500 24120 7620

### 38 Year Price (1999$/Mmbtu) Non electric gas demand (TBtu) Total gas supply (TBtu) Gas supply to power sector (TBtu) 2007 5.00 16454 24130 7676 2007 5.05 16409 24140 7731 2007 5.10 16364 24150 7786 2007 5.15 16320 24160 7840 2007 5.20 16276 24170 7894 2007 5.25 16233 24180 7947 2007 5.30 16190 24190 8000 2007 5.35 16148 24200 8052 2007 5.40 16106 24210 8104 2007 5.41 16064 24220 8156 2010 2.75 19727 23780 4053 2010 2.80 19621 23890 4269 2010 2.85 19517 23990 4473 2010 2.90 19415 24090 4675 2010 2.95 19316 24190 4874 2010 3.00 19219 24290 5071 2010 3.05 19124 24390 5266 2010 3.10 19031 24490 5459 2010 3.15 18940 24590 5650 2010 3.16 18916 24620 5704 2010 3.20 18856 24850 5994 2010 3.25 18766 24970 6204 2010 3.29 18691 25070 6379 2010 3.30 18678 25080 6402 2010 3.35 18597 25130 6533 2010 3.40 18516 25180 6664 2010 3.45 18435 25230 6795 2010 3.46 18411 25240 6829 2010 3.50 18355 25300 6945 2010 3.55 18277 25390 7113 2010 3.60 18200 25480 7280 2010 3.65 18125 25570 7445 2010 3.70 18051 25660 7609 2010 3.75 17978 25740 7762 2010 3.80 17907 25820 7913 2010 3.85 17837 25900 8063 2010 3.90 17768 25980 8212 2010 3.95 17700 26060 8360 2010 4.00 17633 26140 8507 2010 4.05 17567 26220 8653 2010 4.10 17502 26300 8798 2010 4.15 17438 26380 8942 2010 4.20 17375 26460 9085 2010 4.25 17313 26540 9227 2010 4.30 17252 26620 9368 2010 4.35 17192 26700 9508 2010 4.40 17133 26770 9637 2010 4.45 17075 26840 9765 2010 4.50 17018 26910 9892 2010 4.55 16962 26980 10018

### 39 Year Price (1999$/Mmbtu) Non electric gas demand (TBtu) Total gas supply (TBtu) Gas supply to power sector (TBtu) 2010 4.60 16906 27050 10144 2010 4.65 16851 27120 10269 2010 4.70 16797 27190 10393 2010 4.75 16744 27260 10516 2010 4.80 16691 27330 10639 2010 4.85 16639 27400 10761 2010 4.90 16588 27470 10882 2010 4.95 16538 27540 11002 2010 5.00 16488 27610 11122 2010 5.05 16439 27680 11241 2010 5.10 16390 27750 11360 2010 5.15 16342 27820 11478 2010 5.20 16295 27890 11595 2010 5.25 16248 27960 11712 2010 5.30 16202 28020 11818 2010 5.35 16156 28080 11924 2010 5.40 16111 28140 12029 2010 5.41 16066 28200 12134 2015 2.75 20148 24960 4812 2015 2.80 20060 25140 5080 2015 2.85 19974 25320 5346 2015 2.90 19890 25500 5610 2015 2.95 19808 25670 5862 2015 3.00 19727 25840 6113 2015 3.05 19648 26010 6362 2015 3.08 19599 26120 6521 2015 3.10 19569 26210 6641 2015 3.15 19489 26460 6971 2015 3.18 19442 26610 7168 2015 3.20 19413 26680 7267 2015 3.25 19343 26850 7507 2015 3.30 19273 27020 7747 2015 3.35 19203 27190 7987 2015 3.39 19144 27330 8186 2015 3.40 19134 27350 8216 2015 3.45 19069 27480 8411 2015 3.50 19004 27610 8606 2015 3.55 18939 27740 8801 2015 3.60 18874 27870 8996 2015 3.65 18809 28000 9191 2015 3.70 18744 28130 9386 2015 3.70 18741 28140 9399 2015 3.75 18683 28280 9597 2015 3.80 18623 28430 9807 2015 3.85 18564 28580 10016 2015 3.90 18506 28730 10224 2015 3.95 18449 28880 10431 2015 4.00 18393 29020 10627 2015 4.05 18338 29160 10822 2015 4.10 18283 29300 11017

### 40 Year Price (1999$/Mmbtu) Non electric gas demand (TBtu) Total gas supply (TBtu) Gas supply to power sector (TBtu) 2015 4.15 18229 29440 11211 2015 4.20 18176 29580 11404 2015 4.25 18124 29720 11596 2015 4.30 18073 29860 11787 2015 4.35 18022 30000 11978 2015 4.40 17972 30140 12168 2015 4.45 17923 30280 12357 2015 4.50 17874 30410 12536 2015 4.55 17826 30540 12714 2015 4.60 17779 30670 12891 2015 4.65 17732 30800 13068 2015 4.70 17686 30930 13244 2015 4.75 17641 31060 13419 2015 4.80 17596 31190 13594 2015 4.85 17552 31320 13768 2015 4.90 17508 31450 13942 2015 4.95 17465 31580 14115 2015 5.00 17422 31710 14288 2015 5.05 17380 31840 14460 2015 5.10 17338 31960 14622 2015 5.15 17297 32080 14783 2015 5.20 17256 32200 14944 2015 5.25 17216 32320 15104 2015 5.30 17176 32440 15264 2015 5.35 17137 32560 15423 2015 5.40 17098 32680 15582 2020 2.75 20782 27560 6778 2020 2.80 20695 27720 7025 2020 2.85 20610 27870 7260 2020 2.90 20527 28020 7493 2020 2.95 20449 28160 7711 2020 2.95 20445 28170 7725 2020 3.00 20369 28320 7951 2020 3.05 20293 28470 8177 2020 3.10 20217 28620 8403 2020 3.15 20141 28770 8629 2020 3.20 20065 28920 8855 2020 3.25 19989 29070 9081 2020 3.29 19935 29180 9245 2020 3.30 19914 29230 9316 2020 3.35 19844 29400 9556 2020 3.40 19774 29570 9796 2020 3.45 19704 29740 10036 2020 3.49 19646 29880 10234 2020 3.50 19636 29900 10264 2020 3.55 19577 30010 10433 2020 3.60 19518 30120 10602 2020 3.65 19459 30230 10771 2020 3.70 19400 30340 10940 2020 3.75 19341 30450 11109

### 41 Year Price (1999$/Mmbtu) Non electric gas demand (TBtu) Total gas supply (TBtu) Gas supply to power sector (TBtu) 2020 3.80 19282 30560 11278 2020 3.85 19223 30670 11447 2020 3.90 19164 30780 11616 2020 3.95 19105 30890 11785 2020 4.00 19046 31000 11954 2020 4.02 19024 31040 12016 2020 4.05 18990 31120 12130 2020 4.10 18936 31240 12304 2020 4.15 18883 31360 12477 2020 4.20 18830 31480 12650 2020 4.25 18778 31600 12822 2020 4.30 18727 31720 12993 2020 4.35 18677 31840 13163 2020 4.40 18627 31950 13323 2020 4.45 18578 32060 13482 2020 4.50 18530 32170 13640 2020 4.55 18482 32280 13798 2020 4.60 18435 32390 13955 2020 4.65 18389 32500 14111 2020 4.70 18343 32610 14267 2020 4.75 18298 32720 14422 2020 4.80 18253 32830 14577 2020 4.85 18209 32940 14731 2020 4.90 18165 33050 14885 2020 4.95 18122 33160 15038 2020 5.00 18080 33270 15190 2020 5.05 18038 33370 15332 2020 5.10 17997 33470 15473 2020 5.15 17956 33570 15614 2020 5.20 17916 33670 15754 2020 5.25 17876 33770 15894 2020 5.30 17837 33870 16033 2020 5.35 17798 33970 16172 2020 5.40 17759 34070 16311

### 42 Table A4.3: Fuel Oil Prices Used in VISTAS Run

High Sulfur Residual Oil Prices ($1999/MMBtu) IPM Region Year MACE New England 2007 3.51 2.93 2010 3.57 2.98 2015 3.67 3.11 2020 3.76 3.22 Source: AEO 2004

Low Sulfur Residual Oil Prices ($1999/MMBtu) IPM Region Year MACE New England 2007 3.73 3.30 2010 3.79 3.35 2015 3.90 3.47 2020 3.99 3.58 Source: AEO 2004

Distillate Oil Prices ($1999/MMBtu) IPM Region Year MACE New England 2007 4.72 4.80 2010 4.86 4.94 2015 5.23 5.29 2020 5.58 5.60 Source: AEO 2004

### 43 Appendix 5: Emission and Cost Results

Tables A5.1- A5.3 present SO 2 and NO x emissions from the MARAMA Base Case and MARAMA CAIR Plus Policy Case runs by state in 2008, 2009, 2012, 2015 and 2018 run years. These emissions are from all units and include emissions from fossil and non-fossil units

