# GR E PU G FRE D EXP A MO U

Prepared 

## Puget S 10885 N Bellev u Submitte d 

## Washi n P.O. B o Olym p North w 1600 S o Moun t

October 2

URS Corp o 111 SW C o Portland, O (503) 222- 7 Pro j ect No 

# E ENH O G ET S O D ONI A A NSI O U NT V

for: 

## S ound E n N E 4 th 

## S t u e, Was h
d to:


## n gton St a o x 4760 0 p ia, Was h

w est Cle a

o uth Sec t Vernon ,
2 011

o ration o lumbia, Suite O regon 97201 7 200 ♦ Fax (5 0 . 33762289 

# O USE O UND

A GE N O N P R V ERN O

n ergy t reet h ington 9

a te Dep a 0 h ington 9

a n Air A g

ond Str e
, Washi n

1500 0 3) 222-4292 

# GAS B ENE R N ERA R OJE C O N, W

9 8009-9 7

a rtment o

9 8504-7 6 g ency e et n gton 98 2 

# B ACT R GY

TING C T W ASHI N

7 34

o f Ecolo g 6 00

2 73-520 2 

# ANA L STA T N GT O

g y

2 

# L YSI S T ION O N S

## TABLE 1.0 I n 2.0 P 2 2 2 3.0 E 3 4.0 P 4 5.0 G 5 5

5

5

5 TABLES T T T T T T
T 

## OF CON T
n troduction .. ro

j ect Desc r .1 Proje c 2.1.1 .2 Desc r .3 PSD A mission Inf o .1 Esti m SD Applica b .1 PSD A G HG BACT A n

.1 Intro d .2 BAC T 5.2.1 5.2.2 .3 BAC T 5.3.1 5.3.2 5.3.3 5.3.4 5.3.5 .4 BAC T 5.4.1 5.4.2 5.4.3 5.4.4 5.4.5 .5 BAC T

T able 3-1 T able 3-2 T able 5-1 T able 5-2 T able 5-3 T able 5-4
T able 5-5 

## T ENTS

..................... iption ........... c t Location . Land Use r iption of th e A pplicabilit y o rmation .......
m ated Emissi o

b ilit y

Anal y si s A pplicabilit y n al y sis ......... d uction ........ T Assessme n EPA RBL California T for Gas T u Step 1: A v Step 2: El i Steps 3: R Step 4: E v Step 5: Se T for Switc h Step 1: A v Eliminate Rank Re m Evaluate M Results .... Select the T for Emerg e
Estimated Estimated Large-sca l Institute i n Other Pos t CCS Insti t Efficienc y Without C Efficienc y With 90% Increment Turbine O .................... .

.................... .

. .................. .

. .................. . e Proposed S y ................. .

.................... . o ns for App l s

.................. . y Review ....

.

.................... .

. .................. . n t Methodol o C................

. BACT Det e u rbines ........

. v ailable Co n i minate Tec h R ank Remai n v aluate Mos t

lect the BA C h yard Break e v ailable Co n

Technicall y m aining Con t M ost Effecti v

. .................. . BACT .......

. e ncy Gener a
Annual Em Annual G H l e Integrate d n Execution t -Combusti o t ute – Propo y and CO 2 e E C CS..........

... y and CO 2 e E

CCS......

... al Emission O ptions ........

. i . .................... .

. .................... .

. .................. .

. .................. . S ource Mod i

. .................. .

. .................... . l icability A n

. .................... .

. .................. .

. .................... .

. .................. . o gy ............ .

. .................. . e rminations

.

. .................. . n trol Techno l h nically Inf e n ing Control t Effective C C T ..............

. e rs ............... . n trol Techno l y Infeasible O t rol Options

. v e Controls

. .................. .

. .................. . a tors ...........
.
issions for t h H G Emission d CCS Proje c

and Operati o o n CCS Proj e

se d or with O E missions fr o

... ............ E missions fr o

... ............ ...

Reduction C

. .................. . . ....................

. ....................

. .................. .

. .................. . i fication ......

.

. .................. .

. .................... n alyses ........

.

. ....................

. .................. .

. ....................

. .................. .

. .................. .

. .................. .

. .................. .

. .................. . l ogies .........

. e asible Opti o

Options .....

. C ontrols and

. .................. .

. .................. . l ogies .........

. O ptions .......

.

. .................. . and Docum e

. .................. .

. .................. .

. .................. .
h e Potential s by Polluta n c ts Listed b y on Stages ...

. e cts not Lis t O perational om Availab l

............ ... om Availab l

... ............ ... C ost Analys i

. .................. . Fredonia GH G .................... .

.................... .

. .................. .

. .................. .

. .................. .

. .................. .

.................... .

. .................. .

.................... .

. .................. .

.................... .

. .................. .

. .................. .

. .................. .

. .................. .

. .................. .

. .................. . o ns ............. .

. .................. . Document R

. .................. .

. .................. .

. .................. .

. .................. .

. .................. . ent

. .................. .

. .................. .

. .................. .
Turbine O p n t ...............
. y the Global

. .................. . t ed by the G l

Experience

. l e Turbine O

... ............ ...

l e Turbine O

............ ... i s fo rFive

. .................. . G BACT 2011.10. . .................... .

. .................... .

. .................. .

. .................. .

. .................. .

. .................. .

. .................... .

. .................. .

. .................... .

. .................. .

. .................... .

. .................. .

. .................. .

. .................. .

. .................. .

. .................. .

. .................. .

. .................. .

. .................. . R esults .......

.

. .................. .

. .................. .

. .................. .

. .................. .

. .................. .

. .................. .

. .................. .

. .................. .
p tions ..........

.

. .................. . CCS

. .................. . lobal

. .................. . O ptions

... ............. O ptions

... .............. .

. .................. 31.docx . ... 1-1

. ... 2-1

. .. 2-1

. .. 2-1

. .. 2-1

. .. 2-2

. ... 3-1

. .. 3-1

. ... 4-1

. .. 4-1

. ... 5-1

. .. 5-1

. .. 5-1

. .. 5-2

. .. 5-2

. .. 5-2

. .. 5-3

. .. 5-5

. 5-11

. 5-13

. 5-15

. 5-16

. 5-16

. 5-18

. 5-18

. 5-18

. 5-18

. 5-18

. .. 3-2

. .. 3-3

. .. 5-7

. .. 5-9 5-12

. 5-13
5- 17

## TABLE FIGURE S F ATTACH M A 

## OF CON T S

igure 2-1 M

ENTS A ttachment A 

## T ENTS

General L o Explanati o cation Ma p n – Cost o f

ii p ................. . f CO 2 Avoid e . .................. . ed

............... .

Fredonia GH G . .................. .

. .................. .

G BACT 2011.10. . .................. .

. .................. .

