P. 1



# OAR Box 

# 1796 Prepped byKeeia Richards



### Document

Number: 

# 34 ) IV-H-6 0 Docket Number: 

# A-90-3 7

Printed 10/31/2008 4:20:37

PM Sheet 34 of 107

### P. 2 11/22/0 2 FR I 16:1 3 FA X 91 9 54 1 550 9
.._.-*_«, , o . IVM . IHA f''.Htt t or e OP G II G EP A fcAJK

: 82029* * i 4QO NOU-2 1 -200 2 22:4 5 a 0 1 ( J PAG E Bl

* I- . r*x

To- '
Fa xtt:
From : P* XrftANSMrs-tiorJ OFFICE ar Z>JFOOHATT:O N AN D ft_=«uu.rovy AFFAIR S OFl*tCe O

F MUN40aMB>J T AK © BUbSE T NATUJU L RESOURCES, gfS-ERfl V AN D A-rfHOA-TUPf i BRANC H 72 5 17t h Street , NW , Roo m 1020 2 Washington . DC 20BO 3 Offfee : 202-39-5-3D84/F«ur : Z02-395-7ZB S 

## R'ttO-31 -TV-Hf


# T>;i\ \0^ruA SOI 

# -0¥M

lA/^kr* froas ) Ric h Tharou x ) Ji m Lait y ) -Amand a Le e ) Am yParre l I ) Bryo n AMa n ) Margn a Malcnosk i ) Davi d Roatke r ) Rut h Salomo n } Edrnon d To y bate . Pag « 

# 11 J



# 2.1 

# A£. .ncludrfn g thi * e ive rsheet . 

# £c f

Comments :
< S 

# |_Jb« ^ C^r4e \
c v£I

_ UbuL ^

C*r4cV s dM-*-C ^



# r~ - 

# -i-

P.l..v*IT.- »

»-ri n rrn i n QOC. C TW C RT H YV J fi:T TIM. I ?.\./7.7. / \ \P. 3 11/22/0 2 FR I 16:1 3 FAX 91 9 54 1 550 9 1 1 . __'»< •^*_.*-{j<: ; a : ISAM ; BA YARE AOF C OP GII GEP