Tables A5.4- A5.8 present variable O&M costs, fixed O& M costs, annualized capital costs, fuel costs and total production costs from the MARAMA Base Case and MARA MA CAIR Plus Policy Case runs by state in 2008, 2009, 2012, 2015 and 2018 run years.Table A5.1: State Level Annual SO2Emissions in MARAMA Base Case and MARAMA CAIR Plus Policy Case (Thousand Tons)MARAMA Base Case (MARAMA_5c) MARAMA CAIR Plus Policy Case (MARAMA_4c) MARAMA_4c - MARAMA_5cRPOState2008 2009 2012 2015 2018 2008 2009 2012 2015 2018 2008 2009 2012 2015 2018MANE-VU Connecticut 3.92 3.97 9.93 12.18 14.71 3.02 3.07 4.29 4.94 5.01 -0.90 -0.90 -5.65 -7.24 -9.70Delaware 33.74 32.55 17.58 15.39 14.43 33.74 29.61 28.25 8.08 3.33 0.00 -2.93 10.67 -7.31 -11.09District ofColumbia 0.00 0.00 0.19 0.29 0.63 0.00 0.00 0.41 0.49 0.69 0.00 0.00 0.22 0.20 0.05Maine 38.00 38.37 8.27 8.99 9.87 34.72 33.00 5.23 5.16 4.89 -3.27 -5.37 -3.04 -3.82 -4.98Maryland 130.21 65.67 52.98 31.47 35.48 100.07 39.07 33.04 31.42 32.81 -30.13 -26.60 -19.94 -0.04 -2.67Massachusetts 78.18 36.10 29.38 29.53 33.89 74.98 37.13 15.75 11.47 8.96 -3.19 1.03 -13.62 -18.05 -24.93NewHampshire 7.66 7.66 11.88 13.38 15.17 7.66 4.97 3.38 3.17 3.27 0.00 -2.68 -8.50 -10.21 -11.90New Jersey 26.56 25.85 28.02 26.43 23.32 26.23 25.89 26.67 23.82 16.93 -0.34 0.04 -1.35 -2.61 -6.39New York 124.38 121.50 102.95 90.74 85.54 110.99 105.26 76.55 72.32 66.51 -13.39 -16.24 -26.40 -18.42 -19.03Pennsylvania 359.35 318.52 199.42 179.15 156.97 343.13 277.39 182.70 150.27 127.58 -16.22 -41.13 -16.72 -28.88 -29.39Rhode Island 0.00 0.00 1.29 1.77 2.32 0.00 0.00 0.26 0.40 0.42 0.00 0.00 -1.02 -1.37 -1.90Vermont 0.06 0.06 0.87 1.16 1.51 0.06 0.06 0.22 0.31 0.32 0.00 0.00 -0.65 -0.86 -1.19MANE-VU Total 802.06 650.24 462.75 410.48 393.84 734.60 555.46 376.75 311.86 270.72 -67.45 -94.78 -86.00 -98.62 -123.12LADCO Illinois 304.36 305.10 260.79 242.83 244.94 299.78 274.23 240.60 222.03 238.38 -4.59 -30.87 -20.19 -20.80 -6.57Indiana 496.08 483.36 463.56 414.50 376.78 476.80 410.99 409.93 377.38 332.21 -19.28 -72.38 -53.63 -37.11 -44.57Michigan 407.01 407.02 398.16 397.45 399.56 406.35 390.37 397.12 391.05 376.77 -0.66 -16.64 -1.04 -6.40 -22.79Ohio 581.77 440.10 317.26 282.43 264.40 431.30 436.33 249.67 194.09 184.86 -150.46 -3.77 -67.58 -88.34 -79.54Wisconsin 161.24 149.57 153.59 153.31 152.02 161.30 148.40 150.63 148.06 142.94 0.06 -1.17 -2.96 -5.25 -9.09LADCO Total 1,950.46 1,785.15 1,593.35 1,490.51 1,437.70 1,775.52 1,660.32 1,447.95 1,332.62 1,275.15 -174.93 -124.83 -145.40 -157.89 -162.56VISTAS Alabama 357.18 332.19 286.09 253.71 217.58 336.53 264.83 219.62 185.76 158.36 -20.65 -67.36 -66.47 -67.96 -59.22Florida 213.04 210.85 194.80 194.07 165.00 212.81 190.25 157.71 156.67 115.33 -0.22 -20.60 -37.09 -37.40 -49.67Georgia 558.02 560.12 312.67 214.82 183.00 573.16 371.67 92.72 94.53 74.99 15.14 -188.45 -219.95 -120.29 -108.01Kentucky 386.28 376.19 274.92 274.02 239.92 362.81 328.20 274.84 223.64 203.38 -23.47 -47.99 -0.08 -50.39 -36.54Mississippi 82.21 70.23 85.73 27.87 23.15 81.55 62.58 25.44 23.13 24.60 -0.66 -7.65 -60.29 -4.75 1.44North Carolina 261.33 167.47 130.55 110.64 101.45 260.58 146.20 121.39 92.23 73.64 -0.74 -21.27 -9.15 -18.41 -27.81South Carolina 184.15 171.26 119.43 115.66 114.30 162.00 138.43 119.59 91.30 63.08 -22.15 -32.83 0.16 -24.37 -51.21Tennessee 246.52 244.39 235.35 231.69 141.52 237.50 168.68 197.69 136.09 109.20 -9.03 -75.71 -37.66 -95.60 -32.32Virginia 200.04 178.64 146.24 117.17 81.50 180.42 156.77 126.48 71.27 46.67 -19.62 -21.88 -19.76 -45.90 -34.84West Virginia 390.89 390.67 195.44 150.00 130.75 289.42 221.84 126.03 115.98 122.55 -101.46 -168.83 -69.41 -34.02 -8.20VISTAS Total 2,879.64 2,702.01 1,981.22 1,689.66 1,398.18 2,696.77 2,049.45 1,461.51 1,190.59 991.81 -182.87 -652.56 -519.71 -499.07 -406.38CENRAP Arkansas 82.63 82.63 83.25 40.83 42.15 82.63 81.80 83.30 37.71 40.29 0.00 -0.82 0.05 -3.12 -1.87Iowa 145.10 139.66 147.98 143.60 144.93 146.70 130.53 140.02 138.56 137.16 1.60 -9.13 -7.96 -5.04 -7.76Kansas 80.16 80.52 81.49 59.32 59.32 78.46 78.82 81.49 59.33 59.35 -1.70 -1.70 0.00 0.01 0.03Louisiana 111..31 111..31 75.49 77.24 79.60 111..31 91.70 75.59 77.31 76.61 0.00 -19.61 0.10 0.07 -2.9945MARAMA Base Case (MARAMA_5c) MARAMA CAIR Plus Policy Case (MARAMA_4c) MARAMA_4c - MARAMA_5cRPOState2008 2009 2012 2015 2018 2008 2009 2012 2015 2018 2008 2009 2012 2015 2018Minnesota 96.56 87.90 86.82 85.30 84.26 95.74 84.24 83.05 69.59 65.86 -0.82 -3.66 -3.76 -15.70 -18.39Missouri 266.99 276.53 280.25 279.80 279.97 264.07 248.11 273.51 266.06 224.45 -2.93 -28.42 -6.75 -13.74 -55.53Nebraska 73.63 73.63 73.63 37.18 37.18 73.63 73.63 73.63 37.18 37.18 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Oklahoma 113.68 113.68 117.28 48.06 50.15 113.68 113.68 119.44 48.08 52.18 0.00 0.00 2.17 0.02 2.03Texas 425.27 425.27 439.21 387.56 359.20 424.27 422.47 384.06 280.92 268.72 -1.00 -2.80 -55.15 -106.63 -90.48CENRAP Total 1,395.34 1,391.13 1,385.39 1,158.90 1,136.76 1,390.49 1,324.98 1,314.08 1,014.75 961.80 -4.85 -66.15 -71.31 -144.15 -174.96WRAP Arizona 60.54 60.55 63.28 63.28 56.83 60.54 60.55 63.80 64.22 57.78 0.00 0.00 0.52 0.95 0.96California 6.79 6.79 7.53 7.53 7.45 6.79 6.67 7.63 7.63 7.49 0.00 -0.12 0.10 0.10 0.04Colorado 87.22 86.55 87.21 52.84 53.62 86.55 86.56 87.21 52.84 53.75 -0.67 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.14Idaho 0.05 0.05 1.14 1.14 1.01 0.05 0.05 1.28 1.28 1.08 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.14 0.07Montana 19.88 19.88 20.51 20.51 20.46 16.72 16.72 20.60 20.60 20.50 -3.16 -3.16 0.08 0.08 0.04Nevada 31.24 31.30 31.96 28.21 29.00 31.24 31.30 32.10 28.44 29.23 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.24 0.23New Mexico 52.92 52.92 53.64 53.64 54.42 52.92 52.92 53.77 53.85 54.63 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.21 0.20North Dakota 92.63 92.65 93.39 85.04 85.05 96.70 100.00 109.45 101.11 101.91 4.07 7.35 16.06 16.07 16.86Oregon 10.18 10.18 16.27 16.27 15.54 10.18 10.18 17.07 17.07 15.91 0.00 0.00 0.79 0.79 0.37South Dakota 12.09 12.09 12.09 4.15 4.20 12.09 12.09 12.09 4.18 4.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00Utah 53.16 53.16 53.16 53.16 33.55 53.16 53.16 53.16 53.16 33.55 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Washington 11.25 11.25 20.75 20.68 19.29 11.25 11.25 22.18 20.96 22.06 0.00 0.00 1.44 0.28 2.76Wyoming 70.13 70.10 72.69 71.37 38.69 64.79 64.64 71.95 72.45 38.72 -5.35 -5.46 -0.74 1.08 0.02WRAP Total 508.08 507.48 533.62 477.82 419.10 502.97 506.09 552.29 497.79 440.80 -5.11 -1.39 18.67 19.97 21.70CAIR Plus Policy States 6,760.02 6,260.69 5,150.31 4,604.99 4,219.83 6,331.62 5,324.07 4,325.72 3,705.23 3,350.76 -428.40 -936.62-824.59 -899.76 -869.07National 7,535.57 7,036.00 5,956.32 5,227.37 4,785.59 7,100.36 6,096.28 5,152.57 4,347.61 3,940.28 -435.21 -939.72 -803.75 -879.77 -845.3146Table A5.2: State Level Annual NOxEmissions in MARAMA Base Case and MARAMA CAIR Plus Policy Case (Thousand Tons)MARAMA Base Case (MARAMA_5c) MARAMA CAIR Plus Policy Case (MARAMA_4c) MARAMA_4c - MARAMA_5cRPOState2008 2009 2012 2015 2018 2008 2009 2012 2015 2018 2008 2009 2012 2015 2018MANE-VU Connecticut 3.45 3.60 5.07 5.19 5.69 3.42 3.74 3.64 3.81 3.86 -0.03 0.15 -1.43 -1.38 -1.83Delaware 12.51 10.72 11.40 10.91 10.72 12.52 10.16 9.68 4.84 3.88 0.01 -0.56 -1.72 -6.07 -6.83District ofColumbia 0.11 0.13 0.21 0.30 0.48 0.11 0.13 0.33 0.39 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.10 0.02Maine 7.80 7.94 2.66 2.64 2.78 7.42 3.25 1.87 1.89 1.86 -0.38 -4.69 -0.79 -0.75 -0.92Maryland 54.68 16.33 16.10 16.76 19.22 54.68 14.38 17.36 17.54 18.73 0.00 -1.96 1.26 0.79 -0.49Massachusetts 30.40 24.25 24.57 22.05 22.55 20.90 13.89 12.03 9.89 9.96 -9.49 -10.37 -12.54 -12.16 -12.59NewHampshire 3.96 4.07 5.32 5.28 5.65 3.96 2.92 2.45 2.56 2.66 0.00 -1.15 -2.87 -2.72 -2.99New Jersey 16.90 10.82 11.00 12.70 12.54 16.88 11.57 10.64 12.06 10.89 -0.02 0.75 -0.36 -0.65 -1.64New