_PJ_ 

OAR Box 1778 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

198)11-1-30 

Docket Number: 

A-90-06 

Printed 10/28/2008 9:51:01 AM Sheet 198 of 276 
P.2 

•WI&&-

••;->/.A-

^Energy^Inf brmation Administration 

H V 

mm 

•-LA~1'

:

*

 :&M 

•.'•CfeVuTjEftfl 

^"'•' - »^-1 . . . " H. 

! • 

* t '• 

\ I -

/ '-\ | 
P.3 

DOE/EIA-0509 - / 

Distribution Category UC-d'S > 

• « * 

Ma: 

2<*&r , 

r

fNTF.NH^ 

Estimating the Capital Costs of 

Life Extension for 

.il-Fuel Steam Plants 

July 1988 

Energy Information Administration 

Office of Coal, Nuclear, Electric and Alternate Fuels 

U.S. Department of Energy 

Washington, DC 20585 

Jhis report was prepared by the Energy Information Administration, the independent statistical and 

* /y&naM*ca\ agency within the Department of Energy. The information contained herein should not be 

A^S construed as advocating or necessarily reflecting any policy position of the Department of Energy or 

of any other organization. 
P.4 

• • . Tn-.i publication is available from the Superintendent of Documents. U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO). Orderinc infoi 

' H ^ 

A** 

.*a&&*^3%%. 

2/L2A • '- " "* 7 

• • . 

ass 

-;>^2^; 

^'v'% B . r^at*^.-

. ' 

.-, tW-aVW 

1 
P.5 

Preface 

Section 205 (a)(2) of the Department of Energy Organization Act (Public Law 95-91) requires the Administrator of the Energy Information Administration 

(EIA) to carry out a comprehensive program of energy 

data collection and analysis. EIA is responsible for 

providing timely, high-quality energy information and 

objective, credible analysis to support the deliberations 

of decisionmakers. In this regard, this report provides 

c; t estimates for life extension of fossil-fuel steam 

plants, one of the many options utilities have for meeting the future demand for electricity. 

Today, utilities are faced with complex decisions about 

how they will meet the future demand for electricity. 

Many different options exist. The refurbishment (life 

extension) of existing power plants has recently received widespread attention. In this report, life extension refers to capital investments made by utilities to 

keep a plant operating at acceptable levels of availability and efficiency 20 years beyond its originally anticipated retirement date. Refurbished plants are assumed 

to be returned to their original operating condition. 

By refurbishing older plants, utilities may be able to 

operate plants past their original retirement dates and 

postpone the need for new power sources. 

The capital costs presented in this report are developed 

primarily for use in EIA models and are only one component of the information needed to evaluate various 

options for meeting demand. This report (1) discusses 

the reasons for the current interest in life extension, (2) 

describes the factors that might influence a utility's 

decision to life-extend, (3) develops a methodology for 

estimating overnight capital costs for life extension of 

fossil-fuel steam plants, and (4) using the methodology 

developed, estimates average regional and national 

costs for life extension. 

Energy information Administration/Estimating the Capital Costs of Life Extension for Fossil-Fuel Steam Plants 
P.6 

Contacts 

General information regarding the preparation and This report was prepared in the Office of Coal, Nuclear, 

content of this publication may be obtained from Electric and Alternate Fuels by J. Alan Beamon 

Robert T. Eynon, Chief of the Data Analysis and (202/586-4434) and William G. Gillespie 

Forecasting Branch (202/586-9850) or Arthur H. (202/586-5742). 

Fuldner (202/586-9852). 

Energy Information Administration/Estimating the Capital Costs of Life Extension for Fossil-Fuel Steam Plants 
Contents 

P.7 

Page 

Executive Summary 

Methodology 

Results 

1. Current Interest in Life Extension 

2. The Life-Extension Option 

Utility Life-Extension Considerations 

Identifying Plants for Life Extension 

Performing Life Extension 

3. Methodology 

Developing New-Plant Costs 

Estimating Life-Extension Capital Costs 

4. Life-Extension Analysis 

Introduction 

Capacity Used To Develop Life-Extension Costs 

Annual Profile of Capacity Used to Develop Life-Extension Costs, 1990-2010 

Overnight Capital Costs of Life Extension 

Comparison with Other Studies 

Limitations of this Methodology 

Summary 

Appendices 

A. Equation Relating Total Plant Costs to Plant Size 

B. Probability and Level-of-Effort Factors for Coal-, Oil-, and Gas-Fired Power Plants 

C. The Concept-5 Model 

Introduction 

General Description of the Concept-5 Model 

D. Concept-5 Subaccount Categories 

VII . 

vii 

viii 

5 

5 

6 

7 

11 

11 

13 

17 

17 

17 

18 

21 

24 

25 

25 

29 

33 

37 

37 

37 

43 

Energy Information Administration/Estimating the Capital Costs of Life Extension for Fossil-Fuel Steam Plants 
Tables 

P.8 

3. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

7. 

10. 

11. 

12. 

13. 

Bl. 

B2. 

Cl. 

Dl. 

Nameplate Capacity by Prime Mover, December 1986 

Nameplate Capacity of Fossil-Fuel Steam Plants Entering Service, Actual and Planned, 

1950-1996 

Causes of Wear on Fossil-Fuel Steam Plant Equipment and Components 

Estimated Overnight Capital Costs and Account Ratios for New 800-Megawatt Fossil-Fuel 

Steam Plants, by Account and Fuel Type 

Estimated Overnight New-Plant Costs and Life-Extension Costs for a 153-Megawatt CoalFired Steam Plant • 

Concept-5 Regional Cost Multipliers, by NERC Region, Alaska, and Hawaii 

Nameplate Capacity Used to Develop Life-Extension Costs, by NERC Region, Alaska, and 

Hawaii, 1990-2010 

Nameplate Capacity Used to Develop Life-Extension Costs, 1990-2010 

Average Size of Generating Units Used to Develop Life-Extension Costs, by NERC Region 

and by Fuel Type 

Range of Estimated Overnight Capital Costs of Life Extension, by Fuel Type 

Estimated Overnight Capital Costs of Life Extension, by NERC Region, Alaska, and Hawaii, and by Fuel Type 

Average Estimated Direct Life-Extension Costs, by Fuel Type and Account 

Average Estimated Life-Extension Costs, by Plant Size and Fuel Type 

Probability Factors, by Account and by Fuel Type 

Level-of-Effort Factors, by Account and by Fuel Type 

Evolution of the Concept Code 

Concept-5 Subaccount Categories 

Page 

2 

7 

12 

13 

14 

18 

19 

19 

22 

23 

24 

25 

33 

34 

38 

43 

Illustrations 

Page 

1. Average Age of Fossil-Fuel Steam Units, 1970-2000 3 

2. Forced Outage Rate of Coal-Fired Steam Units 4 

3. North American Electric Reliability Council Region Map 16 

4. Number and Nameplate Capacity of Coal-Fired Units Used to Develop Life-Extension 

Costs, by Size 20 

5. Number and Nameplate Capacity of Oil-Fired Units Used to Develop Life-Extension Costs, 

by Size 20 

6. Number and Nameplate Capacity of Gas-Fired Units Used to Develop Life-Extension Costs, 

by Size 21 

Al. Relationship Between Overnight Construction Costs and Unit Size for New Coal-Fired 

Plants 30 

Cl. General Flow of Calculations in the Concept-5 Model 39 

Energy Information Administration/Estimating the Capital Costs of Life Extension for Fossil-Fuel Steam Plants 
P.9 

Executive Summary 

In the past, electric utilities built new plants to meet 

growth in the demand for electricity or to replace old, 

inefficient plants. Today, utilities are considering other 

options for meeting future demand, such as conservation programs, load management, purchase of 

nonutility generation, bulk power purchases, and 

repowering and life extension (refurbishment) of existing plants. All of these options will play a role in utilities' efforts to meet the demand for electricity. The 

purpose of this report is to estimate life-extension capital costs for use by the Energy Information Administration (EIA) in its forecasting models. A methodology 

is developed to estimate the overnight capital costs of 

life extension for fossil-fuel steam plants and to estimate 

average regional and national life-extension costs. The 

report discusses the reasons for the current interest in 

life extension and describes the factors that might influence a utility's decision to life-extend. No attempt is 

made to compare life extension with other options for 

meeting demand. 

In this study, life extension refers to investments made 

to maintain the operating status ofa plant at acceptable 

levels of availability' and efficiency beyond its originally anticipated retirement date. For modeling purposes, refurbishment is assumed to extend the life of a 

plant approximately 20 years, with availability and efficiency declining over time. More extensive activities, 

such as repowering a pulverized coal plant with a fluidized bed system or modifying a boiler to use other 

fuels, are not considered in this report. 

Only fossil-fuel steam plants are included in this study. 

The increasing age of these plants is a major factor in 

utilities' current interest in life extension. These plants 

accounted for 66 percent of total U.S. nameplate capacity in 1986. Between 1987 and 2010 many of these 

plants will reach their anticipated retirement date. The 

average age (weighted by capacity) of coal-fired plants 

was 9 years in 1970, but is expected to increase to 36 

years by 2010. If these plants are retired, many utilities 

will need alternative generating resources. 

and costs associated with site selection and the permitting process for new plants. 

The decision to life-extend or retire older plants is 

extemely complex and is usually made as part ofa utility's long-range operating plans. Normally, the utility 

first examines its entire system to determine how refurbishing plants compares with other options for meeting demand. If it is determined that plant refurbishment 

is the least-cost method of meeting future demand, 

plants are selected to be evaluated. At this point, extensive engineering studies are undertaken to determine 

the condition of the equipment and facilities of these 

plants. Refurbishment options, along with their costs, 

are evaluated to determine if each plant's desired availability and performance levels can be reached. Utilities 

can take various approaches to the implementation of 

life-extension programs. Many utilities plan to use a 

phased approach for life extension, refurbishing their 

plants during normally scheduled maintenance outages. However, some utilities may follow a front-end 

approach, performing all life-extension work during a 

single prolonged outage. 

Methodology 

The methodology used in this report was developed 

to estimate the overnight capital costs of life extension 

at the regional and national levels for use in EIA models. Currently, if a utility were to undertake a lifeextension program, it would spend millions of dollars 

evaluating the refurbishment of plants within their systems. These evaluations involve complex economic 

and engineering studies that weigh life extension 

against other options for meeting demand. The costestimating methodology used in this report was developed because it would not be cost-effective to perform 

detailed life-extension analyses for each plant to get 

estimates of overnight capital costs at the regional and 

national levels. 

Prolonging the lives of older plants is an attractive 

option since it utilizes existing capacity and avoids the 

high costs associated with constructing new plants. 

Extending the lives of older plants also avoids the time 

This study estimates overnight capital costs of life extension of individual plants from the overnight capital 

costs of typical new fossil-fuel steam plants. New-plant 

costs are developed by making a detailed cost analysis 

'A plant's availability refers to the time that the plant can be operated to meet electricity generating requirements. 

Energy Information Administration/Estimating the Capital Costs of Life Extension for Fossil-Fuel Steam Plants 
P.10 

Table ES1. Range of Estimated Overnight Capital Costs of Life Extension 

by Plant Type 

(1987 Dollars per Kilowatt) 

Coal-Fired 

Oil-Fired 

Plant Type Capacity Weighted Average* 

142 

95 

73 

Individual Plant Costs 

l 

Lowest I Highest 

103 272 

78 143 

60 105 

These costs represent national averages. 

Note: These costs are developed using the mid-level-of-effort factors. 

Source: Energy Information Administration. Office of Coal. Nuclear. Electric and Alternate Fuels. Electric Power Oivision. 

of individual plant components using the Concept-5 

model designed by Oak Ridge National Laboratory. 

The cost data in the Concept-5 model are designed to 

represent the actual costs of constructing a plant of a 

given size and type. These costs do not include the 

costs of real escalation, inflation, or allowance for 

funds used during construction (AFUDC). 

To derive life-extension costs from new-plant costs, 

this study considers the likelihood that a plant's components will need to be refurbished after 25 years of 

service. The resources required to refurbish the components of a plant, and regional differences in labor 

rates and in the costs of materials and supplies are also 

considered. Thus, beginning with new-plant costs, the 

overnight capital costs of extending the life of a particular plant are estimated by adjusting the cost of each 

component by the likelihood that it will need to be 

refurbished, the amount of resources needed to refurbish it, and the location of the plant. 

Results 

Using the methodology described, the average overnight capital costs of life extension are estimated for 

use in EIA models. Approximately 364 gigawatts of 

fossil-fuel steam capacity are considered (264 gigawatts 

are coal-fired, 28 gigawatts are oil-fired, and 73 

gigawatts are gas-fired). Both the capacity-weighted 

average cost for these plants and the range (lowest and 

highest) for individual coal-, oil-, and gas-fired plants 

are given in Table ESI. Coal-fired plants, for example, 

have an average cost for refurbishment of $142 per 

kilowatt, while oil- and gas-fired plants have costs of 

$95 and $73, respectively. These cost estimates are 

based on current environmental laws and regulations. 

If more stringent standards were imposed on existing 

plants, then cost estimates for life extension would be 

considerably higher than estimated here. 

Life-extension costs vary primarily because of differences in plant size and in costs of labor and materials. 

Larger plants tend to have lower refurbishment costs 

per unit of capacity if other factors are equal. In addition, life-extension costs for coal-fired plants also vary 

according to whether the units are equipped with flue 

gas desulfurization (FGD) units. 

Life extension is certain to be applied to some degree 

at some aging power plants. As previously noted, the 

choice of life extension over other alternatives (such 

as retirement, repowering, load management, conservation, purchased power, and new capacity) will depend on a host of factors peculiar to each utility and 

individual plant. The capital costs for life extension 

developed in this report for use in EIA models are 

based on the assumption that the expenditure of the 

estimated costs will return plants to their original availability and operating efficiency and extend their operating lives 20 years. The lack of data on the cost and 

effectiveness of actual life-extension projects does not 

allow validation of these life-extension costs. Therefore, the cost estimates provided in this report are insufficient to estimate the extent or degree of lifeextension effort that will occur or the additional power 

generation such effort will enable. 

Few studies have calculated life-extension costs. An 

Oak Ridge National Laboratory study titled Coal-Fired 

Electric Power Plant Life Extension: An Overview estimated life-extension costs ranging from $43 to $106 

per kilowatt (1987 dollars) for coal-fired plants. In an 

article prepared by the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) titled "Longer Life for Fossil-Fuel 

Plants," a much broader set of estimates was developed, 

with life-extension costs ranging from $125 to $625 per 

kilowatt (1987 dollars) for different fossil fuels. Both 

of these studies are based on data from a limited number 

of life-extension projects. Neither develops a methodology to estimate life-extension costs or attempts to 

estimate average regional and national life-extension 

costs. The costs estimated in this EIA report fall within 

the cost ranges of actual utility experience reported by 

these two studies. 

In the future, life extension may become a continuous 

process, with utilities designing operation and maintenance procedures to maintain a plant's performance 

and availability throughout its 50-to-60-year life. 

Energy Information Administration/Estimating the Capital Costs of Life Extension for Fossil-Fuel Steam Plants 
P.11 

1. Current Interest in Life Extension 

Planning to meet future demand is of utmost importance to electric utilities. Many options for meeting 

demand exist. This report discusses one of these options, the life extension (or refurbishment) of existing 

fossil-fuel steam plants. The costs presented in this report are developed primarily for use in forecasting 

models of the Energy Information Administration 

(EIA) and are only one component of the information 

needed to evaluate various options for meeting demand. This report (1) discusses the reasons for the current interest in life extension, (2) describes the factors 

that might influence a utility's decision to life-extend, 

(3) develops a methodology for estimating overnight 

capital costs for life extension of fossil-fuel steam plants, 

and (4) using the methodology developed, calculates 

average regional and national life-extension costs for 

input into EIA models. The report does not compare 

life extension with other options for meeting the demand for electricity, including the construction of new 

plants. 

Electric utilities are always planning to meet the future 

demand for electricity. Although electric utilities currently have adequate capacity, many fossil-fuel steam 

plants will reach their anticipated retirement dates by 

2010. In 1986 fossil-fuel steam plants accounted for 66 

percent of total capacity (Table 1). If these plants are 

retired, utilities may have to develop additional sources 

of supply. Traditionally, utilities built new plants to 

meet growth in demand or to replace old plants. In 

recent years, however, utilities have been reluctant to 

build large plants because of substantial increases in 

construction costs, strict environmental requirements, 

uncertainties in future demand, and uncertainties in recovering new-plant costs. Current utility plans include 

few new plants (Table 2). In lieu of building new 

plants, utilities are exploring other options, including 

conservation and load-management programs, purchases of electricity from other utilities (bulk power) 

and from nonutilities, from foreign sources (imports), 

and from repowering and life extension of existing 

plants. All of these options are expected to play a role 

in meeting the future demand for electricity in the 

United States. 