A 101 1
; 920Z!iS 4 1 40 8 I^DU-2i-200 2 22=4 5 #ZH'TX p. 02/ie


### Emissio n Projection s Unde rNS R Alternative s Genera l Concept s Thi s pape raddresse s th e emissio n Implication s o fNe wSourc e Revie w(MSR ) policies . Thes e policie s wil l b e discusse d i n th e contex t o fthei rimpact s o n fossi l f u s l fire d powe r plants , althoug h th e regulation s als o appl yt o othe rsourc e categorie s a s veil . Th e unit s o fkeyconcer n ar e existin g coal-fire d generator s whic h replac e a part o rci>mponen t an d which , i n doin g so , coul d increas e emissions . Th e issu e i s howdifferen t policie s o n definin g routin e maintenance , repair , an d replacemen t (RMR&R ) migh t in l uenc e nationa l emissio n rates ; Th e policies i n questio n coul d creat e eithe rince rtives o r barriers t o improve d efficiency , reliabilit yo rcapacitywhe n action s ar e taktin durin g maintenance , repair , o rreplacemen t o fparts a t a facilitysubject t o ai rpollutio n regulation . Generall yspeaking , whe n part s a t a powe rplan t are replaced , the yar e replace d wit h part s havin g th e equivalen t function . I n man ycases , i n th e tim e perio d betwee n th e origina l operatio n o fth e powe rplant , an d th e poin t wher e a par t i s replaced , technolog y ha s advance d an d bette rperformin g part s ar e nowavailable . Indeed , i n som e cases , exact replacement s fo rth e origina l desig n ar e no t available . Th e mai n rn e onanis m fo r emission s t o b e affecte d i s throug h improvemen t i n uni t efficiency , capacity , an d reliability , a s newe rpart s ten d t o b e mor e efficien t an d les s pron e t o malfunction . O n a regiona l basis , th e primaryimpact o fhighe refficiencyi s t o lowe remissions , becaus e les s fue l I s neede d t o creat e th e sam e amoun t o felectricity . Change s causin g a n increas e i n capacity , o n th e othe rhand , coul d lea d t o greate remissions , becaus e th e alternative t o increase d outpu t fro m existin g coa l powe rplants woul d probabl yb e increase d constructio n o fne wunits , whic h woul d hav e lowe remission s pe rkilowatthou rgenerate d (whethe rcoa l o rgas-fired) . Improve d reliabilit yo ravailabilil yha s a n effec t simila rt o increase d capacityi fexistin g plan t generatio n displace s ne wplan t generation , a s deman d fo rpowe rgrows . However , i fa chang e i n capacit yo ravailability occurre d mor e often , o rt o a greate rdegree , a t lowe remittin g coa l unit s th a i a t highe r emittin g coa l units , the n economi c dispatchin g ofth e inventor yo fplant s coul d lea d t o lowe remission s overall . Give n th e complexit yofth e problem , i t i s difficul t t c predict th e outcom e ofchange s i n efficiency , capacityan d reliabilit ywithou t th e assistanc e of complexcompute rmodels . Thes e genera l trend s i n emission s ar e no t universal . Pollutant s whic h ar e "capped" , lik e sulfu rdioxid e (S02 ) unde rth e aci d rai n program , ar e not influence d b yllies e factors . An yreductio n o rincreas e I n emission s a t a particula runi t woul d b e adjuste d fo rwithi n th e emissio n cap , an d regiona l emission s woul d remai n constant . Nitroge n oxide s (NOx ) presen t a complexsituation , becaus e emission s i n most Eastei n state s ar e cappe d unde rth e ozone/NO xSI P Call , wherea s emission s i n othe rstate s ar e no t capped . Mercuryemission s fro m existin g powe rplant s ar e currentl ynot regulated , bu t i n th e futur e ma yb e subjec t t o a cappe d limi t unde ra regulator yschem e lik

e th e Clea r Skie s Initiative , o rthe yma yb e uncappe d unde ra Sectio n 11 2 regulatorysctieme .11/22/0 2 FR I 16:1 4 FA X 91 9 54 1 550 9 11-22-02 ; 6:15AM;BA YARE AOF C NOU-21-200 2 22 5 4 6 OP G II G EP

A ; 92025154 1 40 8 P. 4 12101 2 #29 / 7 4 P.03^1 0



### Emissio n Projection s Th e 0OE/E1 ANEM S mode l wa s use d t o evaluat e th e emission s implication s o fcurren t an d alternativ e NS R approaches

. Table s 1 throug h 3 , below , presen t m cdelin g result s fo ra rang e o fassumption s fo refficiencyan d availabilitychange s whic h migh t resul t fo r a n NS R approac h whic h facilitate d improvements , versu s on e whic h posu d barriers t o suc h improvements

. I n eac h table , th e curren t rule s ar e represente d b yih e "Bas e Case " an d possibl e outcome s fo rmodifie d NS R rule s ar e include d a s alternativ e scenarios

. I n thi s analysis , "capacity " change s are define d a s change s whic h increas e

. *

. _«__• . • •- I• . _-!!!_
. I -_-tal_- l

__ .



# J11/22/0 2 FR I 16:1 4 FA X _91 9 J&l , 550. 9 NOU-21-200 2 22=4 6 OP G II G EP A ; 9202ii s . i 40 a Xt 29/

- 7 4 P.03/1 0

Emissio n Projection s Th e DOE/E1 ANEM S mode l wa s use d t o evaluat e th e emission s implication s o fcurren t an d alternativ e NS R approaches

. Table s 1 throug h 3 , below , presen t m cdelin g result s fo ra rang e o fassumption s fo refficienc yan d availabilit ychange s whic h nigh t resul t fo r a n NS R approac h whic h facilitate d improvements , versu s on e whic h pos t i d barrier s t o suc h improvements