York 48.33 48.42 46.14 41.52 38.72 47.59 41.00 31.26 30.61 28.72 -0.74 -7.42 -14.88 -10.91 -9.99Pennsylvania 207.46 144.89 85.35 83.95 79.34 208.06 126.22 72.38 68.60 64.08 0.60 -18.66 -12.98 -15.35 -15.26Rhode Island 0.26 0.59 0.53 0.57 0.67 0.26 0.58 0.23 0.27 0.27 0.00 -0.01 -0.30 -0.30 -0.40Vermont 0.13 0.17 0.39 0.40 0.47 0.13 0.16 0.19 0.21 0.23 0.00 0.00 -0.20 -0.18 -0.24MANE-VU Total 385.99 271.92 208.74 202.25 198.82 375.92 228.00 162.05 152.67 145.64 -10.06 -43.92 -46.69 -49.58 -53.18LADCO Illinois 131.60 87.21 73.57 70.99 72.80 130.94 62.34 56.53 54.12 53.33 -0.66 -24.87 -17.03 -16.87 -19.46Indiana 219.40 144.58 107.85 96.96 85.08 221.73 136.98 54.83 53.22 51.32 2.33 -7.60 -53.02 -43.74 -33.76Michigan 120.64 86.96 85.53 87.16 92.62 120.00 82.48 39.77 40.44 41.42 -0.64 -4.48 -45.76 -46.72 -51.21Ohio 272.07 116.53 97.31 89.00 85.95 271.91 101.79 66.96 65.25 63.56 -0.16 -14.75 -30.35 -23.75 -22.39Wisconsin 60.14 48.14 44.77 45.39 45.66 59.63 42.34 31.15 31.70 32.17 -0.51 -5.80 -13.63 -13.69 -13.49LADCO Total 803.86 483.42 409.04 389.50 382.12 804.22 425.92 249.25 244.74 241.79 0.36 -57.50 -159.79 -144.77 -140.32VISTAS Alabama 131.82 82.73 68.84 47.15 47.46 134.12 52.64 31.69 31.13 32.74 2.30 -30.10 -37.15 -16.02 -14.72Florida 164.71 115.54 78.29 74.45 66.66 164.71 105.40 49.61 49.19 48.58 0.00 -10.13 -28.68 -25.25 -18.07Georgia 239.40 96.35 91.57 59.66 51.41 239.40 74.34 37.81 38.67 42.01 0.00 -22.01 -53.76 -20.99 -9.40Kentucky 171.39 96.49 88.06 70.17 58.75 176.12 97.11 38.57 37.75 37.35 4.73 0.62 -49.49 -32.42 -21.40Mississippi 38.10 31.42 31.53 8.19 9.06 38.10 29.14 7.67 8.53 9.64 0.00 -2.29 -23.87 0.34 0.58North Carolina 62.68 55.96 56.86 56.91 56.57 62.71 52.14 52.66 51.01 49.03 0.03 -3.82 -4.19 -5.90 -7.54South Carolina 50.92 35.94 39.26 38.95 40.67 52.51 37.72 27.56 27.14 29.35 1.58 1.78 -11.70 -11.81 -11.31Tennessee 104.12 48.39 39.34 39.14 29.16 104.92 28.22 20.27 20.23 20.28 0.80 -20.17 -19.07 -18.91 -8.89Virginia 65.86 61.62 55.49 48.35 39.70 65.11 56.29 35.25 33.27 31.77 -0.74 -5.34 -20.25 -15.08 -7.93West Virginia 178.66 75.42 71.84 59.08 53.44 177.99 64.59 50.12 49.30 49.51 -0.66 -10.83 -21.72 -9.78 -3.93VISTAS Total 1,207.64 699.87 621.10 502.04 452.87 1,215.69 597.58 351.22 346.21 350.26 8.05 -102.29 -269.88 -155.83 -102.62CENRAP Arkansas 45.27 32.09 33.00 34.03 35.42 45.27 32.47 16.46 12.16 13.69 0.01 0.38 -16.54 -21.87 -21.73Iowa 74.73 46.67 50.84 47.85 48.69 75.86 41.36 20.33 20.31 19.64 1.14 -5.31 -30.50 -27.54 -29.06Kansas 82.69 82.77 82.84 53.35 53.55 82.69 83.10 82.87 53.38 53.55 0.00 0.33 0.03 0.03 0.00Louisiana 50.66 31.88 33.58 32.36 34.75 50.79 31.59 14.73 15.69 17.95 0.13 -0.28 -18.85 -16.67 -16.8147MARAMA Base Case (MARAMA_5c) MARAMA CAIR Plus Policy Case (MARAMA_4c) MARAMA_4c - MARAMA_5cRPOState2008 2009 2012 2015 2018 2008 2009 2012 2015 2018 2008 2009 2012 2015 2018Minnesota 74.90 41.18 40.77 40.40 40.52 74.85 36.54 18.58 17.40 16.71 -0.05 -4.64 -22.20 -23.01 -23.81Missouri 121.35 72.43 74.57 67.79 67.90 121.95 67.82 49.68 48.50 45.56 0.60 -4.61 -24.89 -19.30 -22.34Nebraska 50.75 50.77 50.77 38.47 38.57 50.82 50.86 50.85 38.56 38.58 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.09 0.01Oklahoma 74.02 78.23 77.50 53.42 53.52 73.94 80.88 77.80 56.21 55.85 -0.08 2.64 0.30 2.79 2.33Texas 180.11 168.10 172.16 171.74 165.40 178.34 152.86 100.30 99.43 90.16 -1.77 -15.24 -71.86 -72.32 -75.24CENRAP Total 754.46 604.11 616.04 539.42 538.33 754.51 577.47 431.60 361.63 351.69 0.05 -26.64 -184.44 -177.79 -186.64WRAP Arizona 79.45 79.51 82.42 67.94 71.85 79.46 79.50 82.92 68.46 72.74 0.01 -0.01 0.50 0.52 0.89California 30.21 33.26 26.83 28.51 31.66 30.18 33.44 26.49 28.19 31.04 -0.03 0.18 -0.34 -0.32 -0.62Colorado 68.06 68.82 68.90 60.47 61.54 68.05 68.89 68.94 60.43 61.47 0.00 0.06 0.04 -0.03 -0.06Idaho 0.71 0.71 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.71 0.71 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.08Montana 38.43 38.43 38.79 38.79 38.81 38.43 38.44 38.84 38.84 38.86 0.00 0.01 0.05 0.05 0.05Nevada 46.56 46.66 47.08 30.70 31.59 46.56 46.80 47.22 30.83 31.84 0.00 0.15 0.13 0.13 0.26New Mexico 73.49 73.64 74.31 72.30 73.16 73.49 73.68 74.47 72.55 73.46 0.00 0.04 0.17 0.25 0.30North Dakota 71.54 71.71 71.69 39.86 39.93 70.92 71.76 71.76 39.94 39.94 -0.61 0.05 0.07 0.09 0.02Oregon 10.84 10.84 14.27 14.27 14.27 10.84 10.84 14.72 14.72 14.72 0.00 0.00 0.45 0.45 0.45South Dakota 14.54 14.54 14.55 1.75 1.82 14.57 14.58 14.58 1.80 1.82 0.03 0.04 0.03 0.05 0.00Utah 60.79 60.79 60.79 53.39 53.36 60.79 60.79 60.79 53.39 53.36 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Washington 25.34 26.23 31.95 21.54 21.54 25.34 25.90 32.42 22.40 22.40 0.00 -0.33 0.47 0.86 0.86Wyoming 81.17 81.17 81.18 53.07 53.17 81.18 81.18 81.18 53.07 53.19 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01WRAP Total 601.11 606.30 613.54 483.37 493.48 600.52 606.50 615.20 485.50 495.72 -0.60 0.20 1.66 2.13 2.24CAIR Plus Policy States 2,944.50 1,847.55 1,643.80 1,487.96 1,426.50 2,942.89 1,614.14 982.59 957.10 941.40 -1.61 -233.41 -661.20 -530.87 -485.10National 3,753.06 2,665.62 2,468.46 2,116.58 2,065.62 3,750.86 2,435.47 1,809.32 1,590.75 1,585.10 -2.20 -230.15 -659.14 -525.84 -480.5248Table A5.3: State Level Ozone Season NOxEmissions in MARAMA Base Case and MARAMA CAIR Plus Policy Case (Thousand Tons)MARAMA Base Case (MARAMA_5c) MARAMA CAIR Plus Policy Case (MARAMA_4c) MARAMA_4c - MARAMA_5cRPOState2008 2009 2012 2015 2018 2008 2009 2012 2015 2018 2008 2009 2012 2015 2018MANE-VU Connecticut 1.55 1.62 2.20 2.25 2.47 1.54 1.68 1.60 1.66 1.69 0.00 0.06 -0.60 -0.59 -0.78Delaware 4.63 4.20 4.98 4.51 4.38 4.64 4.12 3.91 1.96 1.64 0.01 -0.08 -1.07 -2.55 -2.74District ofColumbia 0.05 0.08 0.09 0.12 0.20 0.05 0.08 0.14 0.17 0.21 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.04 0.01Maine 3.59 3.55 1.14 1.13 1.16 3.49 1.31 0.79 0.80 0.81 -0.10 -2.24 -0.34 -0.32 -0.35Maryland 12.69 7.18 7.40 7.42 8.59 12.69 6.56 7.84 7.72 8.29 0.00 -0.62 0.43 0.30 -0.30Massachusetts 10.68 9.47 10.62 9.07 9.37 6.38 5.60 5.11 4.25 4.16 -4.31 -3.87 -5.51 -4.83 -5.21NewHampshire 1.75 1.82 2.32 2.30 2.46 1.75 1.03 1.07 1.08 1.15 0.00 -0.79 -1.25 -1.23 -1.31New Jersey 4.67 4.84 4.88 5.70 5.59 4.67 5.25 4.85 5.31 5.10 0.00 0.41 -0.04 -0.39 -0.49New York 19.58 19.11 21.09 18.58 17.43 19.27 17.10 14.37 13.68 12.49 -0.31 -2.00 -6.72 -4.91 -4.93Pennsylvania 62.25 57.36 36.82 36.24 34.25 62.83 43.56 30.97 29.61 28.35 0.58 -13.80 -5.85 -6.63 -5.89Rhode Island 0.16 0.27 0.23 0.24 0.29 0.16 0.27 0.10 0.11 0.12 0.00 -0.01 -0.13 -0.13 -0.17Vermont 0.06 0.10 0.17 0.17 0.20 0.06 0.10 0.09 0.09 0.10 0.00 0.00 -0.08 -0.08 -0.10MANE-VU Total 121.67 109.58 91.93 87.75 86.38 117.54 86.66 70.83 66.43 64.11 -4.13 -22.92 -21.10 -21.32 -22.27LADCO Illinois 30.31 28.33 32.45 31.95 31.69 29.03 26.58 24.94 24.00 23.26 -1.28 -1.75 -7.51 -7.95 -8.44Indiana 61.31 60.02 46.53 41.46 36.50 63.58 54.08 23.69 23.16 22.42 2.27 -5.93 -22.83 -18.30 -14.09Michigan 36.78 36.92 36.29 36.73 38.88 35.96 33.31 16.79 17.24 17.72 -0.82 -3.62 -19.50 -19.49 -21.16Ohio 48.38 42.32 41.24 37.73 36.63 49.00 40.18 28.70 28.03 27.74 0.62 -2.13 -12.55 -9.70 -8.88Wisconsin 