31.docx .. 2-3
. A-1

## TABLE List of A c BAAQ M BACT bhp bkW CARB CEC CCCT CCS CFR CH 4 CI CO 2 CO 2 e DC DCS DOE EOR EPA EPS FGS FP&L FR GE GHG GWP HHV HRSG kV kW LAER lb MSL MW MW-hr N 2 O NAAQS NETL NO x NSPS NSR 

## OF CON T
c ron y ms M D Bay best b rak e b rak e Cali f Cali f com b carb o cod e met h comp carb o carb o dire c distr i Unit e enh a Unit e emi s Fred Flori d Fed e Gen e gree n glob a high e heat kilo v kilo w low e pou n mea n meg a meg a nitr o Nati o Nati o nitr o new new 

## T ENTS

Area Air Q u available c o e -horsepow e e -kilowatt f

ornia Air R e f

ornia Ener g b ined cycle c o n capture a n e of federal r e h ane p ression ign i o n dioxide o n dioxide e c t current i buted contr o e d States D e a nced oil rec o e d States E n sion perfor m onia Gener a d a Power an d e ral Registe r e ral Electric n house gas a l warming p e r heating v a recovery st e v olt w att e st achievab l nd n sea level a watt a watt-hour o us oxide o nal Ambie n o nal Energy o gen oxides

source perf o source revi e u ality Mana g o ntrol techn o er

e sources Bo g y Commiss i

c ombustion n d sequestr a e gulation i tion

e quivalents

o l system e partment o f o very n vironmenta l m ance stand a a ting Station d Ligh t

p otential a lue e am generat o

l e emission r

n t Air Quali t

Technolog y

o rmance sta n e w iii g ement Dist r o logy

ar d i on turbine a tion

f Energy l Protection a r d

or

r ate

t y Standar d y Laborator y

n dar d r ict

Agency

y

Fredonia GH G BACT 2011.10. 31.docx

## TABLE NWCA A OAQPS PHPP PSD PSE RBLC SCAQ M SCR SF 6 SJVAP C tpy ULSD VAC VDC WAC 

## OF CON T A Nort h EP A Pal m prev e Pug e RA C D Sout h sele c sulf u C D San J tons ultra volt a volt a Was h 

## T ENTS

h west Clea n A Office of A m dale Hybri d

e ntion of si g e t Sound En e C T/BACT/L A

h Coast Air c tive catalyt i u r hexafluor i J oaquin Val l per yea r -low sulfur d a ge alternati n a ge direct c u h ington Ad m n Air Agenc y A ir Quality P d Power Pro j g nificant det e e rgy A ER Cleari n Quality Ma n i c reduction i de l ey Air Poll u d istillate n g current u rrent m inistrative C

iv y lanning and j ect e rioration

n ghouse n agement D i

u tion Contr o

C ode Standards

istrict

l District

Fredonia GH G BACT 2011.10. 31.docx

## SECTI O This sta n (GHGs) provide d (PSD) P Februar y analysis Applicat i emissio n Applicat i The foll o emissio n analysis f 

## O N 

# ON E nd -alone B e was prepar e d in support

ermit Appl i y 2011, and

previously i on. Those n summaries

i on are up t o
o wing secti o n s (Section 3

f

or GHGs ( S 

# E

e st Availabl e e d at the re q

of Puget S i cation for t revised Jul y provided i n Applicatio n in Section o date for all

o ns describ e 3 .0), assess S ection 5.0). e Control T q uest of the W S ound Ener g t he Fredoni a y and Octo b n Sections 5 n sections a

3.2 and de t PSD pollut a
e the Proje c PSD applic a

1-1 T echnology W ashingto n g y’s (PSE) a Generatin g b e r2011). T 5 .3.4 throu g a re now ob t ailed emiss i a nts includi n
c t (Section 2 a bility (Sec t (BACT) a n n Departme n

Prevention g Station E T his docum e g h 5.3.4.5 a solete and i on calculat i n g GHGs. 2 .0), summ a t ion 4.0), a n

Fredonia GH G n alysis for g n t of Ecolog y

of Signific a E xpansion P r e nt replaces a nd 5.4 of will not b e i ons in Att a

a rize the Pr n d p r ovide a 

### Introdu c

G BACT 2011.10. g reenhouse y (Ecology) a nt Deterio r r oject (sub m the GHG B the PSD P e updated. a chment A o

oject’s esti m a

detailed B 

### c tion

31.docx gases . It is r ation m itted B ACT P ermit

GHG o f the

m ated B ACT

## SECTI O 2.1 P The Fre d Vernon, south of Padilla B site, whi c elevatio n known s e 

### 2.1.1 L The reg i municip a Bayvie w lumber c 

### 2.2 D As state d provide a availabl e relativel y changes i will con t The pro p to the ex simple c y

• O
• O
• O
• T
The PS D made on procure m thermod y turbines a The pri m oil (UL S anticipat e than 336 and 5 (B A In additi o generato r event p o 

## O N 

# TW O P ROJECT L d onia Gene r Skagit Cou n the west en d B ay. The pr o

c h is appro x n of the fac i e nsitive rec e 

### and Use i on surroun a l an d indu w Airport an d

onversion f a 

### D ESCRIPTI O d in the Proj e a dditional p o e fuels. Th e y quickly t o i n method o inue to resp o p osed Proje c

isting FGS. y cle turbine O ne General O ne GE 7FA O ne Siemens T wo 100 M W
D Permit A p

the basis o f m ent effort s y namic and a nalyzed fo r m ary fuel for

S D) will b e e s that ope r

hours per y A CT) of th e o n to the tu r r(Caterpill a o wer could 

# O L OCATION
r ating Stati o n ty, Washin g d of the Ska g o posed Proje x imately 40 a i lity is appr e ptors nearb y

ding the P S s trial facili t d the Pacca r a cilities to t h 

### O N OF TH E
e ct’s PSD P e o wer genera t e Expansio n o meet sudd

f operation w o nd to short

c t involves t h

The Projec t options: Electric (G E .04 frame t u SGT6-500 0 W GE LMS1
p plication a d f a commerc i s , possibly

environme n rthe PSD P e

the new ga s e needed/us e

ation of the y ear. The ba c

PSD Permi t r bine(s), the a r C18, or e q

not be ba c o n (FGS) f a g ton (see Fi g g it Regiona l ct is not ex p a cres. The t e oximately 5 y to the faci l

S E site is p t ies in the i rTechnical h e south. 

### E PROPOS E
e rmit Appli c t ion capacit y n Project m

en changes w ill occur t o

- term syste m h e addition o t base desig n
E ) 7FA.05 f r u rbine, appr o 0 F4 frame t u 00 aeroderi v d dresses ea c i al and tech n

after air n tal perfor m e rmit Appli c s turbine uni t e d rarely w new comb u c k-up fuel u t Applicatio n Project inc l q uivalent) t o c k fed fro m 2-1 a cility is lo c g ure 2-1). T h Bayview A p ected to in c e rrain surro u 5 0 feet abo v l ity.

p rimarily i n i mmediate v Center, bot h 

### E D SOUR C
c ation, the p y to help m e m ust be cap a in system p o the exiting m

capacity r e o f one or tw o n will consi s

r ame turbine o ximately 1 8 u rbine, appr o v ative turbi n

c h of these n ical evalua t

permits a r m ance will m c ation. t (s) will be n w hen natura l

u stion turbi n u se is descri b

n . l udes one n o o supply the m

either th e cated at 13 he site is o n A irport, appr o c rease the c u u nding the fa v e mean se a

n dustrial a n v icinity, in c h north of t h 

### C E MODIFI C p urpose of t h e et future P S a ble of sta r p ower dem a

Fredonia G e quirements o simple cy c s t of one of t

e , approxim a 8 1 MW; o ximately 1 9 n es, totaling a

options. Fi n t ion by PSE r e issued. m eet or ex c

n atural gas. B l gas is no t n e unit(s) o n b ed further i

o minal 600 k

new units’ c e site's 23 0 

### Proj e

Fredonia GH G 085 Ball R n south side o ximately 2

. u rrent footpr i f

acility is es s a level (MS L

n d agricultu r c luding the h e PSE faci l 

### C

ATION h e proposed S E system n e r ting up an d a nds. No p h G enerating S t

as they cur r c le electric g t he followi n

a tely 207 m e 9 7 MW; or approximat e

n al turbine after furthe r The selec t c eed the pe r
B ack-up ult r t reasonabl y n ULSD wi l i n Sections 1
k ilowatt (kW c ritical elec t 0 kilovolt ( 