. I n eac h table , th e curren t rule s ar e represente d b ytli e "Bas e Case " an d possibl e outcome s fo rmodifie d NS R rule s ar e Include d a s alternativ e scenarios , i n thi s analysis , "capacity " change s ar e define d a s change s wuc h increas e th e amoun t o ffue l whic h coul d b e utilize d abov e initia l desig n rate s fo rth e powe rplant

. N o increas e i n hourl yfue l us e wa s assumed , du e t o expectation s tha t physica l change s a t a uni t whic h cause d increase s i n suc h capacit ywoul d b e preclude d b yenvironmenta l regulation

. Result s ar e include d fo rcarbo n dioxid e emission s (expresse d a s carbon) , S02 , NOx , an d mercury . Figure s 1 throug h 3 sho wNO xemissio n change s overtim e fo rth e sam e hypothetica l change s i n uni t availabilit yan d hea t rat e (efficiency)

. Thes e result s reflec l extrem e scenarios , an d actua l outcome s ar e likel yt o fal l shor t o fth e potentia l ami s ;lo n reduction s an d Increase s presente d (perhap s b yabou t one-half)

. Mftlgatlr g factor s includ e th e abilit yo fsourc e owner/operator s t o avoi d ne wsourc e revie wby "nettin g out" , th e likelihoo d tha t modes t improvement s i n thes e parameter s coul d bn » mad e a t existin g unit e withou t triggerin g NSR , an d th e possibilit ytha t potentia l imprcivemen t rate s woul d no t b e achieve d i n practice

. Attachment s 1 an d 2 presen t greate rdetai l o n th e technologie s assume d an d th e mechanism s b ywhic h change s i n efficienc yan d availabilit ywoul d manifes t i n annua l emissions

. Tabl e 1

. Paramete r 201 0 Coa l Generatio n (billio n kJlowatthours) [•^i»rr_T^TTTn^ffiii»ffl»^?. , r_iirriTii:irn____________________ i Avg . Efficiency- Coa l (percent ) Carbo n Emission s (minto n metri c tons ) Sulfu rDioxid e Emission s (millio n tons ) Nitroge n Oxict

yEmission s (millio n tons ) Mercur yEmission s (tons )

202 0 Coa l Generatio n (billio n kllowatthours ) Coa l Consumptio n (quadrillio n Btu ) Avg . Efficiency- Coa l (percent ) fi^,!!OT^1^rfl7af_T_ll^____iTm3 Sulfu rDioxid e Emission s > millio n tons) Nitroge n Oxid e Emission s (millio n tons ) Mercur yEmission s (tons ) Bas e Cas e 2215. 2 22. 8 33.2 % 688. 8 9. 7 4. 0 43. 7 2423. 2 24. 7 33.d % 790.i

. 8. 9 4. 2 44. 0 10/0 *

2231. 7 20. 7 36.0 % 634. 4 9. 7 3. 7 4 1

. £ 2484. 3 

### &.1 37.0 % 75-7. 6 8. 9 3. 9 42. 2 Scenari o

10/2 "" 2271.1 . 21.: » 38.89 ! i 639 ; 9. 7 3.( 1 41. 1 2612. 1 23. 2 37.0 % 745. 7 8. 9 3. 9 42. 7 ' 10/5* "

2336. 6 21. 6 36.9 % 647. 6 9. 7 3. 6 42. 8 2600. 5 24. 0 36.9 % 759. 4 8. 9 4. 0 43. 2 Scenah o 10/0 assume s 10 % improvemen t I n heat rat e an d n o chang e i n availability . Scenari o 10/2 assume s 10 % improvemen t I n hea t rat e an d 2 % i n availability . Scenari o 10/5 assume s 10 % improvemen t i n hea t rat e an d 5 % i n availability .P. 6 H/22/0 2 FR

I16:1 5 FA

X 91 9 54 1 550 9 NOU-21-200 2 22=4 6 OP G II G EP

A ; 920 2 .6 4 l 40 8 001 4
#30 / 7 A P.04/1 0



### Tabl e2 . Paramete r 201 0 Avg

. Efficienc y- Coa l (percent ) Carbo n Emission s (millio n metri ctons) Sulfu rDioxid e Emission s (millio n tons ) Coa l Generatio n (billio n kilowatthours ) Coa l Consumptio n i 1 '