Conservation and load management programs involve 

utility efforts to decrease or shift the demand on their 

systems, thereby lowering their peak demands and reducing the need for additional generating capacity. By 

encouraging energy efficiency through conservation 

programs, the utility is able to reduce the growth of 

demand on its system. Unlike conservation programs, 

load management programs do not decrease total demand. Load management refers to the methods utilities 

use to shift demand from peak to off-peak periods. 

Since peak demand determines the amount of capacity 

needed, lowering it by shifting some demand to other 

time periods reduces the need for additional capacity. 

The Potomac Electric Power Company estimates that 

it will be able to eliminate the need for 440 megawatts 

of capacity by the mid-1990's through a variety of consumer programs. However, in some cases, conservation 

improvements have not been adopted as quickly as,expected, and conservation gains may be offset by the 

introduction of new products that use electricity, or 

by changes in energy consumption patterns. 

Table 1. Nameplate Capacity by Prime Mover, December 1986 

(Megawatts) 

Prime Mover Capacity Percent of Total Capacity 

Fossil-Fuel Steam 

Coal 

Oil 

Gas 

Nuclear Steam 

Water 

Gas Turbine/Internal Combustion . 

Other" 

468,939 

313,194 

55,760 

99,985 

92,417 

85.165 

56,589 

4,574 

66 

44 

8 

14 

13 

12 

8 

1 

Total. 707,684 100 

Other includes the following energy sources: coal-oil mix, geothermal. refuse, sun. waste heat, wind, and wood. 

Note: Totals may not equal sum of components because of independent rounding. 

Source: Energy Information Administration, Inventory of Power Plants in the United States 1986 (August 1987). p. 9. 

Energy Information Administration/Estimating the Capital Costs of Life Extension for Fossil-Fuel Steam Plants 
P.12 

Table 2. Nameplate Capacity of Fossil-Fuel Steam Plants Entering Service, 

Actual and Planned, 1950-1996 

(Megawatts) 

Years 

Actual 

1950-1955 

1956-1960 

1961-1965 

1966-1970 

1971-1975 

1976-1980 

1981-1985 

Planned 

1986-1990 

1991-1996 

Coal 

29.617 

28.778 

26.002 

48,842 

64,910 

59.289 

46.881 

12.167 

15,950 

Fuel Type 

Oil 

7.612 

5.680 

4.618 

4.862 

18,631 

13.690 

1,523 

0 

0 

Gas 

12.758 

15,134 

19.486 

23,865 

23,354 

3,337 

35 

0 

0 

Source: Energy Information Administration. Form EIA-860, "Annual Electric Generator Report," December 1987. 

Purchasing power from nonutilities, other domestic 

utilities (bulk power purchases), and foreign sources 

(imports) could also reduce a utility's need for additional generating capacity. Purchases of power from 

nonutilities provided about 2 percent of the Nation's 

total demand in 1986.2 Current forecasts call for this 

percentage to remain approximately the same through 

2000. However, considerable uncertainty surrounds 

estimates of the development of nonutility power 

sources. Bulk power purchases from both domestic 

and foreign utilities allow a utility with inadequate or 

expensive capacity to purchase needed power. In 1986, 

imports of power from Canada accounted for 2 percent 

of the Nation's total demand. Increased imports of electricity could help utilities in some U.S. regions delay 

requirements for additional generating capacity, 

mostly in regions near Canadian supplies of electricity. 

However, growth in domestic Canadian demand could 

potentially displace U.S. needs, or Canadian trade policies could shift from their current practices so that 

this source would no longer be available to meet U.S. 

demand. Also, limits on the carrying capacity of transmission systems and the eventual lack of surplus power 

from utilities may restrict the growth of foreign and 

domestic bulk power trade. 

Repowering or extending the lives of existing power 

plants are additional alternatives to new plant construction. Both of these processes involve refurbishing older 

plants to extend their lives. In repowering, the boiler 

at a plant is replaced with a new combustion technology such as an atmospheric fluidized-bed unit which 

results in better performance and, usually, larger capacity. In life extension, a plant is restored to its original performance without installing new combustion 

technologies. 

All of these options are expected to play a role in meeting the demand for electricity in the future. This report 

will discuss one of these options--the life extension (or 

refurbishment) of fossil-fuel steam plants. In this report, 

life extension refers to investments made to maintain 

the operating status of a plant at acceptable levels of 

efficiency and availability beyond its originally anticipated retirement date. For modeling purposes, refurbishment is assumed to extend the life of a plant approximately 20 years, with availability and efficiency 

declining over time. 

Many utilities are studying life extension as a practical 

and cost-effective means of meeting future demand. 

One major benefit of life extension is that it avoids the 

siting problems associated with new-plant construction. Normally, no new permits, switching facilities, 

or transmission lines are required when refurbishing 

existing plants. Also, as explained in Chapter 2, when 

refurbishing a plant, most utilities may be able to avoid 

the need for some expensive environmental controls 

that would be required on new plants. In addition, the 

overnight capital expenditures for life extension are 

often considerably less than those required to build a 

new plant. As a result, life extension poses fewer financial risks and is easier to justify to public utility commissions. 

Nuclear or hydroelectric plants could be considered 

for life extension, but this report discusses only the 

refurbishment of fossil-fuel steam plants. Although 

some nuclear units will reach their anticipated retirement dates by 2010, uncertainty exists concerning the 

feasibility and cost of extending their lives. Also, 

relicensing guidelines for nuclear plants have not been 

issued by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Hydroelectric plants are not considered in this study because many oLthem frequently operate well beyond 

40 years with relatively minor overhauls of their turbine generators. 

:

Energy Information Administration, Annual Outlook far U.S. Electric Power 1987. DOE/EIA-0474(87) (Washington, DC. May 1987). 

Energy Information Administration/Estimating the Capital Costs of Life Extension for Fossil-Fuel Steam Plants 
P.13 

As stated previously, many fossil-fuel steam plants will 

reach the end of their design lives by 2010. The increasing age of these plants is a major factor in the 

growing interest in life extension. EIA collects data on 

the status of electric generating plants and associated 

equipment in commercial service and those scheduled 

to be in commercial service in the United States and 

Puerto Rico within 10 years of filing the report.1 It 

includes utilities' plans to build new plants (under construction and planned) and retire existing ones. At 

present few utilities have reported plans to retire many 

plants. In fact, some utilities, such as Duke Power, 

have decided not to retire any currently operating capacity in this century.4

 For this reason, plants are not 

retired unless a utility has reported a retirement date. 

While the data have been completely reported only 

through 1996, the data show that the average age 

(weighted by capacity) for coal-, oil-, and gas-fired 

steam plants will have risen from 9, 14, and 9 years, 

respectively in 1970, to 27, 29, and 34 years by 2000 

(Figure 1). The increasing average age of these plants 

is due in part to lower growth in demand in recent 

years, which caused utilities to slow down or curtail 

construction programs that would have brought new 

fossil-fuel plants on line. Many of these older plants 

will be kept on line and used to meet cycling demand. 

As Table 2 shows, this slowdown in new plant construction is expected to continue through 1996. 

The increasing age of fossil-fuel plants is of concern to 

utilities because older plants tend to have operational 

problems. As a plant approaches retirement, increased 

maintenance is required. Data compiled by the North 

American Electric Reliability Council (NERC) show 

that coal-fired plants with a capacity between 50 and 

200 megawatts begin to become less reliable after 20 

years. After 30 years, the forced outage rate accelerates 

sharply (Figure 2), and the duration of outages increases. At some point, the operation of the plant becomes uneconomical and the plant may be retired. 

Historically, plants that reached retirement age were 

considered obsolete as the result of advances in technology. However, by the 1950's, the technology of 

power generation had reached a plateau; consequently, 

many plants nearing "retirement age" in the 1990's will 

not be technologically obsolete. Recently, utilities 

have reported plans to retire only a small percentage 

of their existing capacity. This indicates that utilities 

plan to operate their older plants longer than originally 

planned. It is likely that many of these older plants will 

be considered for life-extension programs. 

Figure 1. Average Age of Fossil-Fuel Steam Units, 1970-2000 

50 

CD 

O) 

< Unit 

ars) 

CO 

CD 

> 

< 

40 

30 

'A) 

10 

1970 1980 1990 2000 

Source: Energy Information Administration, Form EIA-860,"Annual Electric Generator Report' 

December 31, 1988. —-

'Energy Infonnation Administration, Form EIA-860, "Annual Electric Generator Report." 

4

 Electric Light and Power, "Power Plant Life Extension Economics, Plans Explored at American Power Conference" (June 1984) pp. 27, 30. 

Enerav Information Administration/Estlmatino the Capital Costs of Life Extension for Fossil-Fuel Steam Plants 
P.14 

Figure 2. Forced Outage Rate of .Coal-Fired Steam Units 

c 

CD 

O 

^ 

CD 

0. 

CD 

CD 

DC 

CD 

O) 

CO 

3 

o 

TJ 

CD 

o 

c 

D 

20 

Unit Age (Years) 

Source: General Electric Company, H.G. Stoll, "The Economics of Power Plant Upgrading, 

May 22. 1984. 

4 Enerav Information Administration/Estimating the Capital Costs of Life Extension for Fossil-Fuel Steam Plants 
P.15 

2. The Life-Extension Option 

Extending the life of power plants is a relatively new 

option for electric utilities. Previously, as plants approached the end of their useful lives, they were retired, and new, more economical plants were brought 

on line to replace them. In recent years, many utilities 

have come to view older plants that may be economically refurbished as important assets in their overall 

planning approach for meeting future demand for electricity. 

utility with little growth in demand, ample reserve 

margin, and access to inexpensive purchased power is 

not likely to begin a life-extension program and would 

probably choose to derate or even decommission some 

of its older plants. On the other hand, a utility having 

a steady growth in demand, and with many plants nearing retirement, may consider life extension favorably. 

By keeping plants on line beyond their original retirement dates, a utility may be able to meet its demand 

without building new plants. 

Utility Life-Extension 

Considerations Environmental Requirements 

When considering life extension, a utility first examines 

its entire system to determine how refurbishing plants 

would compare with other options for meeting demand. Some of the factors a utility considers when 

making decisions about life extension are: 

• Age, condition, and operating characteristics of 

all its plants 

• Current and planned capacity and projected demand 

• Current and projected reserve margins 

• Current and planned mix of plant types, together 

with expected load characteristics 

• Financial condition 

• Projected costs for fossil fuels used within the 

system 

• Geographic location of its plants 

• Current and projected availability of power for 

purchase or for sale by the utility 

• Cost of life extension 

• Costs of other available options 

• Regulatory impact. 

Environmental considerations also affect life-extension 

planning. Power plants are subject to many environmental laws and regulations. Utilities contemplating 

life-extension programs review these laws and regulations to determine how they affect the decision to refurbish. Before a life-extension project is undertaken, 

a utility evaluates the costs and benefits of the project, 

including environmental controls. 

The principal environmental controls that affect lifeextension decisions are Federal and State laws that 

control air and water quality and solid waste. The Federal air-quality regulations are the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS), the Revised New Source 

Performance Standards (RNSPS), and the Prevention 

of Significant Deterioration (PSD) rules. State airquality regulations include requirements for construction and operating permits and pollution control statutes that enforce State Implementation Plans. In the 

area of water quality, utilities must evaluate their lifeextension plans against the requirements of the Clean 

Water Act5 and State permits and approvals for the 

construction of wastewater treatment systems. In addition, utilities are subject to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and numerous other environmental laws and regulations that can affect lifeextension programs. 

The decisions about life-extension investment vary, depending on individual circumstances. For example, a 

NSPS and RNSPS have special importance in lifeextension decisionrbecause they impose emission stanTo discharge any substance into surface waters, plants must obtain a permit from the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

(NPDES) program administered by the States and the Environmental Protection Agency. The NPDES program is mandated by the Federal 

Clean Water Act (Public Law 92-500. Sec. 402). 

Energy Information Administration/Estimating the Capital Costs of Life Extension for Fossil-Fuel Steam Plants 
P.16 

dards on generating units based on when construction 

began. These standards limit the emissions of sulfur 

dioxide (SOi), nitrogen oxides ( NOx), and particulate 

matter from power plants. Pre-NSPS units (those on 

which construction began before August 18, 1971) are 

subject only to State Implementation Plans, which are 

generally less stringent than NSPS. NSPS units (those 

on which construction began after August 17, 1971, 

but before September 19, 1978) must not emit more 

than 1.2 pounds of SOi per million Btu of heat input. 

RNSPS units (those on which construction began after 

September 18, 1978) must also meet this limit. In addition, however, RNSPS units that emit between 0.6 

and 1.2 pounds per million Btu must reduce their SOi 

emissions by 90 percent. RNSPS units that emit less 

than 0.6 pounds per million Btu must reduce their SCh 

emissions by 70 percent. In effect, the revised standards 

require the use of flue gas desulfurization (FGD) equipment to reduce SQi emissions. 

Many of the plants that will be considered for refurbishment in the near future will be pre-NSPS plants. 

If utilities can preserve the pre-NSPS status of these 

plants, they will be able to avoid the capital and operation and maintenance costs of FGD equipment (scrubbers). Although RNSPS apply to new units, they also 

apply to units when refurbishment makes them "new," 

"modified," or "reconstructed" facilities by RNSPS 

criteria. In general, it appears that pre-NSPS and NSPS 

units will not be subject to RNSPS after refurbishment 

unless the capital costs of refurbishing the boiler exceed 

50 percent of the costs of a new boiler unit, and it is 

technologically and economically feasible for the unit 

to meet the RNSPS. At present, it is not clear what 

kind of refurbishment activities will make a pre-NSPS 

or NSPS plant subject to RNSPS. 

Identifying Plants for Life 

Extension 

Inspection of the reheat inlet pendant tubes at Duke 

Power's Allen Steam Station. 

Once a plant has been, selected, the utility conducts 

engineering studies that evaluate the condition and remaining life of all plant equipment and components. 

Refurbishment options, along with their costs, are evaluated to determine if the plant's desired availability 

and performance levels can be achieved. The utility 

then determines how best to address the wear that has 

occurred on the plant's components. If the remaining 

life of a plant component is expected to be less than 

the proposed period for life extension, the utility could 

choose to repair, modify, or replace it. 

Once a utility has determined that extending the lives 

of older plants is the most economical method of meeting future demand, it identifies plants for further study. 

While some plants may fit into a utility's plan for meeting future demand, others may not. For example, if a 

utility's demand projections point to a need for only 

additional cycling capacity,6 the utility is unlikely to 

extend the life ofa baseload plant that was not designed 

for the additional stresses of cycling duty. If a utility 

expects high oil and gas prices, it is likely to consider 

extending the lives of its coal-fired plants before its oilor gas-fired plants. If, however, a utility anticipates 

that environmental regulations are apt to become 

stricter, it would tend to favor life extension for oil- or 

gas-fired plants over coal-fired plants. 

A typical power plant is designed to have a life of 

approximately 40 years. The average age of fossil-steam 

plants retired by utilities through 1987 is just under 40 

years. Most of the plants that have been retired are 

very small, averaging 26 megawatts. Larger plants 

might be expected to operate longer. Even after 40 

years, not all plant equipment or components are worn 

out. Some facilities have a much longer life, including 

building structures, foundations, etc. Equipment or 

components subject to corrosion, friction, heat, and 

pressure wear more rapidly, and at differing rates. In 

general, there are four different types of wear: creep, 

fatigue, erosion7"and corrosion. Each piece of plant 

equipment may experience one or more of these mechanisms, all of which are time-dependent, so that the 

"Cycling plants are designed to start and stop or increase and decrease their output several times a day to meet variable demand. 

*.%•{**. « A *•!--. -.»i«n/c<?tirr.*«inn «Ho Canifal f*o«t<s of I if* Firtpnsion for Fossil-Fuel Steam Plants 
P.17 

Table 3. Causes of Wear on Fossil-Fuel Steam Plant Equipment and 

Components 

Type of Wear Causes 

Plant Equipment 

Components Affected 

Creep 

Fatigue 

Erosion 

Corrosion 

High steam temperature 

and/or pressure 

Thermally induced stress, 

periodic steam forces, 

electrical forces 

Hard-particle and/or flyash 

erosion, cavitation 

Water and steam impurities, coal-ash 

constituents, acid deposition 

Superheater and reheater tubes, outlet 

headers, turbine forgings and shells, 

main steam lines, valves, bolting . 