### e ct Descri p

G BACT 2011.10. R oa d near M

of Ovenell R

. 5 miles inl a i nt acreage o s entially fla t L ). There a r

r al, with s e

Skagit Re g l ity, and m u

Project will e eds using l o d shutting d h ysical chan g t ation units. r ently do. g enerating u n g high-effic

e gawatts (M W

e ly 200 M W
selection w i rengineerin g t ed equip m r formance o

ra -low-sulf u y available. l l occur no 1 .1 (Introdu c W ) diesel st a t rical loads i ( kV) or 11 5 

### p tion

31.docx M ount R oad, a nd of o f the t . The r e no

e veral g ional u ltiple

be to o cally d own ge or They

u nit(s)

iency
W );

W

. i ll be g and m ent’s o f the

u r fuel PSE more c tion)

a ndby i n the 5 kV

## SECTI O transmis s b attery b through needing Control S pump. I n and 120 VDC ba t quickly electrica l transmis s b atteries

. 1 hour p hours, fo The Pro j with sul f these ei g b reakers might b e 10 b rea k emissio n SFMT-4 0 Concept u through 2 in this G H 

### 2.3 P The exi s modific a regulato r emissio n 

## O N 

# TW O

s ion system s b ank to sup p

an inverter Essential P o S ystem (D C n the event o

VAC Essen t tery bank. H since they l ly driven l s ion system

. Testing an d er week, or r a total of u j ect’s propo f u rhexaflu o g ht breaker s

installed t o e emitted fr o k ers are incl u n s. Although

0 E or 200-S
u al plot pla n 2 -4 and Att a H G BACT A 

### PSD APPLI C
s ting facilit y a tion to the r y applicabi l n s provided b 

# O

s . The turbi n p ly a critic a

or directly o wer from o C S), p r otecti

o f a transm i tial Power B H owever, t h have large, l ubricating failure, an e d maintena n

52 hours p e u p to 275 ho u

s ed new 23 ride (SF 6 ), a s accommo d o replace so m o m switchy a

u ded in the specific m o F MT-63F b r n s for eac h a chment C-2 A nalysis. 

### C

ABILITY y is a PS D

existing s o l ity are pro v b elow in Se c n e(s) would b a l 120 VA C

from a 12 5 o ne or both ve relays a n i ssion syste m B uses could h e turbine u n heavy co m pumps. To e mergency g n ce operatio n

e r yea r . It i s u rs of emer g 0 kV switc h a

gaseous d d ating the n m e existing a rd breakers

Project’s P o dels have n r eakers (or s h of the fo u

in the PSD

D major so u o urce, there b v ided in Se c tion 3.1 of t

2-2 b e supplied C (voltage a l 5 VDC Ess e

of these so u n d a direct c m

failure an be kept ene n its have th e m ponents, s u prevent d g enerator is n s for the e m s estimated t g ency gener a h yar d will i ielectric co m n ew equip m units. A s m as a result o P SD Permit

ot been ide n s imilar) will
u r gas turbi n

Permit App

u rce. The p r b y triggeri n ction 4 of t h is docume n with a 125 V lternating c u e ntial Powe r u rces woul d c urrent (D C n d blackout o e rgized for a e potential t o u ch as rot o amage to t needed to p m ergency ge n

that emerge a to roperati o i nclude eig h m monly us e m ent, there w

m all amou n o f unavoida b Application n tified, PSE

be used.
n e options a lication. Th e

r oposed Pr o n g this PS D t he PSD P e n t. 

### Proj e

Fredonia GH G V DC (volta g u rrent) Ess e r Bus. Exa m d be the fac i C ) driven e m

o f the facili t a period of t i o expend th e o r bearings, t hese comp p rovide pow n erator are e e ncy use wi l o n annually. h t new circ u e d in breake r w ill also b e n t of the G H

b le leakage. n due to the i

expects tha t

a re provide d e se figures a

o

ject is co n D process. D e rmit Appli c 

### e ct Descri p

G BACT 2011.10. g e direct cu r e ntial Powe r m ples of d e i lity's Distri b m ergency lu b

t y, the 125 i me from th e e battery's p

that need onents dur i er to back u e xpected to o l l not excee d

u it b reakers

r s. In additi e two other H G pollutan

Therefore, i r potential t Mitsubishi
d in Figure a re not dupl i

n sidered a m D etails reg a c ation, and 

### p tion

31.docx rrent) rBus e vices b uted b e oil VDC e 125 p ower

large i ng a u p the

o ccur d 223
filled on to

new t SF 6 these GHG i 200-
s 2-2 i cated

m ajor a rding

GHG

## SECTI O

Figure 2- 

## N 

# TW O

1 – General Location M a p 2-3 

### Proj e

Fredonia GH G 

### ct Descri p

BACT 2011.10. 

### tion

31.docx

## SECTI O 3.1 E This exi s existing o Potentia l worst-ca s require m 7FA.04, Maximu m hours p e firing on this wor s is includ e emissio n A worst

also incl u estimate s GHG co m and SF 6 . calculat e emissio n Applicat i The Proj SF 6 ). Ci r fugitive b ased o n SF 6 in e a not yet b been as s Attachm e analyses , conversi o CO 2 e e m Further d Applicat i 

## O N 

# TH R E STIMATE D

s ting Fredo n o perations a t l annual em i s e operatin g m ents. Maxi m and Sieme n m

annual o p r year (for distillate is s t-case maxi e d in the an n n s on natural

- case maxi m u ded in the s for the fou r m pounds fr o The total c d using the n spreadshe e

i on and are n ect’s circui t r cuit breake r emissions. T n estimates f r a ch circuit b r b een chosen s umed for t e nt A-13 o f

, applying t h o n is also s h m ission total s

d etails rega r i on. 

# R EE D

EMISSIO N
n ia Generat i t the FGS e x i ssions for t h g scenarios m um annu a n s SGT6-50 p erating hou r

each of the included in mum of 33 6 n ual emissi o

gas. m um numbe r

annual emi s rturbine op t o m the Proj e c arbon diox i

Global W a e ts are incl u n ot duplicat e t breakers w r s do not e m T he rate of r om PSE fo r r eaker is ba s for this Pr o t he emissi o f the PSD P e h e 100-yea r h own in A t s shown in i n r ding PSD 

### N S FOR A P i ng Station x ceed 75,00 0 h e new gas

estimated a l operating

00F4) are e r s for the G E two units). the annual e 6 hours (co n o n estimates

rof start-up s s sion estima t t ions. Table e ct: carbon d i de equival e a rming Pote n u ded in At t e d in this do c w ill have the m it SF 6 nor m leakage is rprevious e q s ed on equi p o

ject, the e q n calculati o e rmit Appli c rSF 6 GWP t tachment A n Attachme n applicabilit y

3-1 

### P PLICABILI

(FGS) is a 0 tons per y e

turbine uni t b y PSE, a n

hours for e xpected to E LMS100’ s

A maximu m e mission est i n secutive or n

only if poll u

s and shutd o t es. Table 3

- 3-2 provide s d ioxide (C O e nts (CO 2 e) n tial (GWP ) t achment A c ument. potential t o m ally, but do

conservativ e q uipment w h p ment speci f q uipment op t o ns. Emissi o c ation. The of 23,900 t A -13, and th e n t A-1 of the y are addre s 