PTTTT-miTmr-C T
Nitroge n Oxid e Emission s (millio n tons ) Mercur yEmission s (tons )

202 0 Coa l Generatio n (billio n kilowatthours ) Coa l Consumptio n (quadrillio n Btu ) Avg

. Efficiency
- Coa l (percent ) Carbo n Emission s (millio n metri cton s Sulfu rDioxid e Emission s (millio n tons ! Nitroge n Oxid e Emission s (millio n tons)



# fc
Mercur yEmission s (tons. ' Bas e Ga$ a 2215. 2 22. 8 33.2 % 886. 8 4. 0 « T
2423. 2 24.7 1 33.5 % 790. 2 8. 9 

### T 2 

### MS. 1W0

2235. 0 19. 6 39.0 % TOM 

### "3§i r 2489. 0 21. 8 39.0 % 

### 775 3 8. 9 3. 7 Scenari o

40. 5 

### li e

22 ! 0. 3 .!0. 0 3 9 5% " 

### ~8lX3 " 4iJ! 3
252:18 1

. Zi:. 1 38.-l% i 

### «iS " HI'S 

### 4i5 7 Scenari o 15/ 0 assume s 15 % improvemen t i n hea t rat e an d n o chang e i n availability

. Scenari o 15/ 2 assume s 15 % improvemen t i n hea t rat e an d 2 % I n availability

. Scenari o 15/ 5 assume s 15 % improvemen t i n hea t rat a an d 5 % i n availability

. 15/5 ' 2343. 8 

### IB S 39.0 % 619. 6 9. 7 3. 7 

### ITU
2616. 1 2 2 J 38.9 % 730. 5 8. 9 3. 9 4Z2 I

Tabl e 3 .

Avg

. Efficienc y- Coa l (percent ) Carbo n Emission s (millio n metri cton s Paramete r 201 0 Coa l Generatio n (billio n kilowatthours ) Coa l Consumptio n (quadrillio n Btu ) Sulfu rDioxid e Emission s (millio n ton s Nitroge n Oxid e Emission s (millio n tons) Mercur yEmission s (tons )

202 0 Coa l Generatio n (billio n kilowatthours ) Coa l Consumptio n (quadrillio n Btu ) Avg

. Efficienc y- Coa l (percent , Carbo n Emission s (millio n metri ctons ) (percent ) ffiio n metr h Sulfu rDioxid e Emission s (millio n tons ) Nitroge n Oxid e Emission s (millio n tons) Mercur yEmission s (tons ! Bas e Cas e 2215. 2 22. 8 "35-2% * 688. 8 "9 7 4. 0 43. 7 2423. 2 

### "23 7 33.5% , 790. 2 8. 9



# __ u 31 1 "

W £cena i
2222.8 1 21. 7 34.9 % 860. 7 9. 7 3. 9 42. 9 2457. 4 "2-T 8 35.2 % 765. 3 9. 0 4. 0 

## 3_ d 

# to 2264

. 22. 1 35.0 % 666

. 9, 7 3. 8 "33T3
2489. 2 24. 1 35.2 % 771. 0 9. 0 

### TT 43. 7

' Scenari o 5/ 0 assume s 5 % improvemen t i n hea t rat e an d n o chang e i n availability

. * * Scenari o 5/ 2 assume s 5 % improvemen t i n hea t rat e an d 2 % i n availability

. ** * Scenari o 5/5 assume s 5 % Improvemen t I n hea t rat e an d 5 % i n availability

. 5/ 5 •5 K 2328. 8 22.7 | 34.9 % 676. 7 4. 0 44. 0 2570. 3 24. 9 35.2 % 783. 9 8. 9 "£ 2 44. 611/22/0 2 FR I16:1 5 FA X91 9 54 1 550 ? NDU-21-2002 L2 2 '47 OP GH GEP