26.45 18.68 19.11 19.68 19.74 26.31 18.10 13.33 13.57 13.92 -0.14 -0.57 -5.77 -6.10 -5.82LADCO Total 203.23 186.27 175.61 167.55 163.44 203.88 172.26 107.46 106.01 105.05 0.65 -14.01 -68.16 -61.54 -58.39VISTAS Alabama 33.72 30.51 30.95 20.94 21.00 36.02 20.24 14.30 14.22 14.73 2.30 -10.27 -16.65 -6.72 -6.27Florida 76.17 53.00 36.71 34.10 30.75 76.17 44.39 24.18 22.93 23.06 0.00 -8.61 -12.53 -11.16 -7.68Georgia 106.58 43.62 41.36 26.77 23.56 106.58 30.03 17.10 17.48 18.91 0.00 -13.59 -24.26 -9.30 -4.65Kentucky 41.98 39.49 38.10 30.09 25.80 46.68 36.23 16.90 16.59 16.52 4.70 -3.26 -21.20 -13.50 -9.28Mississippi 17.34 11.93 14.27 3.97 4.33 17.34 11.75 3.70 4.10 4.59 0.00 -0.17 -10.56 0.13 0.26North Carolina 21.62 14.73 21.91 24.26 25.43 21.65 18.17 20.95 21.97 21.30 0.03 3.43 -0.96 -2.29 -4.12South Carolina 15.98 16.01 17.34 16.81 17.31 17.57 15.09 12.06 11.68 12.91 1.58 -0.91 -5.28 -5.14 -4.40Tennessee 15.84 16.04 17.28 17.06 12.44 16.64 9.33 8.94 8.89 8.92 0.80 -6.71 -8.34 -8.17 -3.52Virginia 25.68 25.05 24.19 20.22 17.49 25.16 21.60 15.09 14.10 14.16 -0.52 -3.45 -9.10 -6.12 -3.32West Virginia 30.03 28.84 30.57 25.42 22.52 29.98 25.48 22.10 21.30 21.46 -0.05 -3.37 -8.46 -4.13 -1.06VISTAS Total 384.93 279.23 272.67 219.65 200.63 393.79 232.32 155.32 153.27 156.57 8.85 -46.91 -117.35 -66.39 -44.06CENRAP Arkansas 20.41 14.25 14.67 15.20 15.84 20.41 14.23 7.34 5.32 6.12 0.00 -0.03 -7.33 -9.88 -9.72Iowa 32.58 18.17 22.00 20.63 21.01 33.60 17.55 8.94 8.79 8.43 1.03 -0.62 -13.07 -11.84 -12.58Kansas 36.80 36.80 36.86 23.79 23.86 36.80 37.07 36.88 23.81 23.91 0.00 0.27 0.02 0.03 0.04Louisiana 23.29 14.60 15.67 15.00 15.97 23.42 13.86 7.29 7.19 8.19 0.13 -0.75 -8.38 -7.81 -7.7849MARAMA Base Case (MARAMA_5c) MARAMA CAIR Plus Policy Case (MARAMA_4c) MARAMA_4c - MARAMA_5cRPOState2008 2009 2012 2015 2018 2008 2009 2012 2015 2018 2008 2009 2012 2015 2018Minnesota 33.21 18.53 17.78 17.65 17.76 32.89 15.79 8.15 7.61 7.60 -0.32 -2.75 -9.62 -10.04 -10.16Missouri 31.11 29.96 32.81 29.80 29.49 31.60 27.90 21.68 20.82 19.65 0.49 -2.06 -11.13 -8.98 -9.84Nebraska 22.49 22.51 22.51 17.07 17.11 22.52 22.55 22.55 17.11 17.13 0.03 0.04 0.03 0.04 0.01Oklahoma 34.87 38.92 36.74 25.77 25.38 34.79 41.16 37.05 28.43 27.47 -0.08 2.24 0.30 2.66 2.09Texas 89.83 84.14 86.94 86.85 85.82 88.29 72.23 50.44 49.58 46.21 -1.54 -11.91 -36.50 -37.27 -39.60CENRAP Total 324.58 277.90 285.98 251.76 252.23 324.33 262.33 200.31 168.66 164.70 -0.26 -15.57 -85.67 -83.10 -87.53WRAP Arizona 35.13 35.14 36.28 30.09 31.66 35.14 35.12 36.48 30.18 32.00 0.01 -0.01 0.19 0.09 0.34California 12.71 13.83 11.61 12.53 13.83 12.70 14.10 11.34 12.43 13.55 -0.01 0.27 -0.27 -0.10 -0.28Colorado 29.98 30.12 30.17 26.60 27.04 29.98 30.24 30.16 26.62 27.03 0.00 0.12 -0.01 0.01 -0.01Idaho 0.31 0.31 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.31 0.31 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.03Montana 17.00 17.00 17.15 17.15 17.16 17.00 17.01 17.17 17.17 17.18 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.02Nevada 20.90 20.93 20.93 13.65 14.06 20.90 20.99 20.98 13.71 14.18 0.00 0.06 0.05 0.06 0.12New Mexico 32.68 32.83 33.03 32.13 32.48 32.68 32.84 33.11 32.24 32.64 0.00 0.01 0.08 0.11 0.16North Dakota 31.60 31.74 31.73 17.63 17.66 31.18 31.77 31.77 17.68 17.68 -0.41 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.02Oregon 4.76 4.76 6.23 6.23 6.23 4.76 4.76 6.42 6.42 6.42 0.00 0.00 0.19 0.19 0.19South Dakota 6.44 6.44 6.44 0.77 0.81 6.45 6.46 6.45 0.80 0.81 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.00Utah 26.91 26.91 26.91 23.64 23.60 26.91 26.91 26.91 23.64 23.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Washington 11.19 11.52 14.01 9.41 9.41 11.19 11.19 14.21 9.77 9.77 0.00 -0.33 0.20 0.37 0.37Wyoming 35.93 35.93 35.93 23.49 23.54 35.93 35.93 35.93 23.49 23.54 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01WRAP Total 265.54 267.46 270.77 213.66 217.81 265.13 267.62 271.31 214.53 218.78 -0.41 0.17 0.54 0.87 0.97CAIR Plus Policy States 940.26 754.74 730.08 660.09 636.33 945.41 652.79 437.45 425.01 421.93 5.16 -101.95 -292.63 -235.08 -214.39National 1,299.95 1,120.44 1,096.96 940.38 920.49 1,304.66 1,021.20 805.23 708.90 709.22 4.71 -99.24 -291.74 -231.48 -211.2750Table A5.4: State Level Fixed O&M Costs in MARAMA Base Caseand MARAMA CAIR Plus Policy Case (1999 Million Dollars)MARAMA Base Case (MARAMA_5c) MARAMA CAIR Plus Policy Case (MARAMA_4c) MARAMA_4c - MARAMA_5cRPOState2008 2009 2012 2015 2018 2008 2009 2012 2015 2018 2008 2009 2012 2015 2018MANE-VU Connecticut 433.6 434.1 457.0 468.9 506.5 436.3 436.8 463.5 478.3 511.6 2.7 2.7 6.5 9.4 5.1Delaware 59.0 59.0 66.5 69.5 71.2 55.5 55.5 58.8 62.6 65.7 -3.5 -3.5 -7.8 -6.9 -5.5District ofColumbia 14.2 14.2 15.4 20.8 22.9 14.2 14.2 16.8 20.7 22.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 -0.1 -1.0Maine 61.5 61.5 56.1 60.7 64.1 62.4 62.8 68.8 74.6 76.4 0.9 1.3 12.7 13.9 12.2Maryland 460.1 475.4 503.3 587.3 617.0 464.9 480.2 526.9 587.2 605.8 4.8 4.8 23.6 -0.1 -11.2Massachusetts 442.0 443.2 427.7 448.2 465.0 441.1 442.3 432.1 460.0 468.6 -0.9 -0.9 4.4 11.7 3.7NewHampshire209.5 209.5 225.7 234.1 240.4 211.2 211.2 227.1 237.8 241.1 1.7 1.7 1.4 3.7 0.7New Jersey 856.7 856.7 896.5 919.5 959.3 853.3 853.3 891.3 919.8 970.2 -3.4 -3.4 -5.1 0.3 10.9New York 1,429.0 1,429.1 1,502.5 1,563.6 1,604.4 1,426.6 1,426.7 1,506.8 1,544.9 1,607.0 -2.4 -2.4 4.3 -18.7 2.6Pennsylvania 1,968.4 1,972.2 2,027.5 2,105.6 2,191.4 1,963.6 1,960.7 2,014.8 2,103.8 2,198.9 -4.8 -11.5 -12.7 -1.8 7.5Rhode Island 22.2 22.2 20.5 23.1 25.0 21.3 21.3 21.9 25.1 26.0 -0.9 -0.9 1.4 2.0 1.1Vermont 120.2 120.2 123.3 125.2 126.4 120.5 120.5 124.2 126.5 127.1 0.3 0.3 0.9 1.3 0.7MANE-VU Total 6,076.4 6,097.3 6,322.0 6,626.6 6,893.7 6,070.8 6,085.3 6,352.9 6,641.2 6,920.4 -5.6 -11.9 30.9 14.6 26.7LADCO Illinois 2,021.9 2,022.7 2,058.7 2,168.5 2,391.2 2,028.4 2,023.5 2,060.8 2,178.8 2,395.1 6.6 0.8 2.1 10.3 3.9Indiana 625.1 634.1 672.6 716.8 727.8 622.8 629.2 680.3 735.0 766.9 -2.3 -5.0 7.8 18.2 39.1Michigan 1,094.0 1,094.1 1,094.7 1,132.7 1,236.4 1,084.0 1,084.1 1,101.7 1,141.9 1,200.1 -10.1 -10.1 7.0 9.2 -36.3Ohio 1,031.1 1,058.5 1,129.5 1,170.0 1,205.8 1,048.8 1,046.4 1,127.7 1,196.1 1,252.1 17.7 -12.1 -1.8 26.1 46.3Wisconsin 515.7 515.9 529.6 552.9 589.7 507.1 507.7 531.1 552.5 578.9 -8.6 -8.2 1.5 -0.5 -10.8LADCO Total 5,287.7 5,325.4 5,485.1 5,741.0 6,150.8 5,291.0 5,290.8 5,501.6 5,804.3 6,193.0 3.3 -34.5 16.6 63.3 42.1VISTAS Alabama 987.4 989.5 1,030.4 1,123.6 1,181.0 987.0 986.7 1,064.0 1,130.5 1,190.9 -0.3 -2.8 33.6 6.9 9.9Florida 1,355.1 1,356.0 1,503.5 1,678.5 1,745.0 1,355.2 1,356.1 1,519.8 1,697.1 1,733.5 0.1 0.1 16.3 18.6 -11.4Georgia 835.8 857.9 901.2 1,089.1 1,208.6 836.1 878.2 989.8 1,107.1 1,229.5 0.2 20.3 88.6 18.0 20.9Kentucky 495.5 496.2 533.6 556.5 569.1 494.7 494.0 542.3 582.2 592.5 -0.8 -2.1 8.6 25.7 23.4Mississippi 307.9 311.1 312.8 389.1 411.0 305.9 309.2 333.8 385.2 407.0 -2.0 -2.0 21.0 -4.0 -4.0North Carolina 970.1 986.3 1,087.7 1,189.6 1,251.6 969.0 986.1 1,095.3 1,188.7 1,248.9 -1.1 -0.2 7.5 -0.9 -2.8South Carolina 936.7 936.8 995.5 1,088.5 1,148.3 936.6 936.6 1,002.3 1,093.9 1,163.2 -0.2 -0.2 6.9 5.3 