Turbine blades and shaft, boiler headers, 

drums and tubes, pump and tan components, 

generator winding supports 

Turbine blades and nozzles, 

boiler tubes, tan blades, pumps 

Boiler tubes, turbine blades, discs, precipitators, 

scrubbers stacks, air preheaters 

Source: Electric Power Research Institute, Proceedings: Fossil Plant Life Extension Conference and Workshop CS-4207 Research Project 1862-3; 

workshop held June 12-15, 1984, in Washington, DC. Prepared by Bechtel Power Corporation (San Francisco, California, August 1985), pp. 1-2. 

condition worsens with age. Table 3 gives examples of 

how these types of wear affect fossil-fuel steam plants. 

A plant's availability declines as its components age 

and wear out; ever-increasing maintenance is required 

to keep the plant's availability at accettrble levels. 

Availability begins to decline rapidly as a plant's age 

approaches its design life. If the utility uses an "enhanced maintenance program," which begins with 

commercial operation, the plant's availability can be 

maintained beyond its normal operating life of 40 years. 

A utility will choose the level of life-extension investment necessary to maintain the plant's availability at 

the desired level. 

steam supply system, the steam generating and draft 

system, the fuel-handling system, the FGD system (if 

present), and instruments and controls. 

Performing Life Extension 

After a utility has analyzed and selected plants to be 

refurbished, it designs its life-extension program. The 

two most common approaches taken by utilities are 

often called the "front-end approach" and the "phased 

approach."8 

A utility usually divides the plant equipment that may 

need to be refurbished into two categories. The first 

category includes equipment that can be repaired or 

replaced with little downtime, is low in cost, and can 

be ordered quickly. Deterioration of such equipment 

can often be handled by increasing the frequency of 

planned maintenance outages. In this category are 

boiler waterwalls, superheater and reheater tubes, 

feedwater heater and condenser tubing, precipitator 

components, fan bearings and fan blades, pulverizer 

journals and shaft seals, turbine blades and blade seals, 

and support blocking for generator stator windings.7 

The second category includes equipment that requires 

major new components. Extended outages, long ordering leadtimes, and generally high capital cost are associated with these replacements. This category includes 

such items as turbine rotor forgings, turbine casings, 

boiler drums and headers, generator armature insulation and associated rewinding, collector rings, main 

steam lines, and boiler feedpump. The equipment most 

likely to require refurbishment includes the fossil-fuel 

Front-End Approach 

The front-end approach is used by utilities to rehabilitate plants just prior to the end of their design lives. 

Using this approach, a major portion of the lifeextension work is performed during a single planned 

outage of several months or more. This strategy may 

be appropriate in situations where: 

• A plant can be easily taken out of service because 

sufficient capacity is available 

• A plant's availability has fallen below acceptable 

levels 

• Planned fuel conversion requires such extensive 

modifications that life extension can be economically performed at the same time 

• The plant's-capacity must be uprated. 

'Electric Power Research Institute. Proceedings: Fossil Plant Life Extension Conference and Workshop, EPRI CS-4207, prepared by Bechtel 

Power Corp. (San Francisco, California. August 1985), pp. 1-12. 

"For further information, see Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), Proceedings: Fossil Plant Life Extension Conference and Workshop. 

Energy Information Administration/Estimating the Capital Costs of Life Extension for Fossil-Fuel Steam Plants 
P.18 

Refurbishment work at Cincinnati Gas & Electric's Beckjord plant. 

Cincinnati Gas & Electric's (CG&E) recent refurbishment of its Beckjord Plant's Unit 3 is an example of 

the front-end approach to life extension. This 

125-megawatt, coal-fired unit was one of three older 

units being used to meet summer and winter peak demand. The unit was in relatively good condition yet 

stood idle each spring and fall.9 

and is now refurbishing Unit 1 for approximately $198 

per kilowatt. 

Phased Approach 

CG&E extended the life of Unit 3 because refurbishment costs compared favorably with the estimated cost 

of building new capacity. CG&E did not want to replace the aging unit with a new unit because growth 

in demand was small and expected to remain so for the 

immediate future. 

Life-extension studies were performed on the unit in 

1984. A total of 49 hardware replacements or major 

modifications were recommended at an estimated cost 

of $13 million, or approximately $100 per kilowatt. 

The work on all 49 of the recommendations was conducted during a 13-week outage in late 1986, at an 

actual cost of about $121 per kilowatt. The unit is now 

expected to operate at an acceptable level of availability for another 25 years. After the successful refurbishment of Unit 3, CG&E completed a similar lifeextension project on Unit 2 for about $180 per kilowatt 

In the phased approach, life extension is done over 

time, during normal maintenance outages. This approach is the one chosen most often because the utility 

can plan its life-extension effort to minimize outage 

time and keep the plant in service. Also, since the lifeextension work is done over several years, the utility 

does not need to have large cash reserves on hand. 

Pennsylvania Power and Light (PP&L) is an example 

of a utility that has pursued the phased approach to 

life extension. For nearly 10 years, PP&L has systematically studied its aging capacity. The utility's current 

budget includes $2 million annually for ongoing lifeassessment inspections. It has budgeted $140 million 

for boiler rebuilding, to be phased-in over the next 5 

years, to extend operating lives and improve availability on 14 fossil-fuel units totaling 5,300 megawatts.10 

"Robert Smock. "Power Plant Owners 'Phase In' Life Extension," Power Engineering (February 1987), pp. 20-21. 

"'Robert Smock, "Competition Raises Value of Life Extension, Aging Plant Upgrading," Power Engineering (February 1988), pp. 26-27. 

Enerav Information Administration/Estimating the Capital Costs of Life Extension for Fossil-Fuel Steam Plants 
P.19 

Potomac Electric Power Company (PEPCO) is conducting a pilot project at its Potomac River station, 

which has five units totaling 514 megawatts. PEPCO 

has budgeted $88 million ($171 per kilowatt) to be 

spent at the station over a 10-year period. The objective 

of the program is to extend plant life several decades 

and defer construction of new capacity. Plans for refurbishing Unit 1 were made in 1981 with refurbishment work scheduled to be done during the plant's 

normal annual outages. To date, $2.5 million has been 

expended for the Unit 1 project." PEPCO estimates 

it will cost between $150 to $200 per kilowatt to refurbish other plants. Refurbishment work improved 

the availability of Unit 1 from 86-89 percent to 95-97 

percent. 

Regardless of the approach chosen, all life-extended 

plants require periodic assessment of the remaining life 

of their equipment and components, as well as on-going 

maintenance and operating procedures. Frequently, as 

a part of the life-extension work, utilities add additional 

diagnostic equipment to a plant to monitor its performance closely. By identifying and correcting problems 

before they become serious, a utility can avoid unplanned outages and maintain the plant's availability. 

The approach to life extension may change in the future. To date, most life-extension projects have been 

directed toward power plants nearing retirement; lifeextension techniques, however, can also be applied to 

new plants entering commercial service. It may be possible to operate plants for 50 to 60 years through enhanced maintenance procedures. These procedures 

may include more frequent or detailed inspections and 

additional scheduled outages for component repairs. 

'Robert Smock, "Competition Raises Value of Life Extension, Aging Plant Upgrading," pp. 27-28. 

Energy Information Administration/Estimating the Capital Costs of Life Extension for Fossil-Fuel Steam Plants 
P.20 

3. Methodology 

This chapter describes the methodology used to estimate the overnight capital costs of life extension of 

fossil-fuel steam plants at the regional and national levels. Costs derived from this methodology were developed for input into the forecasting models of the Energy Information Administration (EIA). Currently, if 

a utility were to undertake a life-extension program, it 

would spend millions of dollars evaluating the refurbishment of plants within their systems. These evaluations involve complex economic and engineering studies that weigh life extension against other options for 

meeting demand. The cost-estimating methodology 

used in this report was developed because it would not 

be cost-effective to perform detailed life-extension 

analyses for each plant to get estimates of overnight 

capital costs at the regional and national levels. 

Life-extension costs were based on new-plant costs for 

several reasons. First, cost infonnation for actual lifeextension projects is relatively scarce. In recent years, 

only a few utilities have moved past the planning and 

evaluation stages of life extension and actually initiated 

refurbishment projects. Second, utilities that have initiated life-extension programs often regard cost information as proprietary. Third, when life-extension costs 

are reported, the accounting methods used are not consistent; some utilities consider the costs expenses, others 

capitalize them. Lastly, the costs of life-extension 

projects are site-specific and often not applicable to 

other generating plants. 

The refurbishment costs developed here represent the 

costs of returning a plant to its original operating condition and extending its life approximately 20 years. 

The availability and efficiency of the refurbished plants 

are assumed to degrade over the 20-year period. It is 

assumed that plant refurbishment work will be phased 

in over 5 years, between a plant's 25th and 30th years 

of operation. While some utilities may choose to upgrade or repower their plants and others may choose 

less extensive life extension, the costs of these options 

are not presented. The change in operating and maintenance (O&M) costs associated with refurbished plants 

is also not estimated in this report. 

Developing New-Plant Costs 

The life-extension costs developed in this report were 

derived from the costs of new plants. To determine 

the costs of typical new fossil-fuel steam plants, a model 

called Concept-5 was used (Appendix C). Concept-5 

is a computer model developed by the Engineering 

Technology Division of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory for estimating the capital costs of nuclear and 

fossil-fuel plants. The model estimates the cost of building new plants by estimating the costs of individual 

plant components. Cost data in the model are based on 

the actual costs of power plant equipment and facilities 

as determined by United Engineers and Constructors, 

Inc. from vendor bids. United Engineers and Constructors is an engineering firm with more than 20 years of 

experience in estimating power plant costs and investments. 

Cost data in the model are organized into 11 major 

accounts. Within each major account are 20 to 30 

subaccounts (Appendix D). Each subaccount is further 

divided into factory equipment costs, site labor costs, 

and site material costs. To develop the cost of a new 

plant, Concept-5 estimates equipment, labor, and material costs for each subaccount ofa plant. These costs 

are then aggregated to derive total plant costs. Concept-5 accounts used in the model to identify and categorize costs for plant facilities and major pieces of 

plant equipment are shown in Table 4. 

A hypothetical 800-megawatt plant in Chicago was 

chosen as the typical coal-fired plant on which to base 

refurbishment costs. The hypothetical plant has a 

subcritical steam system and was designed by United 

Engineers to burn 3-percent sulfur, bituminous coal. 

The estimated cost of this new plant is $896 (in 1987 

dollars) per kilowatt (Table 4). This cost is an "overnight" construction cost, which does not include the 

costs of inflation, real price escalation, contingencies, 

or allowance for funds used during construction 

(AFUDC).12 Concept-5 estimates the costs of building 

new plants that use typical coal-, oil-, and gas-fired 

generating technologies. This report assumes that the 

Concept-5 costs of building a typical plant approximate 

the cost of building a particular plant. 

;AFUDC represents the estimated interest costs of debt and return on equity of funds used to finance construction. 

Enerav Information Administration/Estimatina the Capital Costs of Life Extension for Fossil-Fuel Steam Plants 
P.21 

Table 4. Estimated Overnight Capital Costs and Account Ratios for New 

800-Megawatt Fossil-Fuel Steam Plants, by Account and 

Fuel Type 

Concept-5 Account 

Fuel Type 

Coal 

1987 dollars 

per kW Ratio 

Oil 

1967 dollars 

per kW Ratio 

Gas 

1987 dollars 

per kW Ratio 

201 Land and land rights 

211 Yardwork 

212 Steam-generator building 

213 Turbine, heater, control building 

218 A Coal-handling structures • 

218 B Miscellaneous buildings " 

219 Stack structure 

220 Fossil-steam supply system 

221 Steam-generating system 

222 Dratt system 

223 Ash- and dust-handling system 

224 Fuel-handling system 

225 FGD structure 

226 FGD equipment 

227 Instrumentation & controls 

228 Boiler-plant miscellaneous items 

231 Turbine generator 

233 Condensing system 

234 Feed-heating system 

235 Other turbine-plant equipment 

236 Process controls 

237 Turbine-plant miscellaneous items 

241 Switchgear 

242 Station service equipment 

243 Switchboards 

244 Protective equipment 

245 Electrical structures 

246 Power and control wiring 

251 Transportation and lift equipment 

252 Air, water, and steam systems 

253 Communications equipment 

254 Furnishings, fixtures. & lab equipment... 

255 Wastewater treatment equipment 

261 Make-up water structures & equipment 

262 Heat rejection system 

Total direct cost 

Total indirect cost 

Total plant cost 

7.10 

13.71 

29.89 

19.30 

11.62 

5.09 

9.45 

120.96 

3.53 

32.88 

10.35 

31.38 

8.21 

87.57 

9.04 

4.38 

89.55 

13.62 

19.17 

25.39 

0.24 

4.16 

11.34 

8.18 

1.41 

4.18 

16.69 

13.50 

3.27 

15.14 

1.66 

1.61 

9.12 

3.73 

29.87 

676.29 

219.09 

895.98 

0.0079 

0.0153 

0.0334 

0.0215 

0.0130 

0.0057 

0.0106 

0.1350 

0.0039 

0.0367 

0.0115 

0.0350 

0.0092 

0.0977 

0.0101 

0.0049 

0.0999 

0.0152 

0.0214 

0.0283 

0.0003 

0.0046 

0.0127 

0.0091 

0.0016 

0.0047 

0.0186 

0.0151 

0.0036 

0.0169 

0.0026 

0.0018 

0.0102 

0.0042 

0.0333 

NA 

NA 

NA 

7.10 

6.77 

58.54 

18.83 

0 

5.03 

10.14 

81.13 

4.43 

20.50 

1.10 

47.51 

8.20 

62.16 

9.00 

4.58 

89.45 

18.97 

19.68 

25.69 

0.24 

4.12 

4.21 

13.92 

1.41 

4.17 

7.86 

11.68 

3.26 

15.13 

2.07 

1.10 

8.44 

3.68 

29.81 

609.88 

227.72 

837.61 

0.0085 

0.0081 

0.0699 

0.0225 

0 

0.0060 

0.0121 

0.0969 

0.0053 

0.0245 

0.0013 

0.0567 

0.0098 

0.0742 

0.0107 

0.0055 

0.1068 

0.0227 

0.0235 

0.0307 

0.0003 

0.0049 

0.0050 

0.0166 

0.0017 

0.0050 

0.0094 

0.0139 

0.0039 

0.0181 

0.0025 

0.0013 

0.0101 

0.0044 

0.0356 

NA 

NA 

NA 

3.55 

5.04 

58.70 

12.59 

0 

2.53 

6.78 

40.72 

4.45 

0 

0 

11.92 

0 

0 

9.03 

4.59 

89.85 

19.06 

19.77 

25.80 

0.12 

4.13 

4.21 

6.97 

.71 

2.10 

5.25 

11.70 

1.29 

15.14 

2.07 

0.74 

5.64 

2.46 

29.96 

406.87 

143.14 

550.01 

0.0065 

0.0092 

0.1067 

0.0229 

0 

0.0046 

0.0123 

0.0740 

0.0081 

0 

0 

0.0217 

0 

0 

0.0164 

0.0084 

0.1634 

0.0346 

0.0359 

0.0469 

0.0002 

0.0075 

0.0077 

0.0127 

0.0013 

0.0038 

0.0095 

0.0213 

0.0023 

0.0275 

0.0038 

0.0013 

0.0102 

0.0045 

0.0545 

NA 

NA 

NA 

a

 This classification includes Concept-5 subaccounts 218L, 218M, 218N, 2180, 218P, 218Q, 218R, 218T, 218W (Appendix C). 

0

 This classification includes Concept-5 subaccounts 218B, 2181, 218U, 218V (Appendix C). 

FGD = Flue gas desulfurization. 

Notes: »An account cost of zero indicates the account does not apply to the plant type. »ln the actual calculation, the ratios are carried out to 6 

digits. sTotals may not equal sum of components because of independent rounding. 

Source: Energy Information Administration, Concept-5 data base, as updated by PEI Associates, Inc. in Regional Capital, Operating and Maintenance Cost Estimate for Emission Control Equipment Required for New Fossil Steam Power Plants under contract to the U.S. Department of Energy (Cincinnati, Ohio. November 1985). 

The costs for new 800-megawatt gas- and oil-fired 

plants are also obtained from Concept-5. The cost of 

a new oil-fired plant is $838 per kilowatt in 1987 dollars, 

or 0.94 of the cost for the coal-fired plant, while the 

cost of a new gas-fired plant is $550 per kilowatt, or 

0.61 of the cost for the coal-fired plant (Table 4). 

Once the costs of building typical 800-megawatt plants 

are developed, total plant costs for candidate plants of 

any size are estimated using an equation developed by 

PEI Associates, Inc.13 The equation was derived from 

work done by Bashambu and Yates of the Tennessee 

Valley Authority and quoted prices of steam boilers.u 

This equation, which relates total plant costs to plant 

size, was derived by PEI Associates, Inc., by fitting a 

curve to cost-to-size data collected by the Tennessee 

Valley Authority. The equation is given in Appendix 

A. 