A : 9202;;8 4 I 40 a #3 1 / 7 a P.05^1 0


### Conclusion s Fo rcappe d pollutants , lik e S02 , NS R policywil l have n o impact o n future emissions

. Fo runcapped , o rpartiall ycappe d pollutants , a policytha t facilitate s Improvement s i n efficiencyan d reliabilit ya s part s ar e replace d wil l ten d t o reduc e nationa l amissions

. Fo rth e pollutant s an d scenario s examine d i n thi s analysis , emission s decline d b ya moderat e amoun t (typicall y3-7% ) i n ai l scenario s excep t one , compare d l o a baselin e cas e i n whic h suc h improvement s i n plant s wer e prohibite d unde rNS R pcilicy

. Th e on e scenari o i n whic h som e emission s Increase d (b yu p t o 1% ) combine d a wr yhig h increas e i n availabilit ywit h a lo wImprovemen t i n efficiency

. Thi s scenari o i s no t considere d a likel youtcom e fro m NS R regulator ychange s (se e discussio n o flikel y availabilitychange s I n Attachmen t 1) , bu t I s include d fo rcompleteness

.P. 8 11/22/0 2 FR I 16:1 6 FA X 91 9 54 1 550 9 J-.i'-S!.^ , , , -ii^-u ^ ; B :43AM ; BA YARE A OF C

. . NO.U-21-2002 * 22:4 7 OP G II G EP A ;9202 5 B4140 6 lg|01 6 XX 32 / 7 4 P.06/1 0



### Attachment 1 Uni t AvailabilityFo rCoal-fire d Powe rPlant s Data o n th e cause s o

fpowe rplant outage

s i s maintained b

yth e Nort h America n Electri c Reliabilit

yCounci l (NERC) , an d much o ftiiis data i s accessibl e a t thei rwebsit e (www, nerc.eom/~aads/_. Th e to p 2 5 cause s o foutage s at coa l unit

s fo rtt e period 1996-200 0 are presented I n th e tabl e below. NER C GAD S Dat a Principa l cause s o foutage s o rderatin g a t coa l units , 1996-2000 . SYSTEM/COMPONEN TCAUS E AV G NO . OC C PE R UNIT-Y R 0.4 3 0.3 3 0.2 1 0.5 7 0.3 2 4.9 5 1.8 3 1.1 6 0.9 2 1.6 3 2.6 7 0. 7 0.9 6 6.4 4 0.6 2 0.5 7 0.2 0 0.4 8 3.8 9 0.3 9 0.5 3 0.5 6 0.5 1 0.0 2 0.3 2 AVERAG E MW H

PE R UNIT-Y R 83,19 9 00.76 6 41,52 7 40,01 3 37,73 5 35,78 5 30,20 2 22.94 9 19,64 2 19,80 9 17,23 7 15.69 5 14,95 9 13,82 1 13.54 9 13,13 8 10.47 5 10,33 7 9,68 9 9,20 7 8,00 5 7,93 0 7,57 1 7.50 2 7,29 8 AVERAG E M W

PE R OUTAG E 193,62 3 185,52 9 196,08 0 70,04 7 116,53 9 7^2 3 16.43 9 19,73 8 21,38 6 10,64 5 6^45 5 22,33 6 15.60 4 2,14 6 21,96 9 23,09 7 36,35 3 21.45 4 2,48 9 23,39 7 15.12 6 14,46 3 14,71 3 324,10 7 22,46 5 MAJO R BOILE R OVERHAU L

SOO TBLOWER S - STEA M MAJO R TURBIN E OVERHAU L PULVERIZE R OVERHAU L BOILE R INSPECTION S PULVERIZE R MILL S FURNAC E WAL L LEAK S FEEDWATE R PUM P PULVERIZE R INSPECTIO N ELECTROSTATI C PRECIPITATO R PROBLEM S OTHE R PULVERIZE R PROBLEM S HIG H PRESSUR E HEATE R TUB E LEAK S BOILER , MISCELLANEOU S OPACITY - FOSSI L STEA M UNIT S FIRS TREHEATE R LEAK S REDUCE D POWE R T O AVOI D SLAI3/FOULIN G ES P FIEL D OU TO F SERVIC E SECON D SUPERHEATE R LEAK S PULVERIZE R FEEDER S BURNER S PULVERIZE R MOTOR S AN D DRIV E 3 FIRS TSUPERHEATE R LEAK S ELECTROSTATI C PRECIPITATO R F OULIN G SERVIC E WATE R PUMP S AN D MOTOR S CIRCULATIN G WATE R PUMP S 