14.9Tennessee 663.6 664.6 735.2 754.3 782.6 663.4 664.4 747.6 785.4 794.3 -0.3 -0.3 12.4 31.1 11.8Virginia 625.6 625.6 719.5 789.7 831.7 620.4 614.8 718.0 790.4 826.4 -5.2 -10.7 -1.6 0.7 -5.3West Virginia 517.6 529.5 576.1 605.8 613.3 535.9 541.2 584.3 609.5 622.5 18.3 11.7 8.2 3.7 9.2VISTAS Total 7,695.4 7,753.4 8,395.5 9,264.7 9,742.2 7,704.2 7,767.2 8,597.1 9,369.9 9,808.7 8.8 13.8 201.6 105.3 66.6CENRAP Arkansas 383.8 383.8 421.2 465.1 484.1 383.8 383.8 422.9 458.4 485.8 0.0 0.0 1.7 -6.7 1.7Iowa 274.5 282.0 285.1 297.5 303.1 275.7 277.7 283.0 286.7 290.9 1.2 -4.3 -2.1 -10.8 -12.2Kansas 340.7 341.6 357.5 395.1 414.5 337.5 338.4 354.2 391.9 394.6 -3.3 -3.3 -3.3 -3.2 -19.9Louisiana 437.9 437.9 468.7 524.8 583.9 438.1 442.8 471.9 527.6 584.8 0.3 5.0 3.2 2.7 0.951MARAMA Base Case (MARAMA_5c) MARAMA CAIR Plus Policy Case (MARAMA_4c) MARAMA_4c - MARAMA_5cRPOState2008 2009 2012 2015 2018 2008 2009 2012 2015 2018 2008 2009 2012 2015 2018Minnesota 443.2 441.2 447.3 447.3 453.0 444.6 439.3 446.4 450.2 454.6 1.4 -1.9 -0.9 3.0 1.6Missouri 444.5 447.6 457.3 506.9 538.8 445.3 443.6 455.7 494.6 535.6 0.8 -4.0 -1.6 -12.3 -3.2Nebraska 303.8 309.8 313.9 325.3 326.0 304.4 310.4 314.5 325.5 325.9 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.2 -0.1Oklahoma 301.4 301.4 350.9 386.1 418.3 301.4 301.4 351.1 385.3 414.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 -0.9 -4.3Texas 1,985.4 2,015.4 2,328.6 2,424.2 2,631.0 1,983.1 2,017.0 2,341.9 2,449.9 2,626.5 -2.3 1.7 13.3 25.7 -4.5CENRAP Total 4,915.3 4,960.7 5,430.4 5,772.5 6,152.8 4,913.9 4,954.5 5,441.5 5,770.2 6,112.7 -1.3 -6.2 11.1 -2.3 -40.1WRAP Arizona 711.5 716.5 756.1 756.1 900.0 691.9 696.9 744.5 749.6 893.6 -19.7 -19.7 -11.5 -6.5 -6.4California 1,515.4 1,518.2 1,545.8 1,698.7 1,760.8 1,544.9 1,547.6 1,569.3 1,717.1 1,779.2 29.4 29.4 23.5 18.4 18.4Colorado 197.0 201.0 204.3 224.7 232.0 196.0 199.9 203.2 223.6 232.1 -1.1 -1.1 -1.1 -1.1 0.1Idaho 49.1 49.1 52.9 52.9 52.9 49.1 49.1 53.8 53.8 53.8 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.9 0.9Montana 136.5 142.9 147.1 147.1 150.6 136.5 143.0 147.7 147.7 151.2 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.6 0.6Nevada 184.7 185.5 197.3 207.4 218.4 184.7 185.5 199.3 210.7 221.7 0.0 0.0 2.0 3.3 3.3New Mexico 171.5 171.5 186.3 194.6 205.9 171.5 171.5 187.3 189.8 208.5 0.0 0.0 0.9 -4.8 2.5North Dakota 142.1 142.1 147.2 163.5 163.9 140.5 140.5 145.6 152.6 161.9 -1.6 -1.6 -1.6 -10.8 -2.0Oregon 252.9 252.9 295.6 295.6 295.6 252.9 252.9 300.9 300.9 300.9 0.0 0.0 5.3 5.3 5.3South Dakota 44.2 44.2 44.2 47.9 48.3 44.4 44.4 44.4 48.2 48.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.0Utah 162.4 162.4 162.4 164.3 179.6 162.4 162.4 162.4 164.3 179.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Washington 597.7 598.8 674.6 700.7 700.7 597.7 598.8 682.9 710.8 710.8 0.0 0.0 8.3 10.0 10.0Wyoming 228.7 228.7 236.4 236.4 248.3 228.8 228.8 236.4 236.4 248.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2WRAP Total 4,393.9 4,413.8 4,650.2 4,889.9 5,157.3 4,401.3 4,421.2 4,677.8 4,905.5 5,190.2 7.4 7.4 27.7 15.6 33.0CAIR Plus Policy States 23,028.9 23,184.0 24,610.6 26,298.2 27,780.7 23,036.7 23,147.7 24,873.4 26,482.9 27,900.2 7.8 -36.2 262.7184.7 119.6National 28,368.7 28,550.7 30,283.1 32,294.7 34,096.7 28,381.2 28,519.1 30,571.0 32,491.1 34,225.0 12.6 -31.5 287.9 196.3 128.3Note: To convert year 1999 dollars to year2006 dollars, use a conversion factor of 1.185652Table A5.5: State Level Variable O&M Costs in MARAMA Base Case and MARAMA CAIR Plus Policy Case (1999 Million Dollars)MARAMA Base Case (MARAMA_5c) MARAMA CAIR Plus Policy Case (MARAMA_4c) MARAMA_4c - MARAMA_5cRPOState2008 2009 2012 2015 2018 2008 2009 2012 2015 2018 2008 2009 2012 2015 2018MANE-VU Connecticut 45.2 48.4 67.2 71.7 78.7 44.6 51.3 55.4 62.0 63.2 -0.6 2.9 -11.7 -9.6 -15.4Delaware 15.9 19.5 24.0 22.7 23.2 15.9 18.7 18.6 11.1 11.0 0.0 -0.8 -5.4 -11.6 -12.2District ofColumbia 0.0 0.0 1.5 4.6 7.3 0.0 0.0 3.2 5.5 7.1 0.0 0.0 1.8 0.9 -0.2Maine 29.6 29.9 23.8 24.0 25.8 28.7 28.7 19.1 21.4 21.6 -0.8 -1.2 -4.7 -2.7 -4.2Maryland 102.9 129.6 152.8 196.0 232.0 105.4 130.9 178.2 207.4 228.4 2.5 1.3 25.3 11.4 -3.6Massachusetts 115.6 99.3 136.2 133.8 145.9 115.8 98.5 112.3 116.1 119.6 0.2 -0.8 -23.9 -17.8 -26.4NewHampshire 29.2 30.7 49.1 51.7 57.0 29.2 29.6 38.2 43.8 45.3 0.0 -1.1 -10.9 -7.9 -11.7New Jersey 91.3 96.4 99.8 96.3 100.3 91.3 102.2 98.5 98.0 105.7 0.0 5.8 -1.3 1.7 5.4New York 165.0 167.1 284.2 304.1 310.5 167.3 167.6 308.3 317.0 328.7 2.3 0.5 24.1 12.9 18.2Pennsylvania 427.8 471.9 537.7 532.4 534.7 432.0 469.1 531.3 528.5 529.1 4.2 -2.8 -6.3 -3.9 -5.6Rhode Island 1.9 5.1 6.5 7.6 9.2 1.9 5.1 3.8 5.5 5.7 0.0 0.0 -2.6 -2.1 -3.4Vermont 6.0 6.0 9.9 10.3 11.2 6.0 6.0 8.1 9.1 9.1 0.0 0.0 -1.8 -1.2 -2.1MANE-VU Total 1,030.4 1,104.1 1,392.5 1,455.3 1,535.9 1,038.1 1,107.9 1,375.0 1,425.5 1,474.6 7.7 3.8 -17.5 -29.9 -61.3LADCO Illinois 289.8 308.1 367.0 377.8 460.7 292.8 301.3 377.7 392.3 482.3 3.0 -6.7 10.7 14.5 21.6Indiana 309.2 353.4 390.3 426.6 432.7 309.5 341.8 426.4 452.1 468.0 0.3 -11.6 36.1 25.6 35.3Michigan 190.4 212.8 212.0 247.4 338.6 191.4 219.1 255.4 288.2 318.8 1.1 6.3 43.4 40.8 -19.8Ohio 408.3 519.5 568.8 591.5 592.6 429.3 507.4 568.1 600.5 610.4 20.9 -12.1 -0.7 9.0 17.7Wisconsin 127.2 129.7 145.7 164.2 185.9 128.9 137.6 166.1 184.3 206.7 1.7 7.9 20.4 20.1 20.8LADCO Total 1,324.8 1,523.5 1,683.9 1,807.5 2,010.5 1,351.8 1,507.1 1,793.7 1,917.4 2,086.2 26.9 -16.4 109.8 109.9 75.6VISTAS Alabama 219.5 256.9 298.0 347.1 377.4 213.3 246.9 336.1 357.0 400.5 -6.2 -10.1 38.1 9.9 23.1Florida 325.0 348.4 513.0 581.5 658.2 325.0 345.8 524.7 598.3 627.2 0.0 -2.6 11.6 16.8 -31.0Georgia 204.6 252.0 321.3 411.7 465.0 204.6 277.6 445.7 485.3 554.3 0.0 25.5 124.4 73.6 89.3Kentucky 267.7 305.5 346.3 362.9 373.9 262.1 281.2 360.1 381.4 386.4 -5.6 -24.3 13.8 18.5 12.6Mississippi 56.6 61.3 66.1 104.2 120.8 56.6 72.0 91.0 107.2 126.1 0.0 10.7 25.0 3.0 5.3North Carolina 283.9 245.0 293.0 316.7 360.5 284.1 243.9 302.9 323.2 358.9 0.2 -1.1 9.9 6.5 -1.6South Carolina 170.8 190.8 243.5 260.3 296.8 166.7 184.9 250.3 269.0 312.6 -4.1 -5.9 6.7 8.7 15.8Tennessee 159.8 186.5 195.0 194.1 212.9 155.4 162.7 203.9 213.5 217.9 -4.4 -23.7 8.8 19.4 5.0Virginia 121.8 133.7 189.2 212.4 253.9 121.9 130.3 201.6 224.7 255.5 0.0 -3.5 12.3 12.3 1.6West Virginia 285.2 326.2 391.7 413.0 419.4 314.3 355.9 407.0 418.5 427.0 29.1 29.8 15.3 5.5 7.6VISTAS Total 2,095.0 2,306.3 2,857.3 3,203.9 3,538.9 2,104.1 2,301.2 3,123.2 3,378.1 3,666.5 9.1 -5.1 265.9 174.1 127.6CENRAP Arkansas 65.6 71.0 81.8 128.4 148.4 65.7 80.4 88.7 137.5 162.2 0.1 9.4 6.9 9.1 13.8Iowa 85.2 93.0 96.9 101.5 108.3 86.2 98.0 113.4 115.7 120.5 0.9 5.0 16.5 14.2 12.2Kansas 104.9 105.1 105.3 118.2 128.9 104.9 105.8 105.4 118.2 120.2 0.0 0.8 0.1 0.0 -8.8Louisiana 80.6 82.2 109.1 137.6 174.0 82.0 94.2 124.2 149.0 182.4 1.4 12.0 15.1 11.3 8.453MARAMA Base Case (MARAMA_5c) MARAMA CAIR Plus Policy Case (MARAMA_4c) MARAMA_4c - MARAMA_5cRPOState2008 2009 2012 2015 2018 2008 2009 2012 2015 2018 2008 2009 2012 2015 2018Minnesota 111.9 107.1 105.8 105.7 106.2 111.8 108.0 120.0 124.2 123.4 -0.2 1.0 14.2 18.5 17.1Missouri 145.5 172.1 177.7 193.3 218.1 143.9 151.4 182.9 187.6 230.0 -1.6 -20.8 5.3 -5.7 11.9Nebraska 47.6 47.7 47.7 73.1 73.1 47.6 47.7 47.7 72.9 72.