After the total cost of a plant is estimated, it is 

disaggregated into plant account costs, using account 

ratios derivedTrom the costs of an 800-megawatt plant. 

U

PEI Associates, Inc., "CERs for Life Extension Costs for Fossil Fuel-Fired Electric Utility Plants," (Washington, DC, November 1987). 

14Bashambu, Ram L., and Ralph L. Yates, Tennessee Valley Authority, "Which is Cheaper? A Small or a Large Unit," 1985 Transactions 

of the American Association of Cost Engineers (Morgantown, West Virginia, American Association of Cost Engineers, 1985). 

12 Energy Infonnation Administration/Estimating the Capital Costs of Life Extension for Fossil-Fuel Steam Plants 
P.22 

Ratios are calculated for each account by dividing account costs by total plant costs. For example, the cost 

for yardwork for the 800-megawatt coal-fired plant is 

$13.71 per kilowatt. Dividing this figure by the total 

plant cost of $895.98 per kilowatt (Table 4) gives the 

ratio of yardwork costs to total costs, 0.0153. The account ratios for typical 800-megawatt coal-, oil-, and 

gas-fired plants are also shown in Table 4. 

If, for example, it is desired to calculate account costs 

for a new 153-megawatt coal-fired plant, the total cost 

of the plant is calculated from the cost-to-size equation. 

This cost is then disaggregated into account costs using 

account ratios. New plant costs, by account, for a 

153-megawatt coal-fired plant are shown in Table 5. 

To calculate account costs for other plant types, a similar procedure would be followed. 

Estimating Life-Extension 

Capital Costs 

Using the method described in this chapter, overnight 

new-plant capital costs were estimated for individual 

fossil-fuel steam plants available for refurbishment. 

Two factors are developed for each plant account that 

convert these new-plant costs into life-extension costs. 

The first factor is the probability of refurbishing a 

given plant component. As noted in Chapter 2, the 

components of a power plant wear at different rates. 

Some components, such as building foundations, last 

for a long time, while others wear much more quickly. 

The probability factors, which vary from 0 to 1, quantify differences in wear in a plant and express the likelihood that a given component will need to be refurTable 5. Estimated Overnight New-Plant Costs and Life-Extension Costs for 

a 153-Megawatt Coal-Fired Steam Plant 

Concept-5 Account 

New-Plant Cost 

(1987 dollars 

per kW) 

Probability 

Factor 

Level-ofEffort Factor 

Regional 

Multiplier* 

Life-Extension 

Cost (1987 

dollars per kW) 

201 Land and land rights 

211 Yardwork 

212 Steam-generator building 

213 Turbine, heater, control building 

218 A Coal-handling structures " 

218 B Miscellaneous buildings c 

219 Stack stmcture 

220 Fossil-steam supply system 

221 Steam-generating system 

222 Draft system 

223 Ash- and dust-handling system 

224 Fuel-handling system 

225 FGD structure 

226 FGD equipment 

227 Instrumentation & controls 

228 Boiler-plant miscellaneous items 

231 Turbine generator 

233 Condensing system 

234 Feed-heating system 

235 Other turbine-plant equipment 

236 Process controls 

237 Turbine-plant miscellaneous items 

241 Switchgear 

242 Station service equipment 

243 Switchboards 

244 Protective equipment 

245 Electrical structures 

246 Power and control wiring 

251 Transportation and lift equipment 

252 Air, water, and steam systems 

253 Communications equipment 

254 Furnishings, fixtures, & lab equipment... 

255 Wastewater treatment equipment 

261 Make-up water structures A equipment 

262 Heat rejection system 

Total direct cost 

Total indirect cost 

Total plant cost 

11.01 

21.27 

46.38 

29.95 

18.02 

7.89 

14.67 

187.70 

5.48 

51.01 

16.06 

48.70 

12.74 

135.89 

14.03 

6.79 

138.95 

21.13 

29.74 

39.39 

0.38 

6.45 

17.60 

12.69 

2.19 

6.48 

25.89 

20.94 

5.07 

23.50 

3.57 

2.50 

14.15 

5.79 

46.35 

1,050.37 

339.97 

1390.34 

0 

0.01 

0.10 

0.10 

0.10 

0.10 

0.10 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

0.20 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

0.90 

0.15 

1.00 

0.20 

0.20 

0.15 

0.15 

0.15 

0.90 

0.20 

0.20 

0.10 

0.20 

0.20 

0.10 

0.20 

0.10 

0.10 

0.10 

0.15 

0.15 

0 

0.01 

0.02 

0.02 

0.06 

0.02 

0.10 

0.33 

0.33 

0.33 

0.20 

0.33 

0.40 

0.40 

0.33 

0.10 

0.33 

0.10 

0.10 

0.10 

0.10 

0.10 

0.30 

0.05 

0.05 

0.07 

0.06 

0.06 

0.04 

0.10 

0.10 

0.10 

0.10 

0.10 

0.10 

0.99 

0.99 

0.99 

0.99 

0.99 

0.99 

0.99 

0.99 

0.99 

0.99 

0.99 

0.99 

0.99 

0.99 

0.99 

0.99 

0.99 

0.99 

0.99 

0.99 

0.99 

0.99 

0.99 

0.99 

0.99 

0.99 

0.99 

0.99 

0.99 

0.99 

0.99 

0.99 

0.99 

0.99 

0.99 

0 

* 

0.09 

0.06 

0.11 

0.02 

0.15 

61.32 

1.79 

16.66 

0.64 

15.91 

5.05 

53.81 

4.13 

0.10 

45.40 

0.42 

0.59 

0.59 

0.01 

0.10 

4.70 

0.13 

0.02 

0.05 

0.31 

0.25 

0.02 

0.47 

0.04 

0.03 

0.14 

0.09 

0.69 

213.83 

34.61 

248.44 

* Note: This plant is located in the ECAR Region of the North American Electric Reliability Council. _ _ 

0

 This classification includes Concept-5 subaccounts 218L, 218M, 218N, 2180, 218P, 218Q, 218R, 218T, 218W (Appendix C). 

c

 This classification includes Concept-5 subaccounts 218B, 2181. 218U. 218V (Appendix C). 

FGD = Flue gas desulfurization. 

' Less than S.01 per kilowatt. 

Note: Totals may not equal sum of components because of independent rounding. 

Sources: ^Regional Multipliers: Energy Information Administration, Concept-5 data base. ^Probability and Level-of-Effort Factors: PEI Associates, 

"CERs for Life Extension Costs for Fossil Fuel-Fired Electric Utility Plants," (Washington, DC, November 1987). ©Other Data: Calculated by Energy Information Administration. Office of Coal, Nuclear, Electric and Alternate Fuels, Electric Power Division. 

Energy Information Administration/Estimatina the Caoital Cost s nf I ifp P«toncinn for Pnccii.Co i c»oo.~ oi-, 
P.23 

Table 6. Concept-5 Regional Cost Multipliers, by NERC Region, 

Alaska, and Hawaii 

Region Multiplier 

ECAR ... 

ERCOT 

MAAC... 

MAIN .... 

MAPP ... 

NPCC ... 

SERC ... 

SPP 

WSCC .. 

Alaska .. 

Hawaii .. 

0.99 

0.94 

0.99 

0.99 

0.94 

1.02 

0.93 

0.97 

1.04 

1.00 

1.04 

Note: NERC = North American Electric Reliability Council. 

Source: Energy Information Administration, Concept-5 data base. 

bished after 25 years of service. Probability factors 

were developed from the knowledge and experience 

of cost engineers familiar with plant operations and 

refurbishment projects. 

The second factor is the level of effort required to 

refurbish a plant component. Engineering judgment 

and experience and infonnation from boiler manufacturers were used to develop level-of-effort factors. 

They represent the percentage of equipment that must 

be refurbished and/or the labor, materials, and supplies 

needed to accomplish the refurbishment. While some 

components can be easily restored with little expense, 

others require large expenditures of time and money 

to refurbish. Level-of-effort factors vary among the 

accounts to allow for these variations in expenditures. 

Since the amount of resources required to refurbish 

the components of particular plants varies, low, mid, 

and high level-of-effort factors are developed for each 

account cost. Mid-range level-of-effort factors are used 

to estimate the amount of resources needed to refurbish 

the components of a typical plant. High and low levelof-effort factors estimate the amounts expended in refurbishment projects that are more or less costly than 

those for a typical plant. There is considerable uncertainty about the condition of the components of particular plants. High level-of-effort factors may better 

estimate the costs of refurbishing the components ofa 

plant in poor condition, such as one which has undergone the stress of frequent startups and shutdowns associated with cycling. On the other hand, low levelof-effort factor may better estimate the costs of refurbishing the components of a plant that has been used 

infrequently and maintained in relatively good condition. 

Probability and mid-range level-of-effort factors for 

coal-fired plants are shown in Table 5; probability and 

low, mid, and high level-of-effort factors for all plant 

types are given in Appendix B. Components with a 

high probability of refurbishment are the fossil-fuel 

steam supply system, steam generating system, draft 

system, fuel-handling systems, and flue gas 

desulfurization (FGD) system (if present), instruments 

and controls, turbine generator, and switchgear. Most 

other components have a low probability factor. The 

highest levels of effort coincide with areas of high 

probability. Components of a plant with the highest 

probability of refurbishment are those subject to the 

most wear. These components are usually expensive, 

and refurbishing them requires the highest level of effort. 

Regional cost multipliers for selected cities in the Concept-5 model were used to account for regional differences in life-extension costs. These multipliers were 

developed for North American Electric Reliability 

Council (NERC) regions (Figure 4) from actual data 

for labor rates and costs for materials and supplies for 

cities within the NERC regions. These multipliers are 

shown in Table 6. 

To calculate the direct costs of life extension for a 

plant of a specific size and type, the account costs of 

a new plant are multiplied by probability factors, levelof-effort factors, and regional cost multipliers. For example, for a 153-megawatt coal-fired plant, the lifeextension cost for the fossil-fuel steam supply system 

is $61.32 per kilowatt (Table 5). In this case, the 

153-megawatt plant under consideration has a FGD 

unit and the costs of refurbishing this unit are included 

in the total refurbishment costs for the plant. If a FGD 

unit were not present, probability and level-of-effort 

factors for FGD structures and equipment would be 

zero.15 The total direct cost for refurbishment is the 

sum of each plant account; for the 153-megawatt coalfired plant, total direct costs would be $213.83 per kilowatt, as shown in Table 5. 

Indirect costs include engineering, supervision, and 

construction expenses; contractors' fees; and continl5PEI Associates, Inc., "CERs for Life Extension Costs for Fossil Fuel-Fired Electric Utility Plants.' 

14 Enerav Information Administration/Estlmatino the Caoital Costs of Life Extension for Fossil-Fuel Steam Plants 
P.24 

gency and start-up costs. Typically, indirect costs, as 

a percentage of direct costs, are much lower for refurbishment than they are for new construction. In refurbishment projects, the design of existing equipment is 

known, there is less uncertainty in the project and refurbishment can be scheduled at a utility's convenience 

during planned shutdowns, using in-house labor. Also, 

several cost accounts normally included in the indirect 

costs for a new plant, such as temporary construction 

facilities, and field office expenses, are not likely to be 

significant expenses during refurbishment work. Based 

on these factors and discussions with utility engineers, 

the ratio of indirect to direct costs for life extension is 

assumed to be one-half the ratio for new-plant costs. 

The ratios of indirect to direct costs for refurbished 

coal-, oil-, and gas-fired plants of any size are 0.1618, 

0.1867, and 0.1759, respectively. 

The total indirect cost of life extension is calculated 

by multiplying the total direct cost by the appropriate 

ratio. For the 153-megawatt plant shown in Table 5, 

the cost is $34.61 per kilowatt. The sum of direct and 

indirect costs is the total cost of refurbishment; for the 

153-megawatt coal-fired plant the total refurbishment 

cost is $248.44 per kilowatt. 

Energy Information Administration/Estimating the Capital Costs of Life Extension for Fossil-Fuel Steam Plants 15 
Figure 3. North American Electric Reliability Council Region Map 

P.25 

ERCOT 

Regional Electric Reliability Council Areas 

ECAR—East Central Area Reliability Coordination Agreement 

MAIN—Mid-American Interpool Network 

MAAC—Mid-Atlantic Area Council 

MAPP—Mid-Continent Area Power Pool 

NPCC—Northeast Power Coordinating Council 

SERC—Southeastern Electric Reliability Council 

SPP—Southwest Power Pool 

ERCOT—Electric Reliability Council of Texas 

WSCC—Western Systems Coordinating Council 

Note: This analysis presents results for North-.American Reliability 

Council (NERC) regions within the contiguous United States, Alaska and Hawaii. 

Seme NERC regions also include portions of Canada and Mexico. 

16 Energy Information Administration/Estimating the Capital Costs of Life Extension for Fossil-Fuel Steam Plants 
P.26 

4. Life-Extension Analysis 

Introduction 

This chapter provides estimates of the average overnight capital costs of life extension at the NERC Region and national levels. Determining whether to extend the life of a particular plant is a very complex 

decision, made on an individual basis since it involves 

extensive information specific to each utility system 

and plant site. In this chapter, a profile of fossil-fuel 

steam capacity is established so that national and regional overnight costs of life extension can be estimated 

using the methodology described in Chapter 3. Lifeextension costs were first calculated for individual 

plants, and these costs were aggregated into regional 

and national totals for use in ElA's forecasting models. 

The first section of this chapter describes the plants 

for which life-extension costs are estimated. The distribution of the capacity by fuel type, region, year, and 

plant size is discussed. This discussion is included to 

illustrate the magnitude of the role life extension could 

play in utilities' future plans. The actual role that life 

extension will play is highly uncertain, and thus the 

actual amount of capacity that will be life-extended is 

not estimated. The second section presents estimates 

of average overnight capital costs of life extension at 

the NERC Region and national level. Factors that affect life-extension costs, such as a plant's fuel type, size, 

and location, are also discussed. 

three assumptions were made to exclude these plants 

from consideration. First, only plants built since 1957 

were included because it is not normally cost-effective 

to refurbish plants built earlier. Plants built before 

1957, which are already over 30 years old, employ 

generating technologies that are less advanced and less 

efficient than technologies used in plants built in later 

years. Second, only plants with nameplate capacities 

of 100 megawatts or greater are included because economies of scale favor the refurbishment of larger generating units. On a dollar-per-kilowatt basis, large 

plants are more attractive to refurbish than small plants. 

Using the methodology described in Chapter 3, the 

overnight capital cost of life-extending a 50-megawatt 

coal-fired plant without FGD would be $245 per kilowatt. For a similar 400-megawatt plant, it would be 

much less, only $141 per kilowatt. In addition, many 

small fossil-fuel steam plants are very old. In fact, more 

than 60 percent of them are excluded by the first assumption because they were built before 1957. Third, 

oil- and gas-fired plants are included only in regions 

where oil- and gas-fired generation account for more 

than 10 percent of total generation. Because of the high 

cost of oil and gas relative to coal, regions that do not 

depend heavily on oil- and gas-fired generation are not 

likely to consider refurbishing their oil- and gas-fired 

capacity. While it is possible that plants excluded by 

these assumptions may be refurbished, in most cases 

these plants are not expected to be life-extended and 

including them could skew the estimates of average 

overnight costs presented here. 

Capacity Used To Develop 

Life-Extension Costs 

The plants in the profile include most of the fossil-fuel 

steam plants reported on Form EIA-860, "Annual 

Electric Generator Report."16 Since the objective of 

this report is to estimate regional and national average 

overnight capital costs of life extension for input to 

EIA models, plants that have a low probability of being life-extended were not considered. The following 

Plants that satisfy these assumptions comprise an inventory of plants available for life extension. This inventory includes approximately 364 gigawatts of fossilfuel steam capacity that satisfy the criteria described. 

This amounts to nearly 78 percent of the fossil-fuel 

capacity in 1986," and 50 percent of the total U.S. 

capacity expected to be needed in 2000.18 

Of the 364 gigawatts, 264 gigawatts, or 72 percent, are 

coal-fired plants. In 1986 there were 313 gigawatts of 

coal-fired capacity in the United States. Thus, almost 

84 percent of the coal-fired capacity existing in 1986 

is used to develop average life-extension costs in this 

"•Energy Information Administration, Inventory of Power Plants in the United States 1986, DOE/EIA-O095(86) (Washington, DC, August 

1987), Table 20. 

"Energy Information Administration. Inventory of Power Plants in the United States 1986. DOE/EIA-O095(86) (Washington. DC, August 

1987), p. 10. 

'"Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Outlook 1987.. DOE/EIA-0383(87) (Washington, DC. March 1988), p. 37. 