### Groupin g thes e problem s b ypowe rplant section , it ca n b e see n that abou t 75 % are du e t o failures i n th e boile ro rpulverizers , 17 % du e to turbin e repair , an d 7% du e to parasiti c powe runit

s (ESP , pumps , motors) . Th e incidenc

e ofsuc h problem s has decreased ove rth e pas t tw o decades , ove n thoug h th e averag e ag e o fthese powerplant

s ha s increased , du e to improve dP. 9 11/22/0 2 FR I 16:1 6 FAX91 9 54 1 550 9 Resend11-22-02 ; 6:A3AM:BA V ARE AOF C NQU-2_.-200 2 22:4 V OP GII GEP A 12)01 7
:9202 E 34 1 40 8 tt 3 3 / M P.07^1 0

maintenanc e practice s b yplan t operators
. Th e figur e belo wshow s th e averag e coa l powe rplan t availabilit y(define d a s th e hour s th e uni t coul d delive rpowe ri n a year , divide d b yth e hour s i n a year , expresse d a s a percentage ) sinc e 1982

. Not e tha t th e rat e o fimprovemen t i n availabilit yha s droppe d fro m abou t 0.5 % pe ryea r Coa l Uni t Availabilit y(NERC )

1M 2 19B 4 188 6 198 8 1B8 0 188 2 198 4 189 6 199 8 200 0 200 2 i n th e earl y1980' s t o 0.1 % pe ryea ri n th e lat e 1990's

. Thi s i s believe d attributabl e t o physica l limit s o n averag e fleet availability

. Thes e trend s woul d sugges t tha ' eve n aggressiv e program s t o improv e availabilit ycanno t improv e performanc e mor e tha n 1 % (cumulatively ) betwee n 200 0 an d 2010

. Hence , averag e availabilit ymigh t b e expecte d t o rise fro m 86 % t o 87 % b y2010

. I n th e absenc e o fa rigorou s methodolog yt o attribut e th e portio n o fthi s futur e improvemen t t o action s whic h woul d b e considere d "routin e maintenance , repairan d replacement " versu s non-routin e action s subjec t t o permi t restriction s o rne wsourc e revie wlimitations , on e hal fo fth e increas e :x>ui d b e assume d t o b e constraine d b ycurren t NS R policy

. Give n th e uncertaint yI n predictin g a chang e I n availability , a rang e ofchange s wa s modele d usin g th e NEM S modelin g system
. Eve n thoug h les s tha n a 1 % increas e i n availabilit yi s expected , a rang e o f0 t o 5 % increas e wa s modeled

. A n overvie wo fth e NEM S syste m Is availabl e a t http://tonto.eia.doe.aov/FTPROOT/forecastino/OS812000.pdf

.P.1 0
11/22/0 2 FR I 16:1 7 FA X 91 9 5.4

1 5_ 5 NOU-21-2002 ^ 22:4 8 550 9 OP G II G EPA 101 8
I9202 E 5 4 1 40 8 « . 34 / 7 4 P.08/1 0

Attachmen t 2 Potentia l fo rEfficienc yImprovement s A t Existin g Coal-Fire d Powe rPlant s Th e averag e efficienc yo fth e U S flee t o fcoal-fire d powe rplant s wa s 33 % i n 2000 , whic h equate s t o a hea t rat e (fue l energ yneede d t o generat e on e kilowat i -hou ro f power ) o f10,24 0 Btu/kwh