### I TY ANAL Y major sour c e ar (tpy). t s and auxil i n d were g e

the Frame be approxi m s are expec t m of 336 h o i mates. On a n onconsecu t u tant emissi o

o wns on bo t

- 1 summari z s a breakdo w O 2 ), methan e

for each e q ) for each i n A of the Pr o

o emit a ve r

have the p o e ly assume d h ich showe d f ications. B e t ion with th e o n calculat i breaker em i t o convert S e breaker e m PSD Permi t s sed in Sec t 

### Emissi o

Fredonia GH G 

### Y SES

c e of GHG. iary equip m e nerated fr o

turbines ( G m ately 240 0 t ed to be ap p o urs (equiv a a pollutant- b t ive) firing o o ns on ULS D

t h natural g a z es potentia l w n of the p o e (CH 4 ), nitr o q uipment u n n dividual p o oject’s revi

r y small am o o tential for m d to be 0.5 d lower rate s e cause speci e highest v o i on details i ssions are u S F 6 emissio n m issions ar e t Applicatio n tion 4.1 of 

### o n Inform a

G BACT 2011.10. Emissions

m ent are bas e o m forecast G E 7FA.05 0 hours per p roximately a lent to 14 y-pollutant b o n backup U D are highe r

a s and ULS D l annual em i o tential indi v

ous oxide ( N n it is also s h o llutant. De t sed PSD P

o unt of GH G m inor leaka g

percent pe r s . The quant fic breakers o lume of S F

are provid e u sed in the n s to CO 2 e. e included i n . the PSD P 

### a tion

31.docx from

e d on

load , GE year. 3200 days) b asis, U LSD r than
D are i ssion v idual N 2 O), h own, t ailed ermit
G (as g e, or ryea r ity of have F 6 has e d in GHG

This i n the
P ermit

## SECTI O

Pollu t

N O C O S O TS P PM PM 2 VO C H 2 S O

P b CO 2 (1) 40 CFR 5 Notes:

• E m e q A t

• S O 1 0

• S i 4 0

• V a

• G F o e m e s



## O N 

# TH R

Es t

t ant
O x O O 2

P
10 2 .5 C O 4 b
2 e 3 1.166(b)(48)(v)( b

m issions estima t q uipment vendo r t tachment A of t h O 2 and particula t 0 0 standard cubi
i gnificant Emissi o 0 CFR 51.166(b )

a lues shown in i t as turbine CO 2 e o r reasons cite d m issions; emiss i s timates. 

# R EE

imated Ann u E
GE 7FA.05 32 58 7 43 43 43 6 16 0.0200 3 11,631 b ).

t es are inclusive r data (as provid e h e Project’s PS D t e emissions are c foot (scf) [gr/1 0

o n Rate (SER) p ) (48)(v)(b).
t alic exceed the S emissions in th i d in Section 5. 3 i ons of other G H T u al Emissio n E xpected Inc r GE 7FA.04 31 39 6 43 43 43 5 14 0.0194 274,752

of the turbine(s) e d by Black & V e D Permit Applicat

based on histor i 0 0 scf] reported a
p er 40 CFR 52.2 1

S ER. s table are bas e 3 .1 of this GH G H Gs (including

3-2 T able 3-1 n s for the Po t r eased Emi s (tpy) Sieme n SGT 6 5000 F 38 160 6 32 32 32 20 17 0.019 4 302,0 2

, one emergenc y e atch and PSE) a ion for details). i c annual avera g a t the Williams N
1 (b)(23)(i) and W

e d on CO 2 emis s G BACT Analys i N 2 0, CH 4 , and S tential Turbi s sions
n s 6 - F 4 GE L (2 U 3 3
4 4 4

4 0. 0 2 3 32 7

y generator and s a nd operating s c
g e sulfur content N orthwest Pipeli n
W AC 173-400-03 0

s ion estimates in i s, CO 2 is the p S F 6 ) are in the 

### Emissi o

Fredonia GH G ne Options

( P L MS100 U nits) 37 31 8 45 45 45 8 17 0 193 7

,826

switchyard brea k c enarios provide d

in natural gas o f n e Sumas comp r
0 . The PSD Thr e

PSD Permit A p p redominant co n noise level (le s 

### o n Inform a

G BACT 2011.10. Significan t Emission R a P SD Thresh o (tpy)

40 100 40 25 15 10 40 7 0.6 75,000

k ers, and are ba s d by PSE (see

f 2.25 grains (gr) r essor station.

e shold for CO 2 e i

p plication Attach m n tributor to tota s s than 0.01%) 

### a tion

31.docx t a te o ld)

s ed on

) per

i s from

m ent A. a l CO 2 e

of CO 2

## SECTI O

Source Turbine O

Siemens GE L M Emergen c Circuit Br e Notes:
• E m th P e

• E m 

## O N 

# TH R

O ption: GE 7FA. 0 GE 7FA. 0 SGT6-5000 F M S100 (2 Unit s

c y Generator

e akers

m issions of indi v e turbine(s), on e e rmit Applicatio n

CO 2 : 1 CH 4 : 21 N 2 O: 310 SF 6 : 23,900 m ission calculati 

# R EE

Estima t
CO 2

0 5 309,3 6 0 4 272,7 3 F 4 299,7 6 s ) 325,3 1 128. 2

--

v idual GHG com e emergency g e n Attachment A. C

ons are provide d T t ed Annual G

2 C

6 4 0. 0 3 3 0. 0 6 6 0. 0 1 2 0. 0 2 8 0. 0

pounds (CO 2 , C e nerator and sw C O 2 e emissions

d in Attachment A

3-3 T able 3-2 G HG Emissi o
C H 4

0 4057 0 3560 0 4039 0 4556 0 0702

-- C H 4 , and N 2 O) a n

itchyard breake r are calculated u s

A of the Project’ s o ns by Pollu t tpy N 2 O

6.506 5.710 6.477 7.306

--

--

n d the summati o r s, and are bas e sing the followin g

s PSD Permit A p 

### Emissi o

Fredonia GH G t ant
SF 6

--

--

--

--

-- 0.00503

o n CO 2 e emissi o e d on more det a g GWP’s for ea c

p plication. 

### o n Inform a

G BACT 2011.10. CO 2
311, 3 274, 5 301, 7 327, 5 128. 4 120. 1

o ns in this table a iled estimates c h GHG compou n 

### a tion

31.docx 2 e

3 82 5 03 7 75 5 77 4 3 1 0
include in PSD n d:

## SECTI O 4.1 P Ecology divided Northwe defer to Environ m some PS D The exis t The PS D new uni t case for t Project’ s PSD rul e equipme n demonst r pollutan t 

## O N 

# FO U PSD APPLI C

is the stateinto multip l st Clean Ai r

Ecology fo m ental Prot e D pollutant s t ing facility D NSR proce

s’ potential t he propose d GHG emis s e s require a n t and proc e r ates that t h t s is address e 

# U R

C

ABILITY R level gover n l e air poll u rAgency’s ( fo r major s o e ction Age n s including G

is a PSD m a ss is requir e to emit exc e d Project, as s ions. BACT anal y e dures. Sect i h e Project w e d in Sectio n 

### R EVIEW
n ing body f o u tion contro l ( NWCAA) a o urce attai n n cy (EPA) c G HGs.
a

jor source w ed for GHG’ s e eds 75,000

shown abo v
y sis to ensu r i on 5 of thi s w ill meet B A n 5 of the P S

4-1 o r air qualit y l agencies. a uthority. T h n ment per m c urrently ov e

w ith potenti a s from new e tpy CO 2 e ( 4 v e in Table 3

r e the use o s document p A CT requir e S D Permit A p 

### P S

y in Washin

The Proje c h e regional a m itting issue

e rsees New

a l GHG em i e mission un 4 0 CFR 51. 1 3 -1. As a res
f the most e p resents a t h e ments for G A pplication. 

