From: Frey, Nathan J.
To: Wayland, Robertj
Cc: Culligan, Kevin ; Hutson, Nick ; Fellner, Christian Subject: RE: Cost of CCS Response
Date: Friday, August 23, 2013 2:31:05 PM

Thanks Bob. I’ll get you that agenda ASAP.

From: Wayland, Robertj [mailto:Wayland.Robertj@epa.gov] Sent: Friday, August 23, 2013 2:12 PM To: Frey, Nathan J. Cc: Culligan, Kevin; Hutson, Nick; Fellner, Christian Subject: Cost of CCS Response

Nathan –

Attached to this email is our updated response to your inquiry regarding the cost of CCS. Please let us know if you have any questions/concerns. Also, it would be most helpful if you could provide us agendas for the two calls next week. If we know which issues you want to discuss on the calls, we can make sure we have the appropriate EPA folks on each call. Also, it will free-up more lines if we don’t need all the EPA team on both calls. If you can shoot me something later today or early of Monday, we’ll make sure the right staff are
available for each call.

thanx!

bob

Robert J. Wayland, Ph.D. Leader, Energy Strategies Group U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards Sector Policies and Programs Division
Mail Code D243-01 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
Office: (919) 541-1045
Cell: (919) 306-2290

Fax: (919) 541-5450

Email: wayland.robertj@epa.gov

*************************************

DRAFT/Deliberative Document

- FOIA Exempt

*************************************

### Summary of Interagency Working Com ments on Draft Language under EO12866 Interagency Review.  Sub ject to Further Policy Review ‐ EPA RESPONSE ‐

Costs of CCS:

 Below is a table produced by NETL that provide s a range of cost estimates for next of a kind plants The commenter belie ves that it would be appropria te for the proposed rule to consider the full range of cost estimates developed by NETL, recognizing the level of uncertainty in these estimates.

[ EPA Response : We will add language to the preamble indicating the uncertainties associated with the estimates and indicate th at the costs may be higher than estimated. We will also acknowledge that ‘first-of-a-ki nd’ technology implementation is often more expensive than ‘next-of-a-kind’ implementati on and the yet-to-be-built plants will benefit from technology demonstrations at Ke mper, Boundary Dam, Summit, etc.]

 Commenters also note NETL baseline studies issued in 2010 and 2013 that present status of coal technologies with estimates on effi ciency and CO2 emissions. Volumes 1 and 3 of this study list various technologies for bituminous and low-rank coals (e.g., ultrasupercritical technology is covered for only lo w-rank coals in Volume 3). You can find these reports at: http://www.netl.doe.gov/ energy-analyses/baseline_studies.html (SeeVolume 1, page 26 for bituminous coal CO2 emissions, and Volume 3, page 37 for subbituminous coal CO2 emissions and page 38 fo r lignite coal emissions.) The commenters ask that EPA consider this information in its assessment of costs for CCS technologies and provide language in the pr eamble of the rule discussi ng the uncertainties associated with CCS cost estimates and the implications for EPA’s determination of BSER for coal.

[ EPA Response: The EPA is aware of and familiar with all available volumes of the DOE/NETL “cost and performance” reports – we believe them to be the best and most thorough reports available. For simplicity we have chosen to base our cost assumptions on information contained in Volume 1 (bituminous) since that information is also used in the companion report on partial capture cost and performance. As noted above, we are adding language to the preamble to discuss uncertainties associated with the cost estimates.]