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.2 -0.2Oklahoma 110.7 118.9 151.2 173.3 194.0 110.7 127.0 152.0 178.4 200.6 0.0 8.2 0.8 5.1 6.6Texas 601.2 621.5 876.4 935.3 1,030.5 603.3 627.8 950.4 1,021.3 1,081.6 2.1 6.3 74.0 85.9 51.1CENRAP Total 1,353.3 1,418.6 1,751.9 1,966.5 2,181.6 1,356.1 1,440.5 1,884.7 2,104.9 2,293.9 2.9 21.9 132.8 138.3 112.3WRAP Arizona 198.3 199.3 245.3 246.0 302.5 198.4 199.3 253.6 257.0 316.8 0.1 0.0 8.3 11.0 14.2California 504.9 528.5 522.1 602.3 648.8 504.0 530.8 513.1 590.5 632.8 -1.0 2.3 -9.0 -11.8 -16.0Colorado 93.3 98.4 99.3 112.1 123.3 93.3 99.1 99.3 111.9 124.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 -0.2 0.7Idaho 2.5 2.5 9.4 9.4 9.4 2.5 2.5 10.6 10.6 10.6 0.0 0.0 1.2 1.2 1.2Montana 48.7 48.7 53.9 53.9 54.2 48.7 48.7 54.6 54.6 54.9 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.7 0.7Nevada 91.7 94.4 108.3 113.1 126.7 91.7 94.7 110.7 116.8 130.7 0.0 0.3 2.4 3.8 4.0New Mexico 86.3 86.7 101.3 104.6 118.3 86.3 86.8 100.2 102.4 121.6 0.0 0.1 -1.0 -2.2 3.3North Dakota 71.8 72.2 72.1 81.9 82.0 69.9 71.2 71.2 77.1 81.0 -1.9 -0.9 -0.9 -4.8 -0.9Oregon 23.9 23.9 74.1 74.1 74.1 23.9 23.9 80.6 80.6 80.6 0.0 0.0 6.5 6.5 6.5South Dakota 5.4 5.4 5.5 9.6 9.9 5.4 5.5 5.5 9.7 9.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0Utah 88.3 88.3 88.3 88.3 91.8 88.3 88.3 88.3 88.3 91.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Washington 51.1 53.7 146.4 145.4 145.4 51.1 52.7 157.9 157.9 157.9 0.0 -0.9 11.4 12.4 12.4Wyoming 116.8 116.8 117.4 117.4 124.2 116.8 116.8 117.4 117.4 124.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2WRAP Total 1,383.1 1,418.8 1,643.5 1,758.2 1,910.5 1,380.3 1,420.3 1,663.2 1,775.0 1,937.0 -2.8 1.6 19.6 16.8 26.4CAIR Plus Policy States 5,540.3 6,080.8 7,381.3 8,068.7 8,870.8 5,586.8 6,076.1 7,871.6 8,456.2 9,127.4 46.6 -4.8 490.2 387.5 256.6National 7,186.6 7,771.3 9,329.1 10,191.5 11,177.4 7,230.4 7,777.0 9,839.8 10,600.8 11,458.1 43.8 5.8 510.7 409.3 280.7Note: To convert year 1999 dollars to year2006 dollars, use a conversion factor of 1.185654Table A5.6: State Level Annualized Capital Costs in MARAMA Base Case and MARAMACAIR Plus Policy Case (1999 Million Dollars)MARAMA Base Case (MARAMA_5c) MARAMA CAIR Plus Policy Case (MARAMA_4c) MARAMA_4c - MARAMA_5cRPOState2008 2009 2012 2015 2018 2008 2009 2012 2015 2018 2008 2009 2012 2015 2018MANE-VU Connecticut 99.6 99.6 269.5 345.1 413.3 116.9 116.9 287.6 379.6 414.3 17.3 17.3 18.2 34.5 1.0Delaware 10.6 10.6 28.7 40.6 49.3 10.8 10.8 18.0 34.9 52.1 0.2 0.2 -10.8 -5.7 2.7District ofColumbia 1.8 1.8 10.2 42.2 57.5 1.8 1.8 20.3 43.5 52.5 0.0 0.0 10.0 1.4 -4.9Maine 34.5 34.5 100.7 129.8 156.2 41.0 42.6 108.5 144.0 157.4 6.4 8.1 7.9 14.2 1.3Maryland 91.4 139.0 267.5 708.9 915.7 102.4 150.0 411.4 730.1 858.2 11.0 11.0 144.0 21.2 -57.5Massachusetts 209.9 209.9 528.7 670.5 798.6 245.2 245.2 565.7 738.1 803.4 35.4 35.4 37.0 67.7 4.8NewHampshire 75.7 75.7 196.0 249.5 297.9 87.5 87.5 208.5 274.1 298.7 11.8 11.8 12.4 24.6 0.9New Jersey 23.6 23.6 71.7 147.7 203.1 25.0 25.0 70.6 178.8 289.2 1.5 1.5 -1.1 31.1 86.1New York 172.1 172.1 1,097.4 1,426.5 1,494.1 190.1 190.1 1,252.0 1,441.4 1,643.9 18.0 18.0 154.6 14.9 149.8Pennsylvania 87.0 91.5 282.7 386.9 431.6 92.6 92.6 291.5 454.7 565.6 5.6 1.1 8.8 67.8 134.0Rhode Island 19.2 19.2 55.8 72.1 86.8 22.8 22.8 59.6 79.4 86.9 3.6 3.6 3.8 7.3 0.1Vermont 12.1 12.1 35.3 45.7 55.0 14.4 14.4 37.7 50.3 55.1 2.3 2.3 2.4 4.6 0.1MANE-VU Total 837.4 889.6 2,944.2 4,265.4 4,959.1 950.5 999.8 3,331.4 4,549.0 5,277.3 113.1 110.3 387.2 283.6 318.2LADCO Illinois 44.1 44.2 133.6 265.4 801.4 60.0 60.0 170.2 354.8 870.1 15.9 15.8 36.6 89.4 68.7Indiana 26.6 43.6 110.4 311.2 349.1 31.3 52.1 222.1 492.8 640.5 4.7 8.5 111.7 181.6 291.4Michigan 6.4 6.4 6.4 220.4 753.0 7.2 7.2 172.3 399.3 594.7 0.8 0.8 165.8 178.9 -158.4Ohio 97.3 175.0 525.2 748.7 762.4 140.9 169.3 485.0 841.3 990.6 43.5 -5.7 -40.1 92.7 228.2Wisconsin 14.9 14.9 50.3 159.9 256.2 0.4 3.9 118.6 236.2 386.0 -14.6 -11.0 68.3 76.3 129.8LADCO Total 189.3 284.1 825.9 1,705.6 2,922.2 239.7 292.5 1,168.2 2,324.5 3,481.9 50.4 8.4 342.3 618.9 559.7VISTAS Alabama 20.8 20.8 83.4 521.4 814.8 17.4 31.6 278.4 553.6 877.3 -3.4 10.8 195.0 32.2 62.5Florida 13.0 26.7 941.9 1,717.7 2,125.8 13.0 27.0 1,052.4 1,855.0 2,051.0 0.0 0.3 110.5 137.3 -74.7Georgia 1.4 1.4 112.6 864.8 1,343.9 2.6 56.5 508.8 931.3 1,446.5 1.2 55.1 396.2 66.6 102.6Kentucky 8.2 9.8 86.6 190.5 230.4 5.8 5.8 169.7 325.0 386.8 -2.4 -3.9 83.0 134.5 156.3Mississippi 0.5 0.5 15.0 236.4 365.2 0.7 0.7 109.2 230.1 362.8 0.2 0.2 94.1 -6.3 -2.4North Carolina 234.1 275.2 623.4 866.4 1,113.6 234.2 275.1 677.4 878.4 1,117.3 0.1 -0.1 54.0 12.0 3.7South Carolina 23.3 23.4 321.4 535.7 748.9 21.8 21.8 381.9 573.7 807.4 -1.5 -1.6 60.5 38.0 58.5Tennessee 18.0 18.0 31.6 31.6 107.1 15.7 15.7 80.9 125.8 146.5 -2.3 -2.3 49.4 94.2 39.4Virginia 9.7 9.7 307.1 539.7 766.4 10.8 10.8 373.6 591.6 804.4 1.0 1.0 66.4 51.9 37.9West Virginia 2.7 2.7 139.8 281.7 313.6 52.0 62.6 202.5 352.8 431.9 49.3 59.9 62.6 71.1 118.4VISTAS Total 331.9 388.3 2,662.9 5,785.8 7,929.6 374.1 507.7 3,834.8 6,417.4 8,431.9 42.2 119.3 1,171.8 631.6 502.3CENRAP Arkansas 0.1 0.1 45.9 191.3 314.3 0.1 0.1 71.0 224.9 349.3 0.0 0.0 25.1 33.7 34.9Iowa 0.0 0.7 0.7 10.4 17.3 2.4 4.9 45.6 46.1 52.8 2.4 4.2 44.9 35.7 35.5Kansas 0.0 0.0 0.0 22.2 71.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 22.3 39.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -32.1Louisiana 0.1 0.1 107.6 290.4 508.7 0.1 11.8 149.1 326.0 532.0 0.0 11.6 41.5 35.6 23.355MARAMA Base Case (MARAMA_5c) MARAMA CAIR Plus Policy Case (MARAMA_4c) MARAMA_4c - MARAMA_5cRPOState2008 2009 2012 2015 2018 2008 2009 2012 2015 2018 2008 2009 2012 2015 2018Minnesota 45.1 84.0 84.1 84.1 86.9 47.9 88.7 119.2 132.0 132.0 2.8 4.6 35.2 47.9 45.1Missouri 2.8 14.1 19.7 91.3 257.6 4.7 5.6 53.6 117.9 307.1 2.0 -8.6 33.9 26.7 49.5Nebraska 0.0 0.0 0.0 34.4 35.7 1.2 1.2 1.2 35.3 35.7 1.2 1.2 1.2 0.8 0.0Oklahoma 0.5 0.5 237.8 345.3 524.2 0.5 0.5 239.1 351.6 521.5 0.0 0.0 1.2 6.3 -2.7Texas 225.6 225.6 2,245.5 2,610.3 3,446.4 243.1 260.7 2,399.5 2,822.6 3,626.5 17.5 35.1 154.0 212.2 180.1CENRAP Total 274.2 325.2 2,741.4 3,679.7 5,262.7 300.1 373.4 3,078.2 4,078.7 5,596.3 25.9 48.2 336.9 399.0 333.6WRAP Arizona 2.8 2.8 264.0 264.0 583.3 2.8 2.8 322.2 357.9 677.7 0.0 0.0 58.2 93.9 94.4California 792.1 792.1 980.4 1,506.9 1,691.7 823.0 823.0 964.9 1,453.1 1,637.9 30.9 30.9 -15.4 -53.8 -53.8Colorado 0.0 0.0 0.0 42.3 93.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 42.2 102.