### S D Applic a

Fredonia GH G gton. In ad d c t site is lo a ir pollutio n s, such as

Source Re v i ssions exce e n its at major

1 66(b)(48)( v s ult, BACT i

e ffective air h orough B A G HG. BAC 

### a bility Ana l

G BACT 2011.10. d ition, the s t cated withi n n control ag e

PSD. The v iews (NS R
ed ing 75,00 0 sources wh e v )(b)). This i i s required f o pollution c o A CT analysi s

T for other 

### l ysis

31.docx t ate is n the e ncies

U.S. R ) for
0 tpy. e n the i s the o r the

o ntrol s , and

PSD

## SECTI O 5.1 I N 40 CFR each po l energy, e BACT r e standard s As state d
●

●

● 

### 5.2 B In a De Radiatio n This top

R eview W Step the s p Step Step hiera r Step Step econ o If the ap p 4 is not NWCA A determi n 

## O N



# FIV E N TRODUC T 51.21(j) de f l lutant.” B A e nvironmen t e quirements s . There are d in Section 2 Simple c y consider e o One G
o One G
o One S
o Two G A 600 k W (approxi m Substatio n 

### B ACT ASS E

cember 1, n , the agen c

- down BAC T W

orkshop M 1. Identify p ecific emis s 2. Eliminat e 3. Rank re m r chy; 4. Evaluate 5. Select B A o mic, envir o p licant prop o

necessary. A staff, it w a n ations to id e 

# E T ION f ines BACT A CT determ i

t al, and eco n may be mo r presently n o 2 .2 above, t h y cle gas tu r d by PSE: G E 7FA.05 f G E 7FA.04 f S iemens SG T G E LMS 10 0 W emergenc y m ately 890 b
n breakers c 

### E SSMENT M

1987 mem o c y recomme n T analysis p Ma nua l , 1990 all availabl e s ion unit fo r e all technic a m aining con t

most effect i A CT, which o nmental, a n o ses to impl e

During PS a s agreed t h e ntify the to p as emissio n i nations are n omic impa c r e stringent, o GHG emis h ree air emi s r bine gener a f rame turbin e f rame turbin e T 6-5000F4 f 0 aeroderiv a y generator rake-horsep ontaining S F 

### M

ETHODO L
o randum fr o n ded use of p rocess cons i

):
e control te c rthe regulat e a lly infeasib t rol technol o i ve controls a

will be the m n d/or energy

e ment the m E’s June 1 6 h at PSE’s B A p current co n

5-1 n limits “ba s

made on a c ts, and othe

but not les s sion standa r s sion source
a tor(s), for w

e ; e ; f rame turbin e a tive turbine s

(Caterpillar ower (bhp)) F 6 . 

### L OGY
o m the EP A

a “top-dow n i sts of five s

c hnologies w e d pollutant u le control te
o gies by co n

a nd docum e m ost effecti v impacts.
m ost effectiv e

6 , 2010 pr e A CT analy s n trol levels a s ed on maxi m

case-by-ca s r costs. s stringent t h r ds for the P r

types are p r w hich four e

e; or s . with Mode l , or similar m

A Assistant n ” methodo l s teps (from t

w ith practic a

under evalu a chnologies;
n trol effecti v

e nt results; a n v e practical

e or "top" a v e application s is would r e a chieved in p 

### GHG

Fredonia GH G m um degre e s e basis, ta k
h an other ap p r oject’s pro p r oposed for t e quipment o

l C18 ATA A m ake and m

Administr a logy for de t t he EPA’s D

a l potential f ation;

v eness and t
nd option not r

v ailable con t

meeting w e ly on recen p ractice. 

### BACT Ana l

G BACT 2011.10. e of reducti o k ing into ac c
p licable em i p osed sourc e t his project:
o ptions are b

A C Tier 2 e n odel).

a tor for Ai r t ermining B A D raft New S o f

or applicat i

t abulate a c o

r ejected, bas e
t rol strategy , w ith Ecolog y n t relevant B 

### l ysis

31.docx o n for c ount
i ssion e s.
b eing

n gine

rand A CT. o urce i on to

o ntrol

e d on

, Step y and B ACT

## SECTI O Three s o turbines i

• E

• C

• I n l o Because technolo g 2006 to d 

### 5.2.1 E BACT d turbine g RBLC c Applicat i PSD pol l for GH G 

### 5.2.2 C In addit i determi n evaluate d states b e Emissio n control o The CA R The last turbine w A well- d Californ i b y the C E identify s certifica t #approv e BACT e m PSD Per m emissio n 

### 5.3 B This sec t 2011. N o Code ( W in Sectio 

## O N



# FIV E

o urces were i n the past 5 E PA’s RAC T C alifornia Ai
n formation f o cal air qual i

BACT det e g y and ope r d ate were in c 

### E PA RBLC

eterminatio n g enerator u n ontains a w i on summa r l utants for n G s were foun d 

### C alifornia B A

i on to eval n ations liste d d . Californi a e cause Cal i n Rate (LA o ptions. R B BACT C

BACT det e w as dated 19 d ocumented s i a, any new p E C prior to c s imilar larg e t ion projects ed ). Air per m m ission lim i m it Applica t n s from simp 

### B ACT FOR G

t ion addres s o t directly r W AC) 173-4 0 n 9 of the P S 

# E

reviewed t o years (200 6 T /BACT/LA

r Resources f

or Californi i ty manage m e rminations r ating expe r c luded in th i

n s identifie d n its since 20 w ide range o r izes the ra n n atural gas a n

d in the RB L 

### A CT Determ uating BA C d in the C a BACT de t i fornia’s B A E R) requir e C learinghou s e rmination e

99. These d e s ource of re c p ower plant c onstructio n e utility-scal e

are summa r m its to const r i tations. Cal i t ion. To dat e le cycle gas 

### G AS TUR B s es PSD B A r elated to B 0 7 performa n S D Permit A o identify r e 6 to date): ER Clearin g Boar d (CA R a Energy C o m ent district generally b r ience impr o i s analysis.

d in the RB L

06 are liste d o f BACT e n ges of BA C n d diesel-fi r L C for simp l



### inations C T determi n C ARB Clea r t erminations A CT defini t e ments, wh i

s e was revi e e ntered into e terminatio n c ent power p unit similar n . The CEC’ s

e simple cy c r ized at http: r uct for eac h i fornia BAC e , no PSD B A

turbines in C 

### B INES A CT requir e B ACT, com p n ce standar d A pplication. 5-2 e levant BA C
g house (RB L R B) BACT C
o mmission ( C findings. b ecome inc r o ve over ti m

L C for larg e d in Table 5 mission li m C T emissio n r ed gas turbi n l e cycle gas

n ations rep o r inghouse a

are often m t ion is eq u i ch does n o

e wed. This d the clearin g n s are consi d p lant permit t

in size to P S s power pla n c le gas turbi n

//www.ener h identified s T determin a A CT deter m C alifornia.

e ments for G p liance wit h d and mitiga t C T determi n
L C), C learingho u CEC) powe r

r easingly s t m e, only pr o

e utility-scal e 5 -1 of the P m itations. T a n limits fou n nes. No top

turbines.