Energy Information Administration/ Estimating the Capital Costs of Life Extension for Fossil-Fuel Steam Plants 17 
P.27 

study. Oil-fired plants account for 28 gigawatts, or 8 

percent, of the total inventory of plants used to develop 

life-extension costs. These 28 gigawatts represent half 

of the oil-fired capacity on line in 1986. Gas-fired plants 

account for the remaining 20 percent of the inventory, 

or nearly 73 gigawatts. This capacity represents approximately 75 percent of the gas-fired plants on line 

in 1986. 

The distribution of capacity in the inventory is not 

uniform across NERC Regions. The ECAR and SERC 

Regions have the most capacity in the inventory. Each 

region has approximately 72 gigawatts of capacity in 

the inventory, or 73 and 53 percent of their respective 

total capacities in 1986. All States in the ECAR Region 

have large amounts of coal-fired capacity that could 

be considered for life extension. The same is true in 

the SERC Region, except for Florida, which has a 

substantial amount of both oil- and gas-fired capacity 

that have life-extension potential as well. The SPP, 

WSCC, and ERCOT Regions, with 49, 45, and 40 

gigawatts of available capacity, respectively, also have 

many plants that could be considered for life extension. 

All States in the SPP Region have large amounts of 

available capacity, while most of the available capacity 

in the WSCC Region is in California and Arizona. 

The capacity in the inventory is also not equally distributed among the regions by fuel type. The ECAR 

and SERC Regions account for most of the available 

coal-fired capacity, 72 gigawatts and 59 gigawatts, respectively. These two regions were the two largest in 

terms of coal-fired capacity in place in 1986, with the 

ECAR Region having 89 gigawatts and the SERC Region having 73 gigawatts. All States in both regions 

consume large amounts of coal to generate power. The 

WSCC, SPP, and MAIN Regions also have more than 

25 gigawatts of coal-fired capacity in the inventory. 

The NPCC and SERC Regions together account for 

86 percent of the oil-fired capacity in the inventory (16 

and 8 gigawatts, respectively). In the NPCC Region, 

over 50 percent of the oil-fired capacity is in New 

York, while in the SERC Region it is all in Florida. 

Both States rely on oil-fired steam generation. 

The majority of the gas-fired capacity available for life 

extension by 2010 is in the ERCOT, SPP, and WSCC 

Regions, which have 27, 21, and 16 gigawatts, respectively. Utilities in Texas, located primarily in the 

ERCOT Region, are the largest gas users in the country, followed by utilities in California in the WSCC 

Region and Louisiana in the SPP Region. 

Annual Profile of Capacity 

Used to Develop 

Life-Extension Costs, 

1990-2010 

In this study, the amount of capacity added to the inventory each year depends on how many of the fossilfueled steam plants meeting the criteria described were 

brought on line 25 years earlier. Because of the large 

construction programs in the early-to-mid 1970's, the 

greatest number of plants are added to the inventory 

between 1996 and 1999. The peak year will be 1998, 

when more than 20 gigawatts of capacity are added 

(Table 8). The annual capacity added to the inventory 

declines substantially after 2000, with just over 6 

gigawatts added in 2010. 

Large amounts of coal-fired capacity are added to the 

inventory between 1994 and 2006. The peak year occurs in 2005 when nearly 17 gigawatts are added. HowTable 7. Nameplate Capacity Used to Develop Life-Extension Costs, 

by NERC Region,Alaska, and Hawaii, 1990-2010 

(Megawatts) 

Region 

Fuel Type 

Coal Gas Oil 

Total 

ECAR .... 

ERCOT. 

MAAC ... 

MAIN 

MAPP .... 

NPCC .... 

SERC .... 

SPP 

WSCC ... 

Alaska ... 

Hawaii ... 

Total 

72,088 

13,171 

17,134 

25,643 

18,184 

4,079 

59,136 

27,050 

27,122 

0 

0 

0 

26,768 

1,230 

0 

0 

3,494 

4,463 

20,915 

15,830 

0 

0 

0 

0 

696 

0 

0 

15,802 

8.244 

1.099 

1,749 

0 

270 

72.088 

39.940 

19,060 

25,643 

18,184 

23,375 

71,843 

49,064 

44,700 

0 

270 

263,608 72.700 27,859 364,167 

NERC=North American Electric Reliability Council. 

Note: These data include 69,528 megawatts (41,981 megawatts coal-fired, 4,601 megawatts oil-fired, and 22,945 megawatts gas-fired) of capacity that become eligible for life extension prior to 1990. 

Source: Energy Information Administration, Form EIA-860, "Annual Electric Generator Report," December 1986. 

18 Energy Information Administration/Estimating the Capital Costs of Life Extension for Fossil-Fuel Steam Plants 
P.28 

table 8. Nameplate Capacity Used to Develop Life-Extension Costs, 

1990-2010 

(Megawatts) 

Year* 

Fuel Type 

Coal Gas Oil 

Total 

1990. 

1991 . 

1992. 

1993. 

1994 . 

1995. 

1996. 

1997 . 

1998 . 

1999. 

2000. 

2001 . 

2002. 

2003 . 

2004. 

2005. 

2006 . 

2007 . 

2008 . 

2009. 

2010 . 

Total" 

5.193 

4,517 

7,650 

9,657 

13,917 

10,783 

13.975 

14,230 

13,988 

11,235 

11,276 

9,755 

12.388 

11,734 

9.086 

16,714 

12,319 

9.876 

6.497 

10,445 

6,393 

3,373 

4,931 

4,595 

4,987 

1.889 

5,527 

5.202 

2.977 

5,539 

4,156 

3,635 

1,737 

1,102 

105 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1.141 

298 

985 

930 

938 

0 

712 

2.671 

851 

3,620 

1,896 

2,338 

2,073 

1,534 

507 

1.900 

863 

0 

0 

0 

0 

9,707 

9,746 

13.230 

15,573 

16,743 

16,310 

19,889 

19,877 

20,379 

19,011 

16,807 

' 13,830 

15.563 

13.373 

9,593 

18.614 

13,182 

9.876 

6.497 

10.445 

6.393 

263,608 72.700 27.859 364.167 

* The values shown indicate the amount of capacity reaching 25 years of age each year. 

b

 These totals include 69,528 megawatts of capacity that become eligible for life extension prior to 1990. Of this total, 41,981 megawatts is 

coal-fired. 22.945 is gas-fired, and 4,601 megawatts is oil-fired. 

Source: Energy Information Administration, Form EIA-860, "Annual Electric Generator Report," December 1986. 

ever, by 2010 only 6 gigawatts of coal-fired capacity 

are added. 

The annual distribution of oil- and gas-fired capacity 

added to the inventory varies from that of coal-fired 

capacity. The largest amount of oil- and gas-fired capacity additions occurred during the mid-1970's before 

dropping off sharply. The passage of the Powerplant 

and Industrial Fuel Use Act (FUA) in 1978 effectively 

prohibited the building of new oil- and gas-fired steam 

plants. Thus, the amount of oil-fired capacity added to 

the inventory each year peaks in 1999 at almost 4 

gigawatts. The peak years for the gas-fired capacity 

are 1995 and 1998, when almost 6 gigawatts are added. 

Gas- and oil-fired additions to the inventory decline to 

zero after 2003 and 2006, respectively. 

The coal- and oil-fired units in the inventory average 

about 400 megawatts in size. The gas-fired units are a 

little smaller, averaging just over 300 megawatts. The 

distribution of units in the inventory by size and plant 

type is shown in Figures 5, 6, and 7. Across regions 

there is some variation in the average size of these units 

(Table 9). As explained in Chapter 3, unit size is an 

important variable in determining new-plant costs and 

life-extension costs. 

Table 9. Average Size of Generating Units Used to Develop Life-Extension 

Costs, by NERC Region and by Fuel Type 

(Megawatts) 

Region 

ECAR 

ERCOT 

MAAC 

MAIN 

MAPP 

NPCC 

SERC 

SPP 

WSCC 

Total Contiguous United States 

Coal Gas Oil 

432 

627 

439 

427 

387 

272 

435 

492 

377 

431 

319 

308 

349 

298 

312 

283 

308 

232 

405 

434 

550 

437 

404 

NERC = North American Electric Reliability Council. 

Source: Energy Information Administration. Form EIA-860,' Annual Electric Generator Report," December 1986. 

Energy Information Administration/Estimating the Capital Costs of Life Extension for Fossil-Fuel Steam Plants 19 
P.29 

Figure 4. Number and Nameplate Capacity of Coal-Fired Units Used to Develop 

Life-Extension Costs, by Size 

CO 

'c 

CD 

. O 

E 

3 

100' 

200 

>200 >300 >400 >500 >600 

-300 -400 -500 -600 -700 

>700 >800 

-800 

Unit Size(Megawatts) 

Source: Energy Information Administration, Office of Coai, Nuclear, Electric and Alternative Fuels, 

Electric Power Oivision. 

Figure 5. Number and Nameplate Capacity of Oil-Fired Units Used to Develop LifeExtension Costs, by Size 

160 

ts 

c 

3 

!*_ 

o 

h -

<D 

.O 

£ 

3 

Z 

140 

120 

100 

80 

60 

40 

20 

0 

Source: 

100- >200 >300 >400 >500 >600 >700 >800 

200 -300 -400 -500 -600 _ -700 -800 

Unit Size (Megawatts) 

Energy Information Administration, Office of Coal, Nuclear, Electric and Alternative Fuels, 

Electric Power Division. 

20 Energy Infonnation Administration/Estimating the Capital Costs of Life Extension for Fossil-Fuel Steam Plants 
P.30 

Figure 6. 

c 

E 

3 

Number and Nameplate Capacity of Gas-Fired Units Used to Develop LifeExtension Costs, by Size 

100-

200 

>200 >300 >400 >500 >600 >700 >800 

-300 -400 -500 -600 -700 -800 

Source: 

Unit Size (Megawatts) 

Energy Information Administration, Office of Coal, Nuclear, Electric and Alternative Fuels. 

Electric Power Division. 

Overnight Capital Costs of 

Life Extension 

Capital costs of life extension for fossil-fuel plants vary 

for many reasons. Considerable uncertainty surrounds 

how individual utilities will approach the life extension 

of particular plants. For some plants, the utility may 

choose to invest in extensive capital improvements that 

extend the life of the plant well beyond the anticipated 

retirement date. For other plants, the utility may 

choose to make minimal capital investments and, instead, prolong the life of the plant through enhanced 

maintenance. For still other plants, the utility may 

choose to combine life extension with plant modifications and improvements. The variability caused by 

these approaches to life extension is not captured in 

the refurbishment costs reported here. In the methodology used here, the three most important factors that 

determine life-extension costs are the plant's fuel type, 

its size, and its location. In general, coal-fired plants 

are more expensive to refurbish than either oil- or gasfired plants, because coal is the most corrosive of the 

three fuels. Coal-fired plants also have pollutioncontrol equipment and extensive fuel-handling facilities, which require more costly refurbishment. 

In terms of cost per unit of capacity (dollars per kilowatt), the larger the plant, the lower the cost for life 

extension. For example, a 600-megawatt plant will not 

cost twice as much to refurbish as a 300-megawatt 

plant. j 

As with new-plant capital costs, capital costs of life 

extension vary from region to region. As mentioned in 

Chapter 3, regional multipliers that reflect different labor rates and different costs for materials and supplies 

are used to adjust capital costs of life extension. These 

multipliers range from 0.93 in the SERC Region to 

1.04 in the WSCC Region! and Hawaii. 

In addition to the capital costs of life extension estimated here, many refurbished plants will also require 

increased operation and maintenance (O&M) expenditures to maintain their condition. A recent report titled 

Coal-Fired Electric Power Plant Life Extension: An Overview, prepared by Oak Ridge National Laboratory, estimated that refurbished plants would require an additional $11 per kilowatt (1987 dollars) in O&M expenditures each year during their extended operating period.19 

Table 10 provides the estimated capital costs of life 

extension by plant type, using the mid level-of-effort 

factors. Both the national capacity-weighted average 

'''Taylor. MJ. and L.C. Fuller. Coal-Fired Electric Power Plant Life Extension: An Overview, Oak Ridge National Laboratory (Oak Ridge. 

Tennessee. July 1986). 

Energy Information Administration/Estimating the Capital Costs of Life Extension for Fossil'Fuel Steam Plants 21 
P.31 

Table 10. Range of Estimated Overnight Capital Costs of Life Extension, 

by Plant Type 

(1987 Dollars per Kilowatt) 

Oil-Fired 

Plant Type Capacity Weighted Average* 

142 

95 

73 

Lowest 

103 

78 

60 

Individual Plant 

Highest 

272 

143 

105 

These costs represent national averages. 

Note: These costs are developed using the mid-level-o(-ertort factors. 

Source: Energy Information Administration, Office of Coal. Nuclear, Electric and Alternate Fuels, Electric Power Division. 

and the lowest and highest life-extension costs for individual coal-, oil-, and gas-fired plants in the inventory 

of available capacity are given. For individual coalfired plants,, the lowest cost for life extension is $103 

per kilowatt and the highest is $272 per kilowatt. The 

size of each plant is the major cost factor of life extension, with larger plants having lower per kilowatt lifeextension costs than smaller plants. 

In addition to the national capacity-weighted average 

life-extension costs with mid level-of-effort factors, Table 11 provides average capacity-weighted costs for 

NERC Regions. Because of uncertainty about the condition of particular plants, average costs are also presented, using the low and high level-of-effort factors 

described in Chapter 3. Plants in relatively good condition generally require fewer resources to refurbish 

than plants in poorer condition. At the national level, 

estimated capital costs of life extension for coal-fired 

plants range from $84 to $216 per kilowatt, with a midcost of $142 per kilowatt. For oil-fired plants, the estimated costs range from $59 to $145 per kilowatt, with 

a mid-cost of $95 per kilowatt. For gas-fired plants, 

the costs range from $44 to $112 per kilowatt, with a 

mid-cost of $73 per kilowatt. Capital costs of life extension for a plant in relatively good condition with 

no major problems should be near the low end of the 

range, while costs for plants in poor condition would 

be near the high end. 

Regionally, estimated capital costs of life extension for 

plants burning different fuels vary significantly. The 

mid level-of-effort cost for the life extension of coalfired plants ranges from $130.38 per kilowatt in the 

SERC Region to $176.39 per kilowatt in the WSCC 

Region. Three major factors contribute to this wide 

price range. First, the SERC Region, which encompasses most of the southeastern United States, has 

lower labor rates and material costs than the WSCC 

Region. Second, most of the available coal-fired plants 

in the West (59 percent) are equipped with flue gas 

desulfurization (FGD) systems for pollution control, 

compared with only a few in the SERC Region (14 

percent).20 According to the analysis, refurbishment 

of the FGD system accounts for only 3.9 percent of 

the direct cost of extending the life of coal-fired plants 

in the SERC Region, while accounting for 16.1 percent 

in the WSCC Region. Third, on average, the coal-fired 

units in the SERC Region are larger than those in the 

WSCC Region. The most important region in terms of 

coal-fired life-extension potential, the ECAR Region, 

has capital costs for life extension of $141.03 per kilowatt, slightly below the national average. 

Differences in regional labor rates and in costs for material and supplies also play an important role in the 

range of estimated capital costs of life extension for 

oil-fired plants. The most important regions for oil-fired 

life-extension potential are the NPCC and SERC Regions. The NPCC Region, which includes New York, 

Vermont, Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and 

Connecticut, has a mid level-of-effort cost for extending the lives of oil-fired plants of $97.58 per kilowatt, 

while the SERC Region has a mid-cost of $87.36 per 

kilowatt. The SERC Region has the lowest labor costs 

and costs for materials and supplies in the Nation, while 

the NPCC Region is only slightly below the highest. 

Thus, the price difference between the two most important regions for oil-fired life extension potential is 

due primarily to the higher regional costs in the NPCC. 

The range in estimated capital costs of life extension 

for gas-fired plants is about the same as that for oil-fired 

plants; mid level-of-effort costs vary from $69.77 per 

kilowatt in the ERCOT Region to $79.57 per kilowatt 

in the WSCC Region. Again, most of this difference 

can be attributed to differences in labor costs, the costs 

of materials and supplies, and the average unit size between the two regions. These costs are relatively low 

in the ERCOT Region and are high for the WSCC 

Region. The ERCOT Region also has larger gas-fired 

plants than the WSCC Region. 

Another way to compare estimated capital costs of life 

extension for plants burning different fuels is to categorize the costs_by their various accounts. Table 12 

gives the estimated direct costs of extending a plant's 

life, by account. In all three plant types, the fossil-fuel 

:t)PEI Associates. Inc.. "CERs for Life Extension Costs for Fossil Fuel-Fired Electric Utility Plants" (Washington, DC. November 1987). 