. Possibl e measure s t o improv e thi s efficienc yhav e bee n investigate d i n recen t year s du e t o interes t i n fue l savings , a s wel l a s i n tim e greenhous e ga s emission s reductio n (i.e. , C02 ) whic h woul d accompan ysuc h a performanc e improvement

. Fo rexample , se e Integratin g Consultanc y- Efficienc yStan:lard s fo r Powe rGeneration

. Australia n Greenhous e Office , Jan

. 2000 ; Revie wo fPotentia l Efficienc yImprovement s a t Coal-Fire d Powe rPlants

. Perri n Quarie s Associates , Inc. , fo rClea n Ai rMarket s Division , USEPA , Apri l 2001 ; Increasin g Electricit yAvailabilit y Fro m Coal-Fire d Generatio n I n th e Near-Term

. Th e Nationa l Coa l Council , Ma y2001

. Th e Departmen t o fEnerg yi s currentl ystudyin g suc h measures . Preliminai yresult s fro m th e DO E effor t hav e highlighte d severa l promisin g options , a s indicate d i n th e tabl e below

. Tabl e 2. 1 Technolog y Turbin e reblading % Efficienc y Improvemen t 5-10 % Concep t

Energ ymanagemen t

Intelligen t soot blowin g
Distribute d Contro l Syste m control s Generato rexcite r replacemen t Condense renhancemen t
Overal l improvment s 1-6 %

1-2 %

0.5-2 %

1-2 % 1 % Replac e existin g turbin e blad e section s an d

seal s wit h mor e efficien t computer-base d designs . Replac e curren t powe rplan t eontro : syste m wit h real-tim e performanc e monitorin g an d adjustmen t o fchemica l fee d rates , mirflow , stea m temperatures , outag e maintenanc e agains t a theoretica l model . Replac e curren t soot blowin g syste n wit h "smart " systems , whic h ca n reduc e iitea m us e fo rsoot blowin g b y30% . Automat e manua l adjustmen t o fai rregisters , burne rtilt , fa n power , etc. , usin g a n <iptima l compute r"smart " system . Replac e curren t mechanica l excite rv,it h a mor e efficien t solid-stat e system . Replac e condense rwit h a large runi t l o reduc e bac k pressure an d mak e stea m turbi i e more efficient . 8-17 % (Number s are not additive du e t o som a