o rted in th e a nd CEC p m ore stringe n u ivalent to o t consider
d atabase is n g house for u d ered outdat e t ing inform a S E’s propos e n t siting cas e n e power pr o r gy.ca.gov/s i s iting case w a tions are su m m inations ha v

G HGs that b h applicable t ion require m 

### GHG

Fredonia GH G n ations for

u se, and
rplant sitin g
t ringent as o

jects that w

e simple cy c P SD Permit a ble 5-2 of n d in the R

- down BA C

e RBLC, C p ermitting i n

nt than dec i federal Lo w the econo m no longer r e u tility-scale ed

. a tion is the C e d project m e list was re v o

jects (curre i tingcases/al w ere review e

m marized i n v e been co m

b ecame eff e Washingto n m ents for G H 

### BACT Ana l

G BACT 2011.10. simple cycl e

g cases, incl u emission c o w ere appro v

c le industri a Application the PSD P R BLC for v a C T determin a

C alifornia B n formation i sions from w est Achie v m ic feasibili

e gularly up d simple cycl
C EC. In m ust be certi f v iewed to nt and past C l_projects.h t e d to identif y n Table 5-3 o m pleted for G

e ctive Janu a n Administ r H Gs, is addr

### l ysis

31.docx e gas

u ding

o ntrol v ed in

a l gas . The P ermit a rious a tions

B ACT

were other v able ty of
d ated. e gas

f ied C EC t ml y o f the G HG

a ry 2, r ative essed

## SECTI O Detailed Permit A (CO 2 ) is Sumas a n reported combine d combine d emissio n gas turb i Therefor GWPs o contribu t analysis f Althoug h Washin g(lb/MWPSD Per m propose d GHG e m shutdow n Project a start-ups operatin g BACT f o pollutan t 

### 5.3.1 S Accordi n 2011), a v designs, pollutin g b y the p e Project a Fuel sel e Viable e x gas prod u Accordi n emissio n Fuel eff i fuel bur n During e generato r generati o consider e 

## O N



# FIV E GHG emis A pplication a

by far the d n d Mint Fa r

to Ecolog y d are less th a d CH 4 and N n s contribut e i nes both i n e, it is reas o o f 21 for C H t e less than 3 f

ocuses on C h there is n o g ton has an e

hr) for b as e m it Applica d Project.
m issions are n s compare d a re all capa b

and shutd o g modes (ot h
o r GHGs is d t s. 

### S tep 1: Avail
n g to EPA's v ailable co n the use of g processes t e rmit applic a re summari z e ction. The x isting loca l u ces less C O n g to EPA A n s than burni n i cient en g in e n e d . More e f e arly projec t roptions t h o n. The fou r e d along wi t 

# E

sions calcu l a nd results d ominant G r m Generati n y and NW C a n 0.01% by N 2 O emissio n e more than n clude selec t o nable to ex p H 4 and 31 0 3 percent to t C O 2 emissio n o federal ne w e mission p e e loa d power t ion, Washi n a function d to full loa d b le of achie v o wns on t h h er than star t d etermined b 

### able Contr o recent PSD n trol techno add-on con t t hat would fu a nt need not z ed below.

type of fu fuel option s O 2 than b ur n A P-42 emiss i

n g natural g e technolo gy f ficient engi n t developm e h at could b rsimple cy c t h two addit i l ations are p are summa r G HG polluta n

n g Stations i C AA) dem o y weight of s n s are less t h 99 percent o t ive catalyt i p ect a simil a 0 for N 2 O (

t he P r oject’ s n s from the g w source p e e rformance s

plants (W A n gton's EPS
of fuel co d operation. v ing fast st a h e GHG e m t -up and sh u b y the sam e


### o l Technolo g and Title V logies shou t rols and c o fu ndamental l

be conside r

e l burned d s for the Pr o n ing fuel oil i on factors, b as, but high e y . CO 2 e em i n es emit les s e nt evaluati o e used to s c le gas turbi n i onal simpl e 5-3 p rovided in r ized in Ta b n t for the P i n 2009 (re q o nstrated t h s ource-teste d h an 1 perce n o f the CO 2 e i c reduction a r emission s ( the GWP o s total CO 2 e g as turbine s e rformance s s tandard (E P A C 173-407

does not a p nsumption w The four si m a rt-ups and m issions. T h u tdown) whi c e five step t o 

### g ies Permitting ld include l o mbinations l y redefine t r e d . Potenti a d etermines t h o

ject include due to the l o b urning dist i e r overall C O i ssions are t h s CO 2 e relat i o ns, PSE i d s atisfy the P n e generato r e cycle gas t u Attachmen t b les 3-1 an d

roject. Prev q uired by W h at actual e d CO 2 emiss i n t of a gas t u e total. (Not e

(SCR) an d s relationshi p o f CO 2 is 1

emissions. F s tack(s).
s tandard (N S P S) of 1,10 0 -130). As d p ply to pea k
which is m m ple cycle g shutdowns, h is BACT a c h dominat e o p-down pr o

Guidance f o l ower emitt i

of the two

. t he nature o f a lly availabl e he amount e natural gas o wer carbo n illate fuel o i O 2 e emissio n h e direct res u i ve to the a m d entified se v

Project’s r a rmodels na m u rbine engi n 

### GHG

Fredonia GH G t s A-1 and d 3-2 above

. v ious source W AC 173-40 7

e missions o f i on rates. C o u rbine’s CO 2 e : the Suma d oxidation p for the Pr o ), these tw o F or these re a S PS) for G H 0 pounds p e d iscussed in k ing power p

m inimal dur i

g as turbines

which red u a nalysis fo c e GHG emis s o cess outlin e

o r Greenho u i ng process e

. However, f the source e control te c of GHG p o and fuel oi l n /hydrogen c i l produces l n s. ult of the a m m ount of ele c v en modern , a pi d -start p e m ed in this n e generator 

### BACT Ana l

G BACT 2011.10. A-3 of the

. Carbon di o

testing at P 7 , and previ f CH 4 and o nverted to C 2 e emissions s and Mint catalyst sys o

ject). Eve n o pollutant s a sons, this B
H Gs; the St a e r megawatt

Section 9 o p lants such a i ng start-up s

proposed f o u ces the eff e c uses on n o s ions. ed above fo r

u se Gases ( M e s, practice s inherently l s being pro p c hnologies f o

o llutants e m l . Burning n a c ount in me t l ess CH 4 an d

m ount and t y c tricity pro d

, efficient e n e aking elec t

application rmodels (58 

### l ysis

31.docx PSD o xide P SE’s ously

N 2 O C O 2 e, . CO 2 Farm tems. n with s will B ACT

a te of -hour o f the a s the

s and o r the e ct of o rmal

rPSD

M arch

s and l ower p osed o r the

m itte d

.

a tural t hane. d N 2 0
y pe of d uce d

.

n gine t ricity

were MW

## SECTI O Pratt an d technolo g the latte r the Proj e Ignoring less GH G technolo g As state d and ofte n for conti n are more The mo d generati o start and can take since th e structura time cha r and oth e operator unit is st a increase major m a Both Sie that coul these a r construc t types of interest o “test” cu In contr a operatin g proven t e in use. capacity demand. b eing a b them, on It may b generati n predicta b minimu m which is 

## O N



# FIV E d Whitney g y (17 MW rthree optio n e ct’s capacit y

a longer st a G emission s g y; howeve r d previousl y n short-term n uous oper a cost-effecti v d ern CCCT o n needs. I n

stop than a anywhere f r e unit was l l damage t o r acteristic, C e r consuma b

seeks to ru n a rted in ord e annual mai n a intenance o mens and G d have the c e unprove n t ed and ope r facilities ra r o f PSE’s ra t s tomer for s u a st, the simp g loads wit h e chnologies

.