22 Energy information Administration/Estimating the Capital Costs of Ufe Extension for Fossil-Fuel Steam Plants 
P.32 

table 11. Estimated Overnight Capital Costs of Life Extension, by NERC 

Region, Alaska, and Hawaii, and by Fuel Type 

(1987 Dollars per Kilowatt) 

ECAR 

Coal 

Gas 

ON 

ERCOT 

Coal 

Gas 

Oil 

MAAC 

Coal 

Gas 

Oil 

MAIN 

Coal 

Gas 

Oil 

MAPP 

Coal 

Gas 

Oil 

NPCC 

Coal 

Gas 

Oil 

SERC 

Coal 

Gas 

Oil 

SPP 

Coal 

Gas 

Oil 

WSCC 

Coal 

Gas 

Oil 

Alaska 

Coal 

Gas 

Oil 

Hawaii 

Coal 

Gas 

Oil 

Total United States 

Coal 

Gas 

Oil 

83.68 

80.83 

41.81 

79.13 

45-22 

70.42 

81.26 

87.79 

96.27 

45.21 

60.52 

77.48 

43.01 

54.18 

82.04 

43.44 

55.00 

105.57 

47.69 

61.78 

141.03 

135,39 

69.77 

133.40 

75.44 

113.54 

136,95 

147.17 

162.03 

75.44 

97.58 

130.38 

71.76 

87.36 

137,84 

72.48 

88.68 

176.39 

79.57 

99.62 

215,02 

206.18 

106.87 

203.56 

115.57 

172.86 

208.96 

224.17 

247.12 

115.56 

148.56 

198,84 

109.93 

133.01 

210.10 

111.03 

135.01 

268.39 

121.89 

151.66 

85.66 

84,23 

43-86 

59.00 

138.12 

141.52 

73.17 

95.12 

210.28 

215.73 

112,09 

144.82 

* See Appendix 8, Table B2 tor high, mid. and low level-of-effort factors, by fuel type. 

~ = No capacity of this type is considered. 

Note: Level-of-efforf factors express numencally the amount of equipment, labor, matenals, and supplies required to refurbish a component of a plant. Mid-range factors are those needed for a typical plant. High and low level-of-effort factors estimate the amounts expended in 

refurbishment projects that are more or less costly than those for a typical plant. 

Source: Energy information Administration, Office of Coal. Nuclear. Electric and Alternate Fuels, Electric Power Division. 

supply system and the turbine generator are the most 

significant accounts. In addition, coal-fired plants also 

require substantial capital expenditures for steam generating draft, FGD, and fuel-handling systems. These 

additional expenditures are a major reason why extending the lives of coal-fired plants is more costly than 

extending the lives of gas- or oil-fired plants. 

In addition, as stated in Chapter 2, refurbished plants 

are required to meet the strict environmental performance requirements of the RNSPS if the cost of refurbishing the old boiler exceeds 50 percent of the cost 

ofa new boiler. Meeting these stricter standards would 

require significant expenditures beyond those estimated here. In this study, however, the estimated cost 

of refurbishing plant boilers never exceeds 50 percent 

of the cost ofa new boiler. Thus, none of the plants in 

this study is expected to have to meet the RNSPS environmental standards. Also, the cost estimates developed in this report are based on current environmental 

laws and regulations. If more stringent standards were 

imposed on existing plants, then cost estimates for life 

extension would be considerably higher than estimated 

here. 

Energy Information Administration/Estimating the Capital Costs of Life Extension for Fossil-Fuel Steam Plants 23 
P.33 
P.34 

Table 12. Average Estimated Direct Life-Extension Costs, by Fuel Type 

and Account 

{1987 Dollars per Kilowatt) 

Concept-5 Account 

Coal 

Cost Percent of 

Total 

Gas 

Cost Percent of 

Total 

Oil 

Cost Percent of 

Total 

201 Land and land rights 

211 Yardwork 

212 Steam-generator building 

213 Turbine heater control building 

218A Coal-handling structures * 

218B Miscellaneous buildings ° 

219 Stack structure 

220 Fossil-steam supply system 

221 Steam-generating system 

222 Draft system 

223 Ash- and dust-handling system 

224 Fuel-handling system 

225 FGD structure 

226 FGD equipment 

227 Instrument and controls 

228 Boiler plant miscellaneous items ... 

231 Turbine generator 

233 Condensing system 

234 Feed-heating system 

235 Other turbine plant equipment ...;... 

236 Process controls 

237 Turbine plant miscellaneous items 

241 Switchgear 

242 Station service equipment 

243 Switchboards 

244 Protective equipment 

245 Electrical structures 

246 Power and control wiring 

251 Transportation and lift equipment . 

252 Air, water, and steam systems 

253 Communications equipment 

254 Furnishings, fixtures. & lab. 

equipment 

255 Wastewater treatment equipment . 

261 Makeup water structures & 

equipment 

262 Heat rejection system 

Total direct cost 

0.00 

0.00 

0.07 

0.04 

0.08 

0.01 

0.11 

44.37 

1.31 

12.04 

0.46 

. 11.51 

0.83 

8.84 

2.99 

0.07 

32.85 

0.30 

0,43 

0.43 

0.04 

0.03 

3.40 

0.09 

0.02 

0.03 

0.22 

0.18 

0.01 

0.34 

0.02 

0.02 

0.10 

0.05 

0.51 

121.81 

0,0 

0.0 

0,1 

0.0 

0.1 

0.0 

0.1 

37.1 

1.1 

10.1 

0.4 

9.6 

.5 

5.7 

2.5 

0.1 

27.5 

0.3 

0.4 

0,3 

0.0 

0.0 

2.9 

0.1 

. 0.0 

0.0 

0.2 

0.2 

0,0 

0.3 

0.0 

0.0 

0.1 

0.0 

0.5 

100.0 

0.00 

0.00 

0.14 

0.03 

0.00 

0.01 

0.08 

16.36 

0.32 

1,47 

0.00 

0.07 

0.00 

0.00 

3.27 • 

0.08 

36.09 

0.46 

0.48 

0.47 

0.00 

0.08 

1.38 

0.08 

0.01 

0.02 

0.02 

0.23 

0.01 

0.37 

0.02 

0.01 

0.07 

0.06 

0.53 

62.23 

0.0 

0.0 

0.2 

0.1 

0.0 

0.0 

0.1 

26.3 

0,5 

2.4 

0.0 

0.1 

0.0 

0.0 

5.2 

0.1 

58.0 

0.8 

0.8 

0.8 

0,0 

0.1 

2.2 

0.1 

0.0 

0-0 

0.0 

0-4 

0.0 

0.6 

0.0 

0.0 

0.1 

0.1 

0.8 

0,00 

0,00 

0.13 

0.04 

0.00 

o.ot 

0.12 

27,97 

9-45 

0.00 

0.00 

1.09 

0.00 

0,00 

3.07 

0.08 

33.92 

0,44 

0.45 

0.45 

0.02 

0.07 

1.30 

0.18 

0.00 

0.03 

0.08 

0.19 

0.01 

0.35 

0.03 

0,01 

0.10 

0.04 

0.54 

100.0 80.16 

0.0 

0.0 

0.2 

0,1 

0.0 

0-0 

0-2 

34.9 

11.8 

0,0 

0.0 

1.4 

0.0 

0.0 

3.8 

0,1 

42.3 

0-6 

0.6 

0.6 

0.0 

0.1 

1.6 

0.2 

0.0 

0.0 

0.1 

0.2 

0.0 

0.4 

0,0 

0.0 

0.1 

0.1 

0.6 

100.0 

• This classification includes subaccounts 218L, 218M. 218N, 2180. 218P, 2180. 218H, 218T, 218W (Appendix C). 

•> This classification includes subaccounts 218B, 2181, 218U, 218V (Appendix C). 

FGD=Flue gas desulfurization. 

Notes: cMid level-of-effort factors were used to develop these costs. Mid level-of-effort factors express numerically the amount of resources required to refurpish a component of a typical plant. pTotals may not equal sum of components because of independent rounding. 

Source: Energy Infonnation Administration. Office of Coal. Nuclear. Electric and Alternate Fuels. Electric Power Division. 

As mentioned, plant size is another important factor in 

determining life-extension costs. Table 13 shows how 

estimated life-extension costs vary for plants of different sizes, illustrating why regions with larger plants 

will have lower life-extension costs per unit of capacity. 

(See also Appendix A.) 

Comparison with Other 

Studies 

per kilowatt (1987 dollars). In an article prepared by 

the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) titled 

"Longer Life for Fossil-Fuel Plants," a much broader 

set of estimates was developed, with life-extension 

costs ranging from $125 to $625 per kilowatt (1987 

dollars). Both of these studies are based on data from 

a limited number of life-extension projects. Neither develops a methodology to estimate life-extension costs 

nor attempts to estimate average regional and national 

life-extension costs. The costs estimated in this chapter 

fall within the cost ranges of actual utility experience 

reported by these two studies. 

Very few studies have calculated life-extension costs. 

An Oak Ridge National Laboratory study titled CoalFired Electric Power Plant Life Extension: An Overview 

estimated life-extension costs ranging from $43 to $106 

24 Energy Infonnation Administration/Estimating the Capital Costa of Ufe Extension for Fossil'Fuel Steam Plants 
P.35 

Table 13. Average Estimated Life-Extension Costs, by Plant Size and 

Fuel Type 

(1987 Dollars Per Kilowatt) 

100-200 

>200-300 

>300-400 

>400-500 

> 500-600 

>600-700 

>700-800 

>800 

Weighted Average for All Sizes 

185.53 

166.80 

155.94 

155.14 

136.99 

127.87 

133.37 

115.02 

141.52 

92.49 

81.34 

73,75 

67,74 

63.08 

65.71 

57.39 

62.34 

73.17 

128.B1 

107.56 

104.63 

96.26 

89.08 

90.24 

87.56 

78.40 

95.12 

Note: Mid level-of-effon factors were used to develop these costs. Mid level-of-effort factors express numerically the amount of resources required to refurbish a component of a typical plant. 

Source: Energy information Administration. Office of Coal, Nuclear. Electric and Alternate Fuels. Electric Power Division. 

Limitations of this 

Methodology 

While cost engineers and utility consultants have concurred with the methodology described in this chapter, 

assumptions were made in the methodology that introduce uncertainty in the life-extension costs that were 

estimated. Assumptions were made because lifeextension-cost data are not available to validate estimated costs or to calibrate the methodology. 

Sources of uncertainty in the methodology occur in 

several areas. First, the capital costs of typical plants 

are used to approximate the costs of actual new plants. 

To develop actual new-plant costs for each different 

plant design, however, would have been almost as 

costly as developing actual life-extension costs from 

engineering analysis. Second, the cost-to-size equation 

used to calculate the overnight capital costs for new 

plants was derived from the costs of coal-fired plants 

operated by the Tennessee Valley Authority and 

quoted prices for steam boilers. The equation was adjusted to produce new oil- and gas-fired plant costs, 

using the ratio of the overnight capital costs of new 

oil- and gas-fired plants to new coal-fired plants developed from the Concept-5 costs. This adjustment may 

not be sufficient to estimate accurately the costs of oiland gas-fired plants of different sizes. If data were available, a separate cost-to-size relationship would have 

been estimated for oil- and gas-fired plants. However, 

since few oil- and gas-fired steam plants have been 

built since the early 1970s, cost data for them are 

scarce. Third, ratios were based on the cost of a new 

800-megawatt plant, since this is the only size plant for 

which the Concept-5 model has data for all three plant 

types. To have developed new-plant costs for the three 

plant types would have been expensive. A test was 

done using the ratios from a 500-megawatt coal-fired 

plant, and the results at the national level differed by 

less than 5 percent. Fourth, the level-of-effort and 

probability factors, which were based on the expert 

judgment of utility engineers, are obvious sources of 

uncertainty. At this time, data are not available to estimate these values. As data become available, these 

factors can be estimated more accurately. 

Life extension is certain to be applied to some degree 

at some aging power plants. As previously noted, the 

choice of life extension over other alternatives (such 

as retirement, repowering, load management, conservation, purchased power, and new capacity) will depend on a host of factors peculiar to each utility and 

individual plant. The capital costs for life extension 

developed in this report for use in EIA models are 

based on the assumption that the expenditure of the 

estimated costs will return plants to their original availability and operating efficiency and extend their operating lives 20 years. The lack of data on the cost and 

effectiveness of actual life-extension projects does not 

allow validation of these life-extension costs. Therefore, the cost estimates provided in this report are insufficient to estimate the extent or degree of lifeextension effort that will occur or the additional power 

generation such effort will enable. 

In light of these uncertainties, the estimated lifeextension costs presented in this chapter should be interpreted as reasonable approximations of the average 

overnight capital cost of life extension at the regional 

and national levels. When actual life-extension data become available, it will be possible to modify the methodology and improve the estimates of life-extension 

costs given in this report. 

- Summary 

At the plant level, average overnight capital costs of 

life extension range from $60 to $272 per kilowatt, deEnergy Information Administration/ Estimating the Capital Costs of Ufe Extension for Fossit-Fuel Steam Plants 25 
P.36 

pending on the plant's fuel type, size, and location. 

These cost estimates are just one component of the 

information needed by a utility when determining 

whether to extend the life ofa particular plant. Other 

factors such as the type of capacity needed (base, intermediate, peak), the availability of fuels, and the 

availability of replacement power are equally important. Utilities that need additional capacity will weigh 

the feasibility and cost of extending the lives of older 

units against the cost of new capacity, replacement 

power, or other options for meeting demand. 

While this analysis focuses on the refurbishment of 

power plants as they near retirement, in the future, 

planning for life extension of a unit may begin long 

before it reaches its 25th year of operation. Utilities 

may bring new plants on line with the intention of 

operating them for 50 to 60 years. Operation and maintenance procedures could be developed to maintain 

the plants' availability at acceptable levels throughout 

their extended lives. 

Cincinnati Gas & Electric's Beckjord plant has undergone refurbishment work 

26 Energy Information Administration/Estimating the Capital Costs of Life Extension for Fossil-Fuel Steam Plants 
P.37 

Appendix A 

Equation Relating 

Total Plant Costs 

to Plant Size 
P.38 

Appendix A 

Equation Relating Total Plant Costs to Plant Size 

The equation used to relate total overnight plant costs to plant size (discussed in Chapter 3) was derived by PEI 

Associates, Inc. from a curve published by Bashambu and Yates of the Tennessee Valley Authority21 and from 

quoted prices for steam boilers.22 The cost-to-size relationship is: 

Cost = 

(Size)1 

(Plant Type Factor) 

Where: 

Cost = Total plant cost in 1987 dollars per kilowatt (SAW) 

Size = Size of a specific plant in megawatts 

A = 5,289 

B = 0.2656 

Plant Type Factor = 1.0 for Coal-Fired Plants 

0.94 for OH-Fired Plants 

0.61 for Gas-Fired Plants 

For a 153-megawatt coal-fired plant, the total plant cost is: 

5,289 

Cost = •.0.2656 

(1.0) 

(153)L 

Cost = 1,390.34 SAW 

Costs for oil-and gas-fired plants are calculated in a similar manner, except that they are multiplied by factors of 0.94 

and 0.61, respectively, to account for their lower construction costs. Figure Al shows the cost-to-size relationship 

for new coal-fired plants. Figure Al also shows actual construction costs per kilowatt including interest for coal-fired 

and lignite plants that started operation in 1984, 1985, and 1986 (denoted by "X" in the figure). These actual costs 

include the initial plant cost (cumulative to the date of the initial commercial operation) plus the costs of all additions 

to the plant. The dollars included in actual plant costs are for those years in which expenditures were made." The 

cost-to-size relationship for new coal-fired plants in Figure Al cannot be compared directly with actual plant costs 

because the costs are in 1987 dollars and do not include interest. Converting the actual plant costs for each year to 

1987 dollars would raise the cost per kilowatt, while eliminating the interest expense in the actual plant costs to get 

overnight construction costs would lower the cost per kilowatt. 

:!Bashambu. Ram L„ and Ralph L. Yates. Tennessee Valley Authority, "Which is Cheaper? A Small or a Large Unit," 1985 Transactions 

of the American Association of Cost Engineers (Morgantown, West Virginia, American Association of Cost Engineers. 1985). 

22Richardson Engineering Services, Inc, "The Richardson Rapid Construction Cost Estimating System" (San Marcos, California. 1987), 

Section 100-200. 

2J

 Energy Information Administration, Historical Plant Cost and Annual Production Expenses for Selected Electric Plants 1984, 1985, 1986-

Energy Information Administration/Estimating the Capital Costs of Ufe Extension for Fossil-Fuel Steam Plants 29 
P.39 

Figure A1. 

2000-i 

Relationship Between Overnight Construction Costs and Unit Size for 

New Coal-Fired Plants 

100 300 500 1100 1300 

Note 

Source: 

700 900 

Unit Size (Megawatts) 

X denotes actual construction costs per kilowatt, including interest for coal-fired and lignite 

plants that started operation in 1984, 1985. and 1986. The dollars included in actual plant 

costs are for those years in which expenditures were made. 