overlappin g improvements , an d possibl e double-counting. ) I n general , thes e improvement s al l improv e th e efficienc yo fstea m conversio n to11/22/0 2 FR I 16:1 7 FA X 91 9 54 1 550 9 "NOU-21-200 2 22:4 8 OP GII GEP A i 9202 E 54 1 40 8 m P.1 1 EI01 9 #35 / 7 4 P.09^1 0
electricity , o rreduc e parasiti c powe rconsumptio n withi n th e powe rplant . Suc h improvement s i n efficienc yproduc e more powe rfo rth e same amoun t o f< nerg y consumed , an d therefor e d o not increas e emissions , i n an d o fthemselves;; . However , two large rscal e issue s must als o b e considered . First , i fth e increas e i n efficienc yals o improve s th e unit' s economics , the n th e uni t migh t b e dispatche d (used ) more , whil e othe runit s ar e use d less . I t i s likel ythai : voluntar y efficiencyimprovement s woul d improve uni t economics . T o furthe revaluat e thi s situation , emissio n change s a t a midweste m powe rpoo l fo rwer e evaluate d fo ra rang e o fhypothetica l efficienc yimprovement s i n coal-fired , units . Fou rhypothetica l NGC C generatin g unit s wer e "added " t o th e syste m t o reflect a future scenari o i n vhic h a broade rmi xo fcoa i an d gas-fire d units woul d probabl yexist . Th e analysi s foun d tha t onl ya verylarg e chang e i n efficiency(13.5% , o rgreater ) woul d b e likel yt o chang e th e relative dispatchin g o fcoa l units wit h genericall ydifferen t units , suc h a s nalura l gas fire d o rnuclea runits , an d tha t eve n a t suc h hig h level s o fefficiencyimprovement , th e net effect wa s a reductio n i n emission s o f3-4% . (10/19/200 1 emai l fro m V . Koritarov , ANL , t o D . Carter , USDOE ) I t woul d b e reasonabl e t o expec t som e shiftin g i n dispatchin g betwee n othe rcoa l units , i fal l th e units wer e not comparabl yimproved , Suc h a chang e coul d resul t i n a n increas e i n emission s i fhighe remittin g units wer e th e subject o fefficienc yimprovements . However , give n emissio n cap s fo rsulfu rdioxide , cap s i n certai n state s fo rnitroge n oxides , an d a tendencyb ypowe rplan t operator s t o achieve optima l performanc e (bot h efficiencyan d emissions ) a t their"flagship " units , i t seem s muc h mor e likel ytha t units receivin g th e greates t efficienc yupgrade. ; woul d b e th e cleane runits . Unde rthes e circumstances , efficiencyimprovement s o fth e typ e cite d abov e woul d reduc e emissions . I n othe rwords , i fon e expect s a 10 % overal l improvemen t i n efficienc ya t coa l units , efficiencyimprovement s o f12 % migh t occu ra t th e lowest emissio n units , an d improvement s o f8 % a t th e highest emittin g t lits . Thi s behavio rwoul d lea d t o significan t emissio n reduction s i n period s o f"off-pea.: " generation , whic h include s th e majo rportio n o fth e year . However , thi s typ e ofbehavio r i s difficul t t o mode l an d wa s not simulate d i n th e mode l run s byAN L o rEIA . Th e secon d large rscale-Issu e i s tha t ofdeman d growth . Th e growt h i n electricity deman d ove rth e nex t decad e i s projecte d t o b e greate rtha n expecte d growt h i n electricityproductio n du e t o efficiencyImprovement s a t coal-fire d powe rpla n Is . Anothe rwa yo flookin g a t thi s i s tha t almos t al l additiona l generatio n whic h ccme s fro m efficiencyimprovement s woul d b e powe rno t neede d fro m ne wgenerators . Elecause th e efficienc yimprovement s ar e a t existin g coa l units , wherea s ne wgeneratici n ove rth e nex t decad e wil l b e dominate d bymuc h lowe remittin g natura l ga s combine d i:ycl e units , on e migh t suppos e tha t th e efficiencyimprovemen t woul d resul t i n increase d emission s overall . However , thi s i s not th e case . A s lon g a s th e increase d ptiwe r productio n doe s no t require additiona l coa l consumptio n (whic h i s th e cas e fo rthes e efficiencyimprovements) , the n th e resultin g ne t emission s wil l b e lowe rtha n ti e tota l emission s fo r"unimproved " coa l plant s an d "super-clean " natura l ga s plants . Most , bu t not al l o fth e efficienc yimprovin g technologie s cite d i n Tabl e 2. 1 reflec t replacemen t components . Thi s I s Importan t t o note becaus e som e NS R policie s migh t

# F 11/22/0 2 FR I 16:1 8 FA X 91 9 54 1 550 9
Resend1l-22-02 : 6:43AM;BA Y ARE AOF C P.1 2 OP G II G EP A ©02 0 ;9202.5 6 . 1 40 8 # 36 / 7 4 P.10/1 0


### appl ydifferentl yt o replacemen t part s versu s newcomponent s adde d t o a slan t fo rth e sol e purpos e o fImprovin g efficiency

. Give n th e expandin g suit e o fefficiencyimprovin g technologies , an d growin g interes t i n reducin g greenhous e ga s emission s throug h efficiencyimprovements , I t i s reasonabl e t o project overal l efficiencyimprovements , i n th e absenc e o fNS R constraints , a s larg e as10-15%

. Suc h a rang e I s muc h large rtha n conventiona l wisdom , whic h i s perhap s shape d b yexpectation s unde rth e curren t NS R policy , an d th e absenc e o fefficiency incentive s relate d t o climat e chang e concerns . T o cove ra broa d rang e o fpossibl e improvements , a rang e o f5 % t o 15 % wa s examine d usin g th e NEM S modelin g system
.

TOTA L P.1 0