PSE’s pur p that is ca p PSE needs b le to start g

l y to restart b e possible n g needs i n b le. Howev e m

size of ve n above the c 

# E FT8-3’s a n Wartsila m o n s, b anks o f y requireme n a rtup to ful l s per MW- h r , it is not a n y in this app

peak powe r a tion applic a v e for peaki n

power pla n n other wor d

peaking po w r om 3-8 ho u l ast operate d o the steam C CCTs are e x b les require d n the unit fo r e r to justify t n tenance c o o utages whi c G E have rec e c apability to n technolog r ated a fast s r ely operate t epayers to t u ch a plant. p le-cycle t u h in approxi m

. Note that t h p ose in exp a p able of re s

to respond g enerators q them again w

to use th e n applicatio n e r, PSE’s p e n dors’ curr e c apacity tha t n d 41 M W o del 18V50 D f three to ten n ts. l load, a co m h r of electr i n available t e lication, th e rdemand o n a tions, simp l n g applicati o n t is desig n d s, they are d

w er plant o p u rs to start a n

d , as they r generating u x pensive to d to bring t h

multiple d a t he expense o sts fo rCC C c h are costly

. e ntly annou n

come up to i es. To P s tart CCCT.

as expecte d t ake on this

u rbines that m ately 10 m h e GE Fra m a nding the F s ponding q u

to real-tim e q uickly, ope r

w hen syste m e se fast sta r n s when s t e aking gene r e ntly propos t PSE is se e 5-4 W GE LM6

D F’s). Due t

or more en g

m

bine d cyc l i city genera t e chnology t h Project obj n PSE’s sys t l e cycle co m o ns. n ed to serv e d esigned to o p erates. In P n d reach 10 0 r equire ver y u nit and ste a start due to h e entire u n a ys, or at the

of the start. C Ts and ca n

. n ced plans t o

partial loa d P SE’s kno w

This prese n d in the firs t

type of tec
PSE is con m inutes, an d m e 7FA.05 i s

F GS is to p u ickly and r e changes i n r ate them f o m

demands r e r t CCCT u n t art times a r ation need s ed new fast e king to me e 6 000’s), plu

t o the indiv i g ine genera t
l e combusti o t e d due to h at would m j ective is to t em. Althou g m

bustion tur b

e intermedi o perate for l P SE’s expe r 0 % loa d , de p y careful th e am turbine s the amount s n it up to te m

very least, a In additio n n significan t

o offer fast s d within as f e w ledge, nei t n ts substant i t generation

. c hnology ris k

sidering ca n d most of t h s new techn o p rovide add i r eliably to n electricity o r a short-p e equire.
n its to add r a nd steady- s s do not fit t start comb i e t projected 

### GHG

Fredonia GH G u s one reci p i dual genera t ors would b

o n turbine ( the higher e m eet the Proj

respond to gh a CCCT b ines are be
ate and b a s l ong period s r ience com b p ending on t e rmal man a s . Because s of fuel, ba c m perature. a whole day n , frequent s t t ly reduce t
start versio n fe w as 10 m i t her comp a i al technolo g

. It would n k . PSE is u

n start and r h e turbine o o logy that is i tional “pe a rapid chan g demand, w h e riod of ti m d ress interm e

s tate load r

that profil e i ned cycle u

needs. Thi s 

### BACT Ana l

G BACT 2011.10. p rocating e n a ting capacit i b e needed to

CCCT) pro d e fficiency o ect require m rapidly cha n is more ef fi e st suited fo r

s eload elec t s of time be t b ined cycle p t he length o f a gement to a

of this lon g c k feed elec t Acco r dingl y for each ti m t art-ups gen e t he time be t

n s of CCCT i nutes. Ho w a ny has ac t g ical risk as n ot be in th e u nwilling to
reach stead o ptions are yet to be p r a king” gene r g es in elec t h ich often m m e, and the n

ediate elec t r equirement s e . In additio u nits is 270 s technolog y 

### l ysis

31.docx n gine i es of meet
d uces o f the m ents.

n ging fi cient r , and

t ricity t ween p lants f time a void g start t ricity y , the m e the

e rally t ween

units w ever,

t ually these e best be a

statewellr oven r ating t ricity m eans n stop
t ricity s are n the MW, y also

## SECTI O currentl y This hig h operate t o Using c o it is not a Carbon sequestr a GHG co n CO 2 is t h As note d permits d turbines. Calpine R Portland gas turbi n practice. PSD Per m the Pal m solar tec h EPA’s B 1) the u s technica l and Amb SE 09-0 1 EPA co n (i.e., by p the PHP P EPA als o capture a Ecology ’ emissio n Availabl e the flue simple-c y demonst r turbine u 

### 5.3.2 S In this s t they are n identifie d First, ex c gas is no 

## O N



# FIV E y offers con t h er minimu m o support P S
o mbine d cyc a n available

capture a n a tion (CCS) n trol techn o h e dominant d above, the d i d not ide n

Voluntary B R ussell Cit y General El e n e. In both v The use of n m it Numbe r m dale Hybri d

h nology an d ACT analy s s e of new t h l ly infeasibl e b ient Air Q u 1 , Section 7 n cluded that p ipeline) w a P and was n o concluded a nd sequestr ’ s request.) E n s fro m the P
e technolog i gas of a c o y cle comb u r ated in pra c u nit(s). 

### S tep 2: Elimi

t ep of the B n ot feasible d in Step 1 s h
c lusive use o t reasonabl y 

# E

t inuous emi s m load wou l S E’s genera t le technolo g technology o n d sequestr a

should be c o logies are c

carbon co m EPA RBL C n tify any B A B ACT anal y y Energy C e e ctric’s Port v oluntary B A n atural gas a rSE 09-01 w d Power Proj d two comb i s is for GHG h ermally ef f e in EPA’s u ality Impac t 7 .1.4). Whil e

transport o f a s not feasib n ot conside r that it is no r ation optio n E PA found t P HPP’s prop i es necessar y mbustion t u u stion turbi n c tice for th e 

### nate Techn B ACT anal y

for implem e h oul d b e eli m o f natural ga y available a t s sion guara n l d reduce th e t ion system n g y would re q o ption for c o a tion. Acc o c onsidered a u rrently de m mp ound emit t

C , Californi a A CT determ y ses were p e e nte r Projec t W estward I I A CT analys e a s the prima r w as recentl y ect (PHPP) i ned cycle G emissions f r f icient CCC T BACT anal y t Report – P e EPA dete r f the capture d

l e. As a res u r ed b eyond t necessary n s are both t he use of t h osed CCCT s y to capture , u rbine exist. n es in pe a e scale or a p



### ically Infeas y sis, potenti a e ntation at t h m inated as n s as fuel is n t the Project 5-5 n tees only a e number o f n eeds. q uire the Pr o o nsideration
o rding to re c

a potentiall y m onstrate d i n t ed by the P r a BACT Cl e inations for e rformed fo r t , a combin e I Project, w h e s, CCS wa s r y fuel was c y issued by E

in southern G E Frame 7 F r om the CC C T s, and 2) t y sis (see E P P almdale H y r mined that, d CO 2 from u lt, CCS wa s BACT Ste p to evaluate t analyzed in h ermally ef f s .