Energy Information Administration, Office of Coal, Nuclear, Electric and Alternative Fuels, 

Electric Power Division. 

30 Energy Information Administration/Estimating the Capital Costs of Ufe Extension for Foaail-Fuel Steam Plants 
P.40 

Appendix B 

Probability and 

Level-of-Effort 

Factors for Coal-, 

Oil-, and Gas-Fired 

Power Plants 
P.41 

Appendix B 

Probability and Level-of-Effort Factors for Coal-, 

Oil-, and Gas-Fired Power Plants 

Table B1. Probability Factors, by Account and by Fuel Type 

201 

211 

212 

213 

218 A 

218 B 

219 

220 

221 

222 

223 

224 

225 

226 

227 

228 

231 

233 

234 

235 

236 

237 

241 

242 

243 

244 

245 

246 

251 • 

252 

253 

254 

255 

261 

262 

Concept-5 Account 

Land and land rights 

Yardwork 

Steam-generator building 

Turbine, heater, control 

building 

Coal-handling structures » 

Miscellaneous buildings

 b 

Stack structure 

Fossil-steam supply system 

Steam-generating system 

Draft system 

Ash- and dust-handling 

system 

Fuel-handling system 

FGD structure 

FGD equipment 

Instrumentation & controls 

Boiler-plant miscellaneous 

items 

Turbine generator 

Condensing system 

Feed-heating system 

Other turbine-plant 

equipment 

Process controls 

Turbine-plant miscellaneous 

items 

Switchgear 

Station service equipment 

Switchboards 

Protective equipment 

Electrical structures 

Power and control wiring 

Transportation and lift 

equipment 

Air. water, and steam systems 

Communications equipment 

Furnishings, fixtures, & lab 

equipment 

Wastewater treatment equipment 

Make-up water structures & 

equipment 

Heat rejection system 

Coal 

0.00 

0.01 

0.10 

0.10 

0.10 

0.10 

0.10 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

0.20 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

0.90 

0.15 

1.00 

0.20 

0.20 

0.15 

0.1 S 

0.15 

0.90 

0.20 

0.20 

0.10 

0.20 

0.20 

0.10 

0.20 

0.10 

0.10 

0.10 

0.15 

0.15 

Fuel Type 

Gas 

0.00 

0.01 

0.10 

0,10 

0.00 

0.10 

0.10 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

0.00 

0.10 

0.00 

0.00 

0.90 

0.15 

1.00 

0.20 

0.20 

0.15 

0.15 

0.15 

0.90 

0.20 

0.20 

0.10 

0.20 

0.20 

0.10 

0.20 

0.10 

0.10 

0.10 

0.15 

0.15 

Oil 

0,00 

0.01 

0.10 

0.10 

0.00 

0.10 

0.10 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

0.01 

0.20 

1.00 

1.00 

0.90 

0.15 

1.00 

0.20 

0.20 

0.15 

0.15 

0.15 

0.90 

0.20 

0.20 

0.10 

0.20 

0.20 

0.10 

0.20 

0.10' 

0.10 

0.10 

0.15 

0.15 

• This classification includes subaccounts 218L. 218M, 218N. 2180. 218P. 2180, 218R, 218T. 218W {Appendix C). 

" This classification includes subaccounts 218B, 2181, 218U, 218V (Appendix C). 

Note: Probability factors quantity differences in wear and express the likelihood that given components will need to be refurbished after 25 

years of service. —-

Source: Energy information Administration, Concept-5 database, as updated by PEI Associates, Inc., in Regional Capital, Operating and Maintenance Cost Estimate tor Emission Control Equipment Required for New Fossil Steam Power Plants under contract to the U.S. Department of Energy 

(Cincinnati. Ohio, November 1985). 

Energy Information Administration/Estimating the Capital Costs of Ufe Extension for Fossil-Fuel Steam Plants 33 
P.42 

Table B2. Level-of-Effort Factors, by Account and by Fuel Type 

Concept-5 Account 

Coal 

Low Mid High 

Gas Oil 

Low Mid High Low Mid High 

201 

211 

212 

213 

218 A 

218 B 

219 

220 

221 

222 

223 

224 

225 

226 

227 

22!) 

2.11 

2:C) 

:KM 

:'-M> 

2:1.. 

I'.i 7 

2.11 

2-12 

2-13 

244 

245 

246 

251 

252 

253 

254 

255 

261 

262 

Land and land rights 0.00 

Yardwork 0.00 

Steam-generator building 0.01 

Turbine, heater, control 

building 0.01 

Coal-handling structures • 0.03 

Miscellaneous buildings ° 0.01 

Slack structure 0,03 

Fossil-steam supply system 0.20 

Steam-generating system 0.20 

Draft system 0.20 

Ash- and dust-handling 

system 0.05 

Fuel-handling system 0.20 

FGD structure 0.25 

FGD equipment 0.25 

Instrumentation & controls 0.20 

Boiler-plant miscellaneous 

items 0.03 

Turbine generator 0.20 

Condensing system 0.05 

Feed-heating system 0.05 

Olher turbine-plant 

equipment 0.05 

Process controls 0.05 

Turbine-plant miscellaneous 

items 0.05 

Swilchgear 0.10 

Station service equipment 0.02 

Switchboards 0.02 

Protective equipment 0.04 

Electrical structures 0.03 

Power and control wiring .,..-. 0.03 

Transportation and lift 

equipment 0.02 

Air, water, and steam systems 0.05 

Communications equipment 0,05 

Furnishings, fixtures, & lab 

equipment 0.05 

Wastewater treatment equipment 0.02 

Make-up water structures & 

equipment 0.05 

Heat rejection system 0.05 

0.00 

0.01 

0.02 

0.02 

0.06 

0.02 

0.10 

0.33 

0,33 

0.33 

0.20 

0.33 

0,40 

0.40 

0.33 

0.10 

0.33 

0.10 

0.10 

0.10 

0.10 

0.10 

0.30 

0.05 

0.05 

0.07 

0.06 

0.06 

0.04 

0.10 

0,10 

0,10 

0.10 

0,10 

0.10 

0.00 

0,02 

0.03 

0.03 

0.10 

0.03 

0.20 

0.50 

0.50 

0.50 

0.30 

0.50 

0.60 

0.60 

0.50 

0.20 

0.50 

0,20 

0.20 

0.20 

0.20 

0.20 

0.50 

0.07 

0.07 

0.10 

0.09 

0.09 

0.06 

' 0.15 

0.15 

0.15 

0.25 

0.15 

0.15 

0.00 

0.00 

0.01 

0.01 

0,00 

0.01 

0.03 

0.20 

0.20 

0.20 

0.00 

0.03 

0.00 

0.00 

0.20 

0.03 

0.20 

0.05 

0.05 

0.05 

0.05 

0.05 

0.18 

0,02 

0.02 

0.04 

0.03 

0.03 

0.02 

0.05 

0.05 

0.05 

0.02 

0.05 

0.05 

0-00 

0.01 

0,02 

0.02 

0.00 

0.02 

0.10 

0.33 

0.33 

0.33 

0.00 

0.05 

0.00 

0.00 

0.33 

0.10 

0.33 

0.10 

0.10 

0.10 

0.10 

o.to 

0.30 

0.05 

0.05 

0.07 

0.06 

0.06 

0.04 

0.10 

0.10 

0.10 

0.10 

0.10 

0.10 

0.00 

0.02 

0.03 

0.03 

0.00 

0.03 

0.20 

0.50 

0.50 

0.50 

0.00 

0-07 

0.00 

0.00 

0.50 

0.20 

0.50 

0.20 

0.20 

0.20 

0.20 

0.20 

0.50 

0.07 

0.07 

0.10 

0.09 

0.09 

0.06 

0.15 

0.15 

0-15 

0.25 

0.15 

0.15 

0.00 

0.00 

0,01 

0.01 

0.00 

0.01 

0.03 

0.20 

0.20 

0.20 

0.00 

0.05 

0.25 

0.25 

0.20 

0.03 

0.20 

0.05 

0.05 

0.05 

0.05 

0,05 

0.18 

0.02 

0.02 

0.04 

0.03 . 

0.03 

' 0.02 

0,05 

0.05 

0.05 

0.02 

0.05 

0.05 

0.00 

0.01 

0,02 

0.02 

0.00 

0.02 

0.10 

0.30 

0.33 

0.33 

0.01 

0.10 

0.40 

0.40 

0.33 

0.10 

0.33 

0.10 

0.10 

0.10 

0.10 

0.10 

0.30 

0.05 

0.05 

0.07 

0.06 

0.06 

0.04 

0.10 

0.10 

0.10 

0.10 

0.10 

0.10 

0.00 

0.02 

0.03 

0.03 

0.00 

0.03 

0.20 

0,45 

0.50 

0.50 

0.02 

0.15 

0.60 

0.60 

0.50 

0.20 

0.50 

0.20 

0.20 

0 20 

0.20 

0.20 

0.50 

0.07 

0.07 

0.10 

0.09 

0.09 

0.06 

0.15 

0.15 

0.15 

0.25 

0.15 

0.15 

« This classification includes subaccounts 218L. 218M, 218N, 2180. 218P. 218Q. 21 BR. 218T, 218W, (Appendix C). 

» This classification includes subaccounts 218B, 2181, 218U, 218V (Appendix C). 

Note: Level-of-effort factors express numerically the amount of equipment, labor, materials, and supplies required to refurbish a component of a 

plant. Mid-range factors are those needed for a typical plant. High and low level-of-eftort factors estimate the amounts expended in refurbishment projects 

thai are more or less costly than those for a typical plant. 

Source: Energy Information Administration. Concept-5 database, as updated by PEI Associates. Inc., in Regional Capital, Operating and Maintenance 

Cost Estimate for Emission Control Equipment Required for New Fossil Steam Power Plants under contract to the U.S. Department ot Energy (Cincinnati, 

Ohio. November 1985). 

• 1- r^t—.in - <~. Cnn^ii-Ci 
P.43 

Appendix C 

The Concept-5 

Model 
Appendix C 

The Concept-5 Model 

P.44 

Introduction 

Three computer programs, referred to as the Concept-5 

model, were developed by the Engineering Technology Division of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory 

(ORNL).24 This computer model was designed to provide a method to estimate future capital costs of different types of plants under various economic and technical conditions. The use of the Concept-5 model requires an understanding of trends in contributing cost 

factors, such as labor rates, labor productivity, and 

prices of materials and equipment, as a function of location and time. For application in project evaluation 

studies, these cost factors should be based on the specific location and design and construction dates being 

considered. 

This appendix describes the fifth generation in the development of the Concept-5 model. At the 

preoperational level, the CONTAC auxiliary program 

is used to read cost-model data (i.e., detailed cost breakdowns for reference plants) for the various types of 

plants and to generate the cost-model data file, CO MO. 

The CONLAM auxiliary program is used to read historical cost data for factory equipment, labor, and siterelated materials at various locations and to generate 

the data file, LAMA. The two auxiliary programs, 

CONTAC and CONLAM, must be used to generate, 

update, and modify the data files. The operational level 

Concept-5 program retrieves cost-model data and historical cost data from these two data files and uses 

them to generate cost estimates based on the rules specified by the user at the time the program is executing. 

The major phases in developing the Concept-5 model 

are summarized in Table Cl. 

The Concept-5 model, including auxiliary programs 

and cost-model and historical cost data sets, is available 

from the Argonne Code Center, Argonne National 

Laboratory, 9700 South Cass Avenue, Argonne, Illinois 60439. 

General Description of the 

Concept-5 Model 

The procedures used in the Concept-5 model are based 

on the assumption that any central-station power plant 

of the same type has approximately the same major 

cost components, regardless of location or date of initial operation. Therefore, if the trends of these major 

cost components can be established as a function of 

time, location, and plant size, a cost estimate for a reference case can be adjusted to fit any plant. 

The application of this approach requires a detailed 

cost model for each plant type as a reference condition 

and the determination of the cost-trend relationships. 

The generation and updating of these data sets comprise 

a large effort in the continuing development of the 

model. 

Data that reflect historical trends in equipment costs, 

labor rates, and prices of site-related materials for 23 

locations are used to calculate cost indices for translating the cost-model data from the base (or reference) 

time and location to the specified time and location. 

The input to the Concept-5 model consists of the plant 

net electrical capacity, plant type, plant location, date 

of purchase of fossil-fired steam generator, date of receipt of construction permit, date of initial commercial 

operation, and interest rate. Specific constants, variables, and cost arrays can be altered. In addition, the 

escalation rates calculated by the code from data stored 

in the historical-cost-data file can be overridden. Contingency cases can be examined with a minimum of 

effort, and the cost-model data can be altered temporarily at execution time to take into account known 

costs or factors that affect the design of the plant. 

As an example of these procedures, suppose a cost estimate for the year 1987 is available for a 1100-MWe 

PWR plant located at a site near Middletown," and a 

cost estimate for 1996 is desired for a corresponding 

plant located on a similar site but near another city. 

;4Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Engineering Technology Division. Concept-5 User's Manual (Oak Ridge, Tennessee. January 1979). 

25Middletown represents the standard hypothetical site described in the Commercial Electric Power Cost.Studies. 

Energy Information Administration/ Estimating the Capital Costs of Ufe Extension for Fossil-Fuel Steam Plants 37 
P.45 

Table C1. Evolution of the Concept-5 Model 

Version Major Features 

Phase 1 Experimental version, which included only a preliminary, cost model for a single-unit pressurized water reactor 

(PWR) plant 

Phase 2 Added cost models for the lirst unit of PWR, boiling-water reactor (BWR). coal- and oil-fired plants 

Added historical cost data for craft labor and materials for the generation of cost indices and escalation rates 

Phase 3 Updated the first-unit cost models for PWR, BWR, coal- and oil-fired plants to account for more stringent environmental and safety regulations between 1971 and 1973 

Added cost models (or coal- and oil-fired plants with wet limestone scrubber S02 removal systems 

Added cost models for gas-fired plants 

Added cost models for the second unit ot two-unit plants 

Phase 4 Added cost models for high-temperature gas-cooled reactor (HTGR) plants 

Modified all second-unit cost models 

Modified code to simplify data input for optional calculations, to accept time-dependent escalation rates, and to 

calculate allowances for interest curing construction and escalation during construction based on cash-fiow curves 

modified for a specified receipt-ot construction-permit date 

Phase 5 Updated cost models for PWR, BWR. and coal-fired plants with and without flue gas desulfurization (FGD). and 

expanded cost models to include coal-fired plants with crnss-cc ""pound (as well as tandem-compound) turbine 

generators 

Added historical cost data for factory equipment for the gmt-fuuc. of cost indices and escalation rates 

Modified indirect costs to be calculated as a function of unit size in the same manner as direct costs, rather than 

calculated as a function of direct costs 

Established an indirect cost account tor costs of owners 

Improved time-dependent escalation feature 

The new estimate is obtained by adjusting factory and 

site-related costs for the Middletown plant by the ratios 

of the projected 1996 cost indices for the new city to 

the 1987 cost indices for Middletown. The data base is 

updated for the Concept-5 model approximately every 

2 years. 

The technique of separating the plant cost into individual components, applying appropriate cost indices, 

and summing the adjusted components is the basic tool 

used in the Concept-5 model. Three sets of cost indices 

as functions of time and location are required. These 

indices are used to adjust the costs of equipment, labor, 

and site-related materials. The equipment-cost indices 

are calculated from Bureau of Labor Statistics data, 

and the labor-costs indices are calculated from basic 

parameters, which include wage rates for the various 

crafts, labor productivity, and overtime considerations. 

The materials-cost indices are calculated from unit 

costs for site-related materials, which include structural 

steel, reinforcing steel, concrete, and lumber. 

Figure Cl indicates the general flow of calculations in 

the Concept-5 model. The computer code follows this 

procedure closely; however, the illustration is not a 

detailed computer-program flowchart. An important 

feature of this arrangement is that the second block of 

the diagram uses the cost-model data stored in the 

COMOfile for different types of power plants, and the 

fourth block uses the historical cost data for labor and 

materials stored in the LAMA file for different locations. When other types of plants or other cities are 

studied, only the cost-model data set for the reference 

plant or the historical cost data set for the new location 

is needed. 