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.2 8.9Idaho 9.0 9.0 61.8 61.8 61.8 9.0 9.0 68.7 68.7 68.7 0.0 0.0 6.9 6.9 6.9Montana 5.2 5.2 36.0 36.0 37.5 5.3 5.3 40.1 40.1 41.7 0.1 0.1 4.1 4.1 4.3Nevada 0.7 0.7 65.7 70.5 148.6 0.7 0.7 80.2 93.9 171.8 0.0 0.0 14.5 23.4 23.3New Mexico 0.6 0.6 68.1 75.4 152.1 0.6 0.6 80.7 90.4 172.8 0.0 0.0 12.6 14.9 20.7North Dakota 23.2 23.2 23.2 48.0 48.8 19.3 19.3 19.3 36.2 44.2 -3.8 -3.8 -3.8 -11.8 -4.6Oregon 50.2 50.2 346.1 346.1 346.1 50.2 50.2 384.7 384.7 384.7 0.0 0.0 38.6 38.6 38.6South Dakota 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.3 14.8 0.5 0.5 0.5 13.9 14.9 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.1Utah 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1Washington 95.2 95.2 657.3 657.3 657.3 95.2 95.2 730.5 730.5 730.5 0.0 0.0 73.3 73.3 73.3Wyoming 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 33.5 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 34.9 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 1.4WRAP Total 979.0 979.0 2,502.6 3,121.7 3,884.3 1,006.7 1,006.7 2,692.0 3,311.7 4,097.9 27.7 27.7 189.4 190.0 213.6CAIR Plus Policy States 1,632.3 1,886.6 8,936.5 15,034.5 20,442.3 1,862.7 2,171.6 11,172.4 16,960.4 22,190.9 230.4 285.0 2,235.81,925.9 1,748.7National 2,611.8 2,866.1 11,677.0 18,558.1 24,958.0 2,871.1 3,180.0 14,104.7 20,681.3 26,885.4 259.3 313.9 2,427.7 2,123.1 1,927.4Note: To convert year 1999 dollars to year2006 dollars, use a conversion factor of 1.185656Table A5.7: State Level Fuel Costs in MARAMA BaseCase and MARAMA CAIR Plus Policy Case (1999 Million Dollars)MARAMA Base Case (MARAMA_5c) MARAMA CAIR Plus Policy Case (MARAMA_4c) MARAMA_4c - MARAMA_5cRPOState2008 2009 2012 2015 2018 2008 2009 2012 2015 2018 2008 2009 2012 2015 2018MANE-VU Connecticut 768.8 806.3 312.3 286.3 289.9 724.6 1,058.0 330.8 278.7 288.6 -44.1 251.7 18.5 -7.6 -1.4Delaware 133.8 132.5 126.9 118.1 121.2 134.7 141.9 114.8 63.2 61.2 0.9 9.4 -12.2 -54.9 -60.0District ofColumbia 0.8 4.6 4.6 14.6 21.7 1.0 5.1 9.4 16.6 20.6 0.1 0.5 4.8 2.0 -1.1Maine 594.3 580.6 219.4 203.1 199.9 578.1 569.5 211.6 204.9 201.1 -16.2 -11.1 -7.8 1.7 1.2Maryland 548.2 562.5 574.2 691.8 782.3 545.6 567.2 634.3 718.8 760.9 -2.6 4.6 60.1 27.0 -21.4Massachusetts 2,558.0 2,382.5 1,509.2 1,097.8 1,088.0 2,530.1 2,474.2 1,488.2 1,103.7 1,194.3 -27.9 91.7 -21.0 5.9 106.3NewHampshire161.6 254.6 197.1 197.5 208.7 158.3 257.9 166.4 178.8 187.3 -3.3 3.3 -30.7 -18.7 -21.4New Jersey 791.9 844.7 686.7 575.2 624.8 789.6 1,226.1 676.7 610.3 673.9 -2.4 381.4 -10.0 35.1 49.1New York 3,017.9 3,031.9 1,809.5 1,615.5 1,705.7 3,043.8 3,410.1 1,765.3 1,676.8 1,736.8 25.9 378.2 -44.3 61.3 31.1Pennsylvania 2,676.7 2,878.9 2,501.0 2,286.8 2,210.0 2,742.5 3,601.3 2,442.4 2,299.3 2,269.6 65.8 722.4 -58.6 12.4 59.6Rhode Island 118.9 305.2 33.3 35.7 36.1 118.7 338.1 35.5 33.7 33.4 -0.2 33.0 2.2 -2.0 -2.7Vermont 22.4 23.2 34.0 35.3 37.4 22.4 22.8 30.7 34.3 33.9 0.0 -0.4 -3.3 -1.1 -3.5MANE-VU Total 11,393.4 11,807.5 8,008.2 7,157.8 7,325.7 11,389.3 13,672.2 7,905.9 7,218.9 7,461.5 -4.0 1,864.7 -102.3 61.1 135.8LADCO Illinois 1,792.0 1,761.4 1,822.0 1,780.1 1,832.1 1,793.8 1,747.9 1,803.1 1,752.7 1,808.5 1.8 -13.5 -18.9 -27.4 -23.5Indiana 1,659.0 1,765.3 1,608.0 1,539.3 1,445.0 1,684.7 2,042.4 1,575.6 1,527.2 1,503.8 25.7 277.1 -32.4 -12.0 58.8Michigan 1,511.1 1,599.1 1,445.7 1,458.5 1,572.6 1,528.2 1,991.8 1,488.3 1,459.7 1,458.7 17.1 392.6 42.6 1.2 -113.9Ohio 2,198.6 2,389.0 2,162.0 2,099.3 2,058.3 2,161.3 2,640.3 2,067.8 2,069.3 2,033.2 -37.2 251.3 -94.2 -30.0 -25.2Wisconsin 752.4 770.8 757.7 716.9 710.5 804.4 859.9 726.2 706.9 699.2 52.0 89.1 -31.5 -10.0 -11.3LADCO Total 7,913.0 8,285.7 7,795.4 7,594.1 7,618.5 7,972.5 9,282.2 7,661.0 7,515.8 7,503.3 59.5 996.5 -134.4 -78.3 -115.2VISTAS Alabama 2,349.4 2,611.5 2,296.2 1,977.2 1,975.6 2,352.9 3,291.0 2,237.1 1,981.0 2,029.4 3.5 679.5 -59.1 3.9 53.8Florida 6,214.9 6,265.3 4,440.6 4,101.8 4,245.8 6,215.1 7,332.2 4,264.5 4,167.0 4,416.4 0.2 1,066.9 -176.1 65.2 170.7Georgia 3,109.1 3,276.3 2,525.7 2,439.5 2,536.7 3,086.8 3,272.5 2,527.8 2,500.4 2,624.9 -22.3 -3.7 2.1 60.9 88.2Kentucky 1,067.2 1,050.9 980.1 1,008.9 1,015.0 1,083.2 1,020.3 969.3 1,011.4 1,017.5 16.0 -30.6 -10.9 2.5 2.6Mississippi 884.1 991.6 737.9 720.0 736.8 885.5 1,758.7 745.0 751.7 766.2 1.4 767.1 7.1 31.7 29.4North Carolina 1,439.6 1,297.9 1,358.6 1,434.3 1,526.2 1,416.1 1,387.1 1,372.9 1,446.8 1,504.8 -23.5 89.2 14.3 12.5 -21.4South Carolina 1,243.8 1,412.2 1,285.7 1,248.7 1,339.1 1,236.8 1,685.0 1,286.4 1,270.4 1,403.1 -7.0 272.8 0.7 21.8 63.9Tennessee 820.3 822.1 849.4 816.4 799.5 807.5 717.7 832.5 822.4 801.2 -12.9 -104.5 -17.0 6.0 1.8Virginia 1,152.1 1,587.3 1,198.4 1,138.4 1,169.9 1,155.6 1,707.8 1,148.7 1,116.4 1,167.9 3.5 120.5 -49.7 -22.0 -1.9West Virginia 1,074.6 1,054.2 1,000.3 1,015.2 1,005.1 1,026.7 1,007.4 960.9 1,014.9 1,013.7 -47.9 -46.8 -39.4 -0.3 8.6VISTAS Total 19,355.1 20,369.4 16,672.8 15,900.3 16,349.6 19,266.2 23,179.8 16,344.9 16,082.3 16,745.1 -88.9 2,810.4 -327.9 182.0 395.6CENRAP Arkansas 1,004.4 1,208.0 1,054.6 928.9 910.6 1,009.3 1,775.0 969.8 904.8 887.5 4.9 567.1 -84.8 -24.1 -23.1Iowa 617.8 672.3 631.9 613.2 664.4 630.1 832.7 613.8 629.7 652.0 12.2 160.5 -18.1 16.5 -12.5Kansas 450.8 447.3 428.0 420.6 462.5 452.0 503.2 439.3 420.4 430.2 1.2 55.9 11.2 -0.2 -32.2Louisiana 1,171.6 1,223.1 994.5 873.6 881.4 1,242.0 1,764.1 983.6 837.2 875.0 70.4 541.0 -10.9 -36.4 -6.457MARAMA Base Case (MARAMA_5c) MARAMA CAIR Plus Policy Case (MARAMA_4c) MARAMA_4c - MARAMA_5cRPOState2008 2009 2012 2015 2018 2008 2009 2012 2015 2018 2008 2009 2012 2015 2018Minnesota 510.6 511.0 468.7 453.6 446.2 510.9 505.4 453.1 449.9 440.1 0.3 -5.6 -15.5 -3.6 -6.1Missouri 928.1 992.2 1,001.7 976.7 987.2 926.3 972.4 979.3 930.5 897.7 -1.8 -19.9 -22.4 -46.2 -89.5Nebraska 261.3 262.8 253.3 245.8 237.9 261.3 264.6 253.3 247.3 238.6 0.0 1.8 0.0 1.5 0.7Oklahoma 2,064.3 2,230.8 1,480.1 1,315.1 1,191.4 2,065.1 2,855.6 1,492.8 1,422.1 1,369.9 0.8 624.8 12.6 107.0 178.5Texas 11,112.6 11,303.2 6,765.2 6,275.9 6,356.6 11,116.4 12,545.3 6,753.2 6,307.3 6,359.4 3.7 1,242.1 -11.9 31.4 2.9CENRAP Total 18,121.5 18,850.6 13,077.9 12,103.5 12,138.3 18,213.3 22,018.3 12,938.2 12,149.3 12,150.5 91.8 3,167.7 -139.8 45.812.2WRAP Arizona 3,549.0 3,407.8 2,509.3 2,289.7 2,346.7 3,552.9 3,765.2 2,479.6 2,191.9 2,334.9 3.9 357.4 -29.7 -97.8 -11.8California 6,750.1 7,136.6 4,345.0 4,945.5 5,650.9 6,722.2 7,996.5 4,163.8 4,821.3 5,424.8 -27.9 859.8 -181.1 -124.2 -226.2Colorado 509.1 693.8 576.7 581.7 625.6 508.7 765.3 578.2 579.0 610.4 -0.4 71.5 1.4 -2.7 -15.2Idaho 117.9 110.9 19.2 18.6 18.0 117.9 124.7 21.4 20.6 20.0 0.0 13.8 2.3 2.0 2.0Montana 105.5 104.2 114.0 111.0 107.8 107.5 107.3 114.8 112.0 109.0 2.0 3.1 0.7 1.1 1.2Nevada 1,194.4 1,142.9 845.6 774.8 778.6 1,194.5 1,272.6 849.2 778.1 789.1 0.1 129.7 3.5 3.3 10.6New Mexico 408.8 414.3 393.5 390.8 446.5 408.7 424.9 400.9 400.5 458.4 -0.1 10.6 7.4 9.7 11.9North Dakota 229.8 229.3 223.4 238.5 232.6 231.6 234.8 223.0 238.7 232.3 1.8 5.5 -0.5 0.2 -0.3Oregon 877.9 826.8 656.1 585.9 564.7 877.9 926.3 668.2 600.6 578.6 0.0 99.5 12.0 14.6 13.9South Dakota 36.3 35.9 35.8 33.9 37.5 36.3 36.8 35.5 34.0 33.5 0.0 0.9 -0.3 0.1 -4.1Utah 230.1 223.8 217.8 211.4 206.8 230.1 223.7 219.0 210.1 206.4 0.0 -0.1 1.2 -1.3 -0.4Washington 591.6 731.0 603.8 529.8 512.1 591.3 736.9 593.3 554.6 534.7 -0.4 5.9 -10.5 24.8 22.7Wyoming 299.9 296.4 295.8 288.1 285.3 303.7 300.1 296.2 286.5 285.0 3.8 3.7 0.5 -1.6 -0.3WRAP Total 14,900.6 15,353.8 10,836.1 10,999.7 11,813.0 14,883.2 16,915.1 10,643.0 10,827.9 11,616.9 -17.3 1,561.4 -193.1 -171.9 -196.0CAIR Plus Policy States 54,006.6 56,372.3 43,392.9 