38 Energy Information Administration/Estimating the Capital Costs of Life Extension for Fossil-Fuel Steam Plants 
P.46 

Figure C1. General Flow of Calculations in the Concept-5 Model 

1! Read In Data Defining Calculations 

T 

2. Retrieve Reference Plant Cost 

Model From COMO Data File 

3. Read In Data Overriding Base 

Plant Cost Model And Defining 

Years For Analysis Of Historical 

Equipment, Labor And Materials 

Cost Data (Optional With User) 

4. Retrieve Historical Equipment, 

Labor And Materials Cost Data 

From LAMA Data File And Fit Data 

5. Read In Data Overriding Calculated 

Escalation Rates (Optional With 

User) 

6. Adjust 3, 4, And 5-Digit Level Reference Plant Costs To Specified 

Plant Size, Location, Date, Overtime, And Productivity 

7. Read In Data Overriding Calculated 

Costs (Optional With User) 

8. Sum All Direct And Indirect Costs 

9. Calculate Contingencies 

10. Calculate Esca ation During 

Construction 

11. Calculate Interest During 

Construction 

12. Sum All Costs 

13. Develop Cash Flow Information 

14. Print Report Of Cost Estimate 

(Detail Optional With User) 

Energy Information Administration/Estimating the Capital Costs of Life Extension for Fossil-Fuel Steam Plants 39 
P.47 

Appendix D 

Concept-5 

Subaccount 

Categories 
P.48 

Appendix D 

Concept-5 Subaccount Categories 

Table D1. Concept-5 Subaccount Categories 

Concept-5 

Account Number Account Title 

20 . 

201. 

202. 

LAND AND LAND RIGHTS 

LAND AND PRIVILEGE ACQUISITION 

RELOCATION OF BUILDINGS, UTILITIES, ETC 

21 . 

211. 

211.1 

211.11 

211.12 

211.14 

211.15 

211.16 

211.17 

211.4 

211.41 

211.42 

211.43 

211.45 

211.7 

211.71 

212. 

212.1 

212.13 

212.14 

212.2 

212.21 

212.22 

212.24 

212.25 

212.26 

213. 

213.1 

213.13 

213.14 

213.2 

213.21 

213.22 

213.24 

STRUCTURES & IMPROVEMENTS 

YARDWORK 

General Yardwork 

General cut & fill 

Roads, walks & parking area 

Fencing & gates 

Sanitary sewer facility 

Yard drainage storm sewers 

Roadway & yard lighting 

Railroads 

Cut & fill 

Grading 

Track (ballast, ties, 8 rail) 

Switches & bumpers 

Structure-associated Yardwork 

Cut & fill 

STEAM GENERATOR BUILDING 

Building Structure 

Substructure concrete 

Superstructure 

Building Services 

Plumbing & drains 

Heating, vent & air conditioning 

Lighting & service power 

Elevator 

Fire protection system 

TURBINE, HEATER, CONTROL BUILDING 

Building Structure 

Substructure concrete 

Superstructure —-

BuiIding Services 

Plumbing & drains 

Heating, vent & air conditioning 

Lighting & service power 

Energy Information Administration/ Estimating the Capital Costs of Life Extension tor Fossil-Fuel Steam Plants 43 
P.49 

t- a." 

Table D1. Concept-5 Subaccount Categories (Continued) 

Concept-5 

Account Number Account Title 

218. OTHER STRUCTURES 

218B. Administration & Service Building 

218B.1 Building structure 

218B.2 Building services 

2181. Electrical Switchgear Buildings 

2181.1 Building structure 

2181.2 Building services 

218L. Stack/Reclaim Transfer Tower 

218L.1 Building structure 

218L.2 Building services 

218M. Coal Car Thaw Shed 

218M.1 Building structure 

218M.2 Lighting & service power 

218N. Rotary Car Dump Building & Tunnel 

218N.1 Building structure 

218N.2 Building services 

2180. Coal Breaker House 

2180.1 Building structure 

2180.2 Building services 

218P. Coal Crusher House 

218P.1 Building structure 

218P.2 Building services 

218Q. Boiler House Transfer Tower 

218Q.1 Building structure 

218Q.2 Building services 

218R. Dead Storage Transfer Tunnel 

218R.1 Building structure 

218R.2 Building services 

218T. Locomotive Repair Garage 

218T.1 Building structure 

218T.2 Building services 

218U. Material Handling & Service Building 

218U.1 Building structure 

218U.2 Building services 

218V. Waste Water Treatment Building 

218V.1 Waste water equipment building 

218V.2 Waste water settling basin 

218V.3 API oil separator 

218W. Misc. Coal Handling Structure 

218W.1 Conveyor galleries 

218W.2 Stacker/reclaimer 

218W.3 Coal pile membrane barrier 

218W.5 Building services 

218W.6. Maintenance & repair shop 

219. STACK STRUCTURE 

219.1 Structure 

219.11 Excavation work 

219.13 Substructure concrete 

219.14 Superstructure 

219.2 Chimney Services 

44 Energy Information Administration/Estimating the Capital Costs of Life Extension for Fossil-Fuel Steam Plants 
P.50 

Table D1. Concept-5 Subaccount Categories (Continued) 

Concept-5 

Account Number Account Title 

22 . 

220. 

220A. 

220A.1 

221. 

221.1 

221.2 

221.21 

221.22 

221.3 

221.31 

221.33 

221.35 

221.36 

221.37 

222. 

222.1 

222.14 

222.2 

222.22 

222.23 

222.3 

222.31 

222.4 

222.41 

222.42 

222.5 

222.51 

222.52 

222.6 

222.7 

222.73 

222.8 

222.9 

222.91 

222.92 

222.93 

223. 

223.1 

223.2 

224. 

225. 

BOILER PLANT EQUIPMENT 

FOSSIL STEAM SUPPLY SYSTEM 

Fossil Steam Supply System 

Quoted FossiL Steam Supply System Price 

STEAM GENERATING SYSTEM 

Steam Generating Equipment 

Steam Generating Accessory 

Boiler bypass system 

Boiler vents and drains 

Sootblowing System 

Rotating machinery 

Tanks and pressure vessels 

Piping 

Valves 

Piping—misc. iterns 

DRAFT SYSTEM 

Rotating Machinery 

Air heater drain pump & meter 

Heat Transfer Equipment 

Inlet combustion air steam coil 

Combustion air preheat steam coil 

Tanks and Pressure Vessels 

Air heater drain tank 

Purification & Filtration Equipment 

Electrostatic precipitator 

Precipitator insulation 

Piping & Ductwork 

Air preheat steam piping 

Ductwork 

Valves 

Piping—Misc. Items 

Specialties 

Instrumentation & Controls 

Foundations/Skids 

Precipitator & duct foundation 

Primary air & induct fan foundations 

Air heater foundations 

ASH & DUST HANDLING SYSTEM 

Fly Ash System 

Bottom Ash System 

FUEL HANDLING SYSTEMS 

FLUE GAS DESULFURIZATION STRUCTURE 

Energy Information Administration/Estimating the Capital Costs of Life Extension for FossihFuel Steam Plants 45 
P.51 

Table D1. Concept-5 Subaccount Categories (Continued) 

Concept-5 

Account Number Account Title 

226. DESULFURIZATION EQUIPMENT 

226.1 Lime Unloading/Storage Facility 

226.2 Lime Slurry Preparation System 

226.3 S02 Absorber System 

226.4 Waste Slurry Thickening 

226.5 Waste Stabilization System 

226.6 Misc. Desulfurization Equipment 

226.7 Instrumentation & Control 

227. INSTRUMENTATION & CONTROL 

227.1 Benchboard, Panels & Racks 

227.11 Boiler—Turbine generator control panel 

227.17 Auxiliary panels & cabinets 

227.18 Instrument racks 

227.19 Alarm system 

227.2 Plant Computer System 

227.3 . Stack Gas Monitoring System 

227.4 Plant Control System 

227.41 Coordinated control system 

227.42 Burner control system 

227.5 Instrument Tubing & Fittings 

228. BOILER PLANT MISC. ITEMS 

228.1 Field Painting 

228.2 Qualification of Welders 

228.3 Boiler Plant Insulation 

228.4 Sampling Equipment 

23 . TURBINE PLANT EQUIPMENT 

231. TURBINE GENERATOR 

231.1 Turbine Generator & Accessories 

231.11 Turbine factory cost 

231.12 Other turbine costs 

231.2 Foundations 

231.21 Turbine generator pedestal 

231.4 Lubricating Oil System 

231.43 Tanks & pressure vessels 

231.45 Piping 

231.46 Valves 

231.47 Piping—misc. items 

231.48 Instrumentation & control 

231.49 Skids/foundations 

231.5 Gas Systems 

231.51 Hydrogen storage system 

231.52 Carbon dioxide storage system 

46 Energy Information Administration/Estimating the Capital Costs of Life Extension for Fossil-Fuel Steam Plants 
P.52 

Table D1. Concept-5 Subaccount Categories (Continued) 

Concept-5 

Account Number Account Title 

233-

233.1 

233.12 

233.2 

233.21 

233.23 

233.25 

233.26 

233.27 

233.28 

233.29 

233.3 

233.31 

233.5 

234. 

234.1 

234.2 

234.21 

234.25 

234.26 

234.27 

234.28 

234.3 

234.35 

234.36 

234.37 

234.38 

234.4 

234.45 

234.46 

234.47 

234.48 

235. 

235.1 

235.11 

235.12 

235.13 

235.15 

235.2 

235.21 

235.3 

235.31 

235.32 

235.33 

235.35 

235.36 

235.37 

235.38 

235.4 

235.5 

CONDENSING SYSTEMS 

Condenser Equipment 

Heat transfer equipment 

Condensate System 

Rotating machinery 

Tanks & pressure vessels 

Piping 

Valves 

Piping—misc. items 

Instrumentation & controls 

Foundations 

Gas Removal System 

Condenser gas removaL system 

Condensate Polishing 

FEED HEATING SYSTEM 

Feedwater Heaters 

Feedwater System 

Rotating machinery 

Piping 

Valves 

Piping—misc. items 

Instrumentation & control 

Extraction Steam System 

Piping 

Valves 

Piping—misc. items 

Instrumentation & control 

Feedwater Heater Vent & Drain System 

Piping 

Valves 

Pi pi ng—mi sc. i terns 

Instrumentation & control 

OTHER TURBINE PLANT EQUIPMENT 

Main Vapor Piping System 

Main steam system 

Hot reheat system 

Cold reheat system 

Attemperating system 

Turbine Auxiliaries 

Main steam/reheat vents & drain 

Turbine Closed Cooling Water System 

Rotating machinery 

Heat transfer equipment 

Tanks & pressure vessels 

Piping 

Valves 

Pi pi ng—mi sc. i terns 

Instrumentation & control 

Demineralized Water Make-Up System 

Chemical Treatment System 

Energy Information Administration/Estimating the Capital Costs of Ufe Extension for Fossil-Fuel Steam Plants 47 
P.53 

v *i 

Table D1. Concept-5 Subaccount Categories (Continued) 

Concept-5 

Account Number Account Title 

235.6 Neutralization System 

235.61 Rotating machinery 

235.63 Tanks nd pressure vessels 

235.65 Pipin. 

235.66 Valves 

235.67 Piping—misc. items 

235.68 Instrumentation & control 

236. INSTRUMENTATION & CONTROL 

236.1 Process Instrument/Control Equipment 

236.11 Benchboard, panels & racks 

236.2 Process Computer 

236.3 Turbine Plant Instrument/Control Tubing 

237. TURBINE PLANT MISC. ITEMS 

237.1 Misc. Suspense Items 

237.12 Field painting 

237.13 Qualification of welders 

237.3 Turbine Plant Insulation 

24 . ELECTRIC PLANT EQUIPMENT 

241. SWITCHGEAR' 

241.1 Generator Equipment Switchgear 

241.12 Generator neutraL grounding equipment 

241.13 Generator current & potential transformer 

241.2 Station Service Switchgear 

241.21 Medium voltage metal da d 

241.22 Station motor control cntr 

242. STATION SERVICE EQUIPMENT 

242.1 Station Service & Startup Transformer 

242.11 Unit auxiliary transformer 

242.12 Reserve auxiliary transformer 

242.13 Foundations for .transformers 

242.2 Unit Substations 

242.21 Load center switchgear 

242.22 Load center transformers 

242.23 Misc. transformers 

242.3 Auxiliary Power Sources 

242.31 Battery systems 

242.32 Emergency diesel generator system 

242.34 Inverters 

243. SWITCHBOARDS 

243.1 Control Panels 

243.11 Generator & aux. power system control panel 

243.14 Generator protective relay panel 

243.2 Auxiliary Power & Signal Boards 

243.21 Power distribution panels 

243.22 Battery control & DC distribution paneL 

48 Energy Infonnation Administration/Estimating the Capital Costs of Ufe Extension for Fossil-Fuel Steam Plants 
P.54 

Table D1. Concept-5 Subaccount Categories (Continued) 

Concept-5 

Account Number Account Title 

244. 

244.1 

244.11 

244.12 

244.2 

244.3 

244.4 

244.5 

245. 

245.1 

245.11 

245.2 

245.3 

246. 

246.1 

246.11 

246.2 

246.21 

246.22 

246.3 

246.4 

PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT 

General Station Ground System 

Equipment grounding system 

Yard.& structure grounding 

Fire Detection & Suppression 

Lightning Protection 

Cathodic Protection 

Heat Tracing & Freeze Protection 

ELECTRICAL STRUCTURE & WIRING CONTAINNERS 

Underground Duct Runs 

Duct banks 

Cable Tray 

Conduit 

POWER & CONTROL WIRING 

Generator Circuits Wiring 

Main generator bus duct 

Station Service Power Wiring 

High voltage bus & cable 

Low voltage bus 8 cable 

Control Cable 

Instrument Wire 

25 

251. 

251.1 

251.11 

251.16 

251.2 

251.21 

251.3 

251.34 

252. 

252.1 

252.11 

252.2 

252.21 

252.22 

252.24 

252.3 

252.31 

252.32 

252.33 

252.34 

252.35 

252.36 

252.38 

252.39 

MISCELLANEOUS PLANT EQUIPMENT 

TRANSPORTATION S LIFT EQUIPMENT 

Cranes & Hoists 

Turbine building crane 

Misc. cranes, hoists & monorails 

Railway Equipment 

Diesel locomotive 

Roadway Equipment 

Bulldozers 

AIR, WATER & STEAM SERVICE SYSTEM 

Air Systems 

Compressed air system 

Water Systems 

Service water system 

Fire protection 

Potable water system 

Auxiliary Steam System 

Auxiliary boiler system 

Auxiliary boiler feedwater system 

Auxiliary fuel oil system 

Auxiliary de-aerator & makeup system 

Auxiliary chemical feed system 

Auxiliary steam & condensate return 

Auxiliary boiler blowdown 

Aux. steam sys. complete instrumentation & controls 

Energy Information Administration/ Estimating the Capital Costs of Life Extension for Fossil-Fuel Steam Plants 49 
P.55 

TJTable D1. Concept-5 Subaccount Categories (Continued) 

—Concept-5 

Account Number Account Title 

252.4 Plant Fuel Oil System 

252.41 Rotating machinery 

252.43 Tanks and pressure vessels 

252.45 Piping 

252.46 Valves 

252.47 Piping—misc. items 

252.49 Foundations/skids 

253. COMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT 

253.1 Local Communications System 

.253.11 General purpose telephone system 

253.15 Public address & intercom system 

253.2 Signal Systems 

253.21 Fire detection system 

253.22 Security system 

254. FURNISHINGS & FIXTURES 

254.1 Safety Equipment 

254.11 Portable fire extinguishers 

254.2 Chemical Laboratory & Instrument Shop 

254.22 Shop apparatus 

254.23 Special laboratory furniture & fixtures 

254.3 Office Equipment & Furnishings 

254.31 Office furniture 

254.4 Change Room Equipment 

254.41 Lockers 8 benches 

254.5 Environment Monitoring Equipment 

254.52 Meteorological monitoring equipment 

254.53 Water quality monitoring 

254.54 Thermal effluent monitor 

254.56 Air quality monitoring 

254.6 Dining Facilities 

254.61 Cafeteria equipment 

255. WASTE WATER TREATMENT EQUIPMENT 

26 - MAIN CONDENSER HEAT REJECTION SYSTEM 

261- STRUCTURES 

261.1 Makeup Water Intake & Discharge Structure 

261.11 Intake structure 

261.12 Discharge structure 

261.2 Circulating Water Pump House 

261.21 BuiIding structure 

261.22 Building service 

261.3 Makeup Water Pretreatment Building 

261.31 Building structure 

261.32 Building services 

261.4 Cooling Tower Switchgear Building 

261.41 Bui tding-'structure 

261.42 BuiIding services 

so Energy Information Administration/Estimating the Capital Costs of Uf e Extension for Fossil-Fuel Steam Plants 
P.56 

Table D1. Concept-5 Subaccount Categories (Continued) 

Concept-5 

Account Number Account Title 

262. 

262.1 

262.11 

262.12 

262.13 

262.14 

262.15 

MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT 

Heat Rejection System 

Water intake equipment 

Circulating water system 

Cooling towers 

Cooling tower basins 

Main cooling tower makeup & blowdown system 

Energy Information Administration/Estimating the Capital Costs of Life Extension for Fossil-Fuel Steam Plants 51 
P.57