40,774.1 41,540.3 54,062.9 64,529.1 42,664.6 40,876.5 41,821.7 56.3 8,156.8 -728.3 102.4 281.4National 71,683.5 74,667.0 56,390.5 53,755.4 55,245.1 71,724.5 85,067.7 55,493.0 53,794.2 55,477.4 41.0 10,400.7 -897.5 38.8 232.3Note: To convert year 1999 dollars to year2006 dollars, use a conversion factor of 1.185658Table A5.8: State Level Total Production Costs in MARAMA Base Case and MARAMA CAIR Plus Policy Case (1999 Million Dollars)MARAMA Base Case (MARAMA_5c) MARAMA CAIR Plus Policy Case (MARAMA_4c) MARAMA_4c - MARAMA_5cRPOState2008 2009 2012 2015 2018 2008 2009 2012 2015 2018 2008 2009 2012 2015 2018MANEVU Connecticut 1,347.2 1,388.4 1,105.9 1,172.0 1,288.5 1,322.4 1,663.0 1,137.3 1,198.7 1,277.8 -24.8 274.6 31.4 26.7 -10.7Delaware 219.3 221.6 246.2 251.0 264.9 216.9 226.9 210.1 171.9 190.0 -2.4 5.3 -36.1 -79.2 -75.0District ofColumbia16.8 20.6 31.7 82.1 109.4 16.9 21.1 49.7 86.3 102.2 0.1 0.5 18.0 4.2 -7.2Maine 719.9 706.5 400.0 417.7 446.0 710.2 703.6 408.0 444.8 456.5 -9.7 -3.0 8.1 27.1 10.5Maryland 1,202.6 1,306.6 1,497.8 2,184.0 2,547.0 1,218.3 1,328.3 1,750.7 2,243.4 2,453.2 15.6 21.7 253.0 59.4 -93.8Massachusetts 3,325.5 3,134.9 2,601.7 2,350.3 2,497.5 3,332.3 3,260.2 2,598.2 2,417.8 2,585.8 6.8 125.3 -3.5 67.5 88.4NewHampshire476.1 570.5 667.8 732.8 804.0 486.3 586.2 640.1 734.6 772.4 10.2 15.7 -27.7 1.8 -31.6New Jersey 1,763.5 1,821.4 1,754.7 1,738.7 1,887.5 1,759.2 2,206.6 1,737.2 1,806.9 2,039.0 -4.3 385.2 -17.5 68.2 151.4New York 4,784.0 4,800.2 4,693.6 4,909.6 5,114.7 4,827.8 5,194.5 4,832.3 4,980.0 5,316.4 43.8 394.3 138.7 70.4 201.7Pennsylvania 5,159.8 5,414.5 5,348.8 5,311.7 5,367.7 5,230.6 6,123.6 5,280.0 5,386.3 5,563.3 70.8 709.1 -68.8 74.6 195.6Rhode Island 162.2 351.6 116.1 138.5 157.1 164.6 387.3 120.8 143.7 152.1 2.4 35.7 4.7 5.2 -5.0Vermont 160.7 161.6 202.6 216.5 230.0 163.3 163.8 200.7 220.1 225.1 2.6 2.2 -1.8 3.6 -4.9MANE-VU Total 19,337.5 19,898.4 18,666.9 19,505.1 20,714.4 19,448.7 21,865.2 18,965.2 19,834.6 21,133.8 111.2 1,966.8 298.3 329.5 419.4LADCO Illinois 4,147.6 4,136.3 4,381.3 4,591.8 5,485.4 4,175.0 4,132.7 4,411.8 4,678.6 5,556.0 27.3 -3.7 30.5 86.7 70.7Indiana 2,619.9 2,796.4 2,781.3 2,993.8 2,954.7 2,648.3 3,065.4 2,904.4 3,207.2 3,379.2 28.5 269.0 123.1 213.3 424.5Michigan 2,801.9 2,912.5 2,758.8 3,059.1 3,900.6 2,810.8 3,302.1 3,017.6 3,289.1 3,572.2 8.9 389.6 258.8 230.0 -328.4Ohio 3,735.4 4,142.0 4,385.5 4,609.5 4,619.2 3,780.2 4,363.3 4,248.7 4,707.2 4,886.2 44.8 221.3 -136.8 97.7 267.0Wisconsin 1,410.2 1,431.4 1,483.3 1,594.0 1,742.3 1,440.7 1,509.2 1,542.0 1,680.0 1,870.8 30.5 77.8 58.7 86.0 128.5LADCO Total 14,715.0 15,418.6 15,790.2 16,848.2 18,702.1 14,855.0 16,372.7 16,124.5 17,562.0 19,264.4 140.1 954.1 334.3 713.8562.3VISTAS Alabama 3,577.1 3,878.8 3,708.1 3,969.3 4,348.8 3,570.6 4,556.2 3,915.6 4,022.1 4,498.1 -6.4 677.4 207.5 52.9 149.3Florida 7,908.1 7,996.4 7,399.0 8,079.4 8,774.7 7,908.4 9,061.2 7,361.4 8,317.4 8,828.2 0.3 1,064.7 -37.7 238.0 53.5Georgia 4,151.0 4,387.6 3,860.7 4,805.1 5,554.2 4,130.0 4,484.8 4,472.1 5,024.2 5,855.2 -20.9 97.2 611.4 219.1 301.0Kentucky 1,838.6 1,862.3 1,946.7 2,118.8 2,188.4 1,845.8 1,801.4 2,041.3 2,300.0 2,383.2 7.2 -60.9 94.6 181.1 194.8Mississippi 1,249.2 1,364.6 1,131.8 1,449.8 1,633.9 1,248.8 2,140.6 1,279.0 1,474.2 1,662.1 -0.4 776.0 147.2 24.4 28.2North Carolina 2,927.7 2,804.4 3,362.7 3,807.0 4,251.9 2,903.5 2,892.3 3,448.5 3,837.0 4,229.9 -24.2 87.8 85.8 30.1 -22.1South Carolina 2,374.7 2,563.2 2,846.1 3,133.3 3,533.1 2,361.9 2,828.2 2,920.9 3,207.1 3,686.3 -12.9 265.0 74.8 73.8 153.2Tennessee 1,661.8 1,691.3 1,811.2 1,796.3 1,902.1 1,642.0 1,560.5 1,864.9 1,947.0 1,959.9 -19.8 -130.8 53.7 150.8 57.9Virginia 1,909.2 2,356.4 2,414.2 2,680.1 3,021.9 1,908.7 2,463.7 2,441.8 2,723.1 3,054.2 -0.6 107.3 27.6 42.9 32.3West Virginia 1,880.1 1,912.5 2,108.0 2,315.6 2,351.3 1,928.9 1,967.1 2,154.7 2,395.7 2,495.2 48.8 54.6 46.7 80.1 143.9VISTAS Total 29,477.4 30,817.5 30,588.5 34,154.7 37,560.2 29,448.6 33,755.9 31,900.0 35,247.7 38,652.3 -28.8 2,938.4 1,311.5 1,093.1 1,092.1CENRAP Arkansas 1,453.8 1,662.8 1,603.6 1,713.7 1,857.4 1,458.9 2,239.3 1,552.5 1,725.7 1,884.7 5.1 576.5 -51.1 12.0 27.3Iowa 977.6 1,048.0 1,014.5 1,022.7 1,093.2 994.4 1,213.3 1,055.7 1,078.1 1,116.2 16.8 165.4 41.2 55.5 23.0Kansas 896.4 894.0 890.8 956.2 1,077.4 894.4 947.4 898.9 952.8 984.3 -2.1 53.5 8.0 -3.3 -93.0Louisiana 1,690.2 1,743.3 1,679.8 1,826.5 2,148.0 1,762.3 2,312.9 1,728.8 1,839.8 2,174.2 72.1 569.6 48.9 13.3 26.259MARAMA Base Case (MARAMA_5c) MARAMA CAIR Plus Policy Case (MARAMA_4c) MARAMA_4c - MARAMA_5cRPOState2008 2009 2012 2015 2018 2008 2009 2012 2015 2018 2008 2009 2012 2015 2018Minnesota 1,110.8 1,143.3 1,105.8 1,090.6 1,092.4 1,115.1 1,141.4 1,138.8 1,156.4 1,150.1 4.3 -1.9 32.9 65.8 57.7Missouri 1,520.9 1,626.1 1,656.3 1,768.2 2,001.8 1,520.2 1,572.9 1,671.5 1,730.7 1,970.5 -0.6 -53.2 15.1 -37.6 -31.3Nebraska 612.7 620.4 614.9 678.6 672.7 614.4 623.9 616.6 681.0 673.2 1.8 3.6 1.8 2.4 0.5Oklahoma 2,477.0 2,651.6 2,220.1 2,219.9 2,327.9 2,477.8 3,284.6 2,234.9 2,337.4 2,506.0 0.8 632.9 14.8 117.5 178.1Texas 13,924.8 14,165.7 12,215.7 12,245.8 13,464.5 13,945.9 15,450.9 12,445.1 12,601.0 13,694.0 21.1 1,285.2 229.4 355.3 229.5CENRAP Total 24,664.2 25,555.2 23,001.6 23,522.2 25,735.3 24,783.4 28,786.7 23,342.6 24,103.1 26,153.3 119.2 3,231.5 341.0 580.8 418.0WRAP Arizona 4,461.7 4,326.5 3,774.7 3,555.8 4,132.5 4,446.0 4,664.2 3,799.9 3,556.4 4,223.0 -15.7 337.8 25.2 0.6 90.5California 9,562.6 9,975.4 7,393.3 8,753.4 9,752.2 9,594.0 10,897.9 7,211.2 8,582.0 9,474.6 31.4 922.5 -182.1 -171.4 -277.6Colorado 799.5 993.2 880.3 960.9 1,074.3 798.0 1,064.3 880.7 956.7 1,068.8 -1.5 71.1 0.4 -4.2 -5.5Idaho 178.4 171.4 143.3 142.7 142.1 178.4 185.2 154.5 153.6 153.0 0.0 13.8 11.3 11.0 10.9Montana 296.0 301.0 351.2 348.1 350.0 298.0 304.3 357.2 354.5 356.8 2.1 3.2 6.1 6.4 6.8Nevada 1,471.5 1,423.5 1,217.0 1,165.8 1,272.3 1,471.6 1,553.4 1,239.5 1,199.5 1,313.4 0.1 130.0 22.5 33.7 41.1New Mexico 667.3 673.1 749.3 765.4 922.9 667.1 683.8 769.1 783.1 961.3 -0.1 10.7 19.9 17.7 38.4North Dakota 466.9 466.7 465.9 532.0 527.2 461.4 465.9 459.1 504.7 519.5 -5.5 -0.9 -6.8 -27.3 -7.8Oregon 1,204.9 1,153.8 1,372.0 1,301.8 1,280.5 1,204.9 1,253.3 1,434.4 1,366.8 1,344.8 0.0 99.5 62.4 65.0 64.3South Dakota 85.9 85.5 85.4 104.7 110.6 86.6 87.2 85.9 105.8 106.6 0.7 1.6 0.4 1.2 -4.0Utah 480.8 474.6 468.6 464.0 493.8 480.8 474.4 469.8 462.7 493.6 0.0 -0.1 1.2 -1.3 -0.2Washington 1,335.7 1,478.7 2,082.1 2,033.2 2,015.5 1,335.3 1,483.7 2,164.6 2,153.8 2,133.9 -0.4 5.0 82.5 120.5 118.4Wyoming 645.4 641.9 649.5 641.8 691.2 649.4 645.7 650.1 640.4 692.8 3.9 3.8 0.6 -1.4 1.6WRAPTotal21,656.5 22,165.3 19,632.4 20,769.5 22,765.1 21,671.5 23,763.4 19,676.1 20,820.0 22,842.1 15.0 1,598.1 43.6 50.5 76.9CAIR Plus Policy States 84,208.1 87,523.7 84,321.4 90,175.5 98,634.0 84,549.2 95,924.6 86,582.0 92,776.0 101,040.3 341.1 8,400.92,260.6 2,600.6 2,406.2National 109,850.7 113,855.0 107,679.7 114,799.8 125,477.2 110,207.3 124,543.9 110,008.4 117,567.4 128,045.9 356.6 10,688.9 2,328.8 2,767.6 2,568.7Note: To convert year 1999 dollars to year2006 dollars, use a conversion factor of 1.1856