, compress, t

However, e a king appli c p plication si m


### s ible Optio n a lly availab l h e proposed n ot feasible f
n ot feasible b

location, y e a t approxim a f hours at w h

o

ject objecti v n in this BA C
c ent EPA g u y available c n practice f o r oject’s pro p e aringhouse

GHG emis rtwo projec t ed cycle co m h ich include s s found to b c onsidered B E PA Regio n California. T F A CCCTs C Ts conside r t he use of C P A Region I y brid Power

in general, the PHPP t o s found not p 2. Becaus e t he feasibili t

more detai l f icient tech n
t ransport, i nj experience w c ations is l m ilar to the



### n s l e control t e

Project. In t f

or applicati o b ecause the r e t PSE may n 

### GHG

Fredonia GH G a tely 50% l o h ich the Pro j

v e to be red C T evaluati o u idance, ca r c ontrol opti o fo r simple c y p osed new s o

and a revie w s sions from t s permitted m

b ustion tu r s a simple c y e unavailab l B ACT.
n IX on Oct o T he propos e to generate r ed two con t C CS. CCS w I X. August Project PS D CCS is tec h o potential s to be techn i e transport w t y of CO 2 s t l below for n ology to be nj ect, and se q

w ith CCS t e l imited, an d Project’s p

e chnologies t his case, th r on to the Pr o r e may be ti m n eed to ope r 

### BACT Ana l

G BACT 2011.10. o ad or 135 j ect unit(s) c efine d ; ther e o n. r bon captur e o n. Howev e y cle gas tur b o urces. w of recent simple cycl in late 201 0 r bine projec t y cle GE L M l e or infeasi b

o ber 18, 20 1 e d PHPP in c

electrical p o t rol technol o w as eliminat

2011. Fact S D Permit N u h nically fe a equestratio n i cally feasib l w as not fe a t orage. (Not e

PSE’s Proj e BACT fo r
q uester CO 2 e chnologies d has not p roposed ne w

are elimina t r ee of the o p o

ject.
m es when n a r ate the Proj e 

### l ysis

31.docx MW. c ould

e fore,

e and e r, no b ines.

CEC e gas 0 : the t , and M S100

b le in
1 1 for c ludes o we r . o gies: ed as S heet u mber a sible, n sites

le for a sible,

e that e ct at GHG
from with been w gas

t ed if p tions

a tural e ct to

## SECTI O meet its Project o Second, o the Proj e quality m emissio n Ambient Third, C C will be c a CCS co n the CO 2 sequeste r There ar e combust i the CO 2 combust i produce combust i although gas turbi n The Glo b cover a w demonst r would h examine d the prop o Pre-com b fired ga s gas to a n the Proj e generati o As sho w post-co m capture p economi c has a si g from a n a Project, w percent t SCR an d capture a 

## O N



# FIV E obligation t o o perating wi l

o f the avail a e ct location m odeling d n s would si g

Air Qualit y C S is not fe a rried forw a n sists of five 2 stream, ( 3 r ing the CO 2
e three cate g i on: captur e from the i on: perfor m a flue gas t h i on capture , as mentio n n es for an a p b al CCS In s w ide range r ation proje c h ave influe n d that are i n o sed new u n b ustion tech s turbine fac n on-carbon f e ct, and m o o n. w n in Table 5 m

bustion ca p p ortion of t h c s of captur i g nificantly h a tural gas p o w hile burni n t o 4 percent d oxidation c a t a coal pla n 

# E

o serve its c l l be very in f
a ble engine t because it c d emonstrate d g nificantly e y Standard ( N

asible at thi a rd into subs e

stages: (1) 3 ) transpor t 2 . g ories of pr o e the CO 2 f r flue gas s t m

the comb u h at is mostl y

is the only o n ed previou s p plication si m

s titute publi of industrie s c ts. Such d e n ced their c n the permit t

it(s) at FGS

. nology has n ilities such f uel (i.e., hy d o re impo r ta n 5 -1 only on e p ture of C O h e project is i ng CO 2 are h igher conc e o wer plant ( n g natural g a

in the stac k c atalysts (s e n t is easier a n c ustomers. I n f requent. T h t echnologie s c ould not sa t d that offs i e xceed the n N AAQS) at l

s Project. A e quent step s capturing C t ing the C O

o cesses use d r om the fue l t ream resul t u stion proce s y CO 2 . Of th e

o ption cons i s ly, CCS h a m ilar to the shes lists o f s , and capt u e monstratio n c ost effecti v t ing, constr u

. n ot been de m as PSE’s P r d rogen), wo u n tly has not

e of the pr oj O 2 at the B o

still under substantiall y e ntration of typically ab a s, range fr o k

gas after a e e Attachme n d substanti a
5-6 n stances wh h e Project w i
s , the Wartsi l t isfy other a i te impacts n ew federal l ocations ne a A s noted be l s of the BA C C O 2 from th e

O 2 , (4) inj e
d to capture l prior to co t ing from t s s in an env i e three proc e i dered pote n a s not been d

Project’s pr o f active an d u re and stor a n projects m v eness. F o u ction or op e

m onstrated i r oject. It wo u ld substan t

been dem o oj ects evalu a o undary Da m

constructio n y different f (approxim a o ut 3 perce n m 3% to 4 % a ir has bee n nt A of the a lly more c o h en backup f i ll be fueled l a 18V50D F a ir permitti n

from the l 1-hour nit r a r the FGS. l ow, howev e C T analysis. e flue gas st r e cting the

CO 2 from t o mbustion, ( 2 t he combus ironment ri c e ss categori e n tially read y d emonstrat e o posed new d potential C a ge technol o m ay have re c

o r this BA C e ration stag e i n practice fo o uld involve t ially reduce o nstrated to

a ted by the G m

coal fire d n . It has no t f

or a coal-fi r a tely 13perc e n t). Estimat e % for the ga s n added to m

Project’s P o st effective 

### GHG

Fredonia GH G f uel oil is n e primarily b y F is not tech n n g requirem e

Wartsila 1 r ogen oxid e

e r, at Ecolo g

r eam, (2) co m

CO 2 , and

t he flue gas 2 ) post-co m s tion proce s c h in oxyge n e s used to c a y for comm e e d at scale w

unit(s). C CS project s o gies, and m c eived ince n C T Analysi e s to see if a f

or predo m i n costly con v the overall

date for g a G lobal CCS d power pl a t operate d

. r ed plant be c e nt) as co m e d CO 2 conc s turbine ex h m oderate te m P SD Applic a

than at the P 

### BACT Ana l

G BACT 2011.10. e eded to ke e y natural ga s n ically feasi b e nts. Ambie n 8V50DF e n e (NO x ) Na t
g y's request,

m pressing/ d (5) perma n stream: (1 ) m

bustion: c a s s, and (3) n instead of a pture CO 2 , e rcial applic a w ith simple

s . These pr o m any of the m n tive fundin g

s, projects a ny are simi

n antly natur a v ersion of n a

fuel efficie n a s turbine p Institute u t a nt, and the

Furthermor e c ause exhau s m pare d to e x

entrations f o h aust, and f r m peratures a a tion). Thus , P roject’s 

### l ysis

31.docx e p the s . b le at n t air n gine t ional

CCS d rying n ently
) prea pture

oxyair toposta tion, cycle

o

jects m

are g that

were lar to

a l-gas a tural n cy of p ower
t ilizes

CO 2 e , the s t gas x haust o r the r om 2 a t the

, CO 2

## SECTI O

Project N

Val Ver d (formerl y Enid Fe r Shute C r Facility Sleipner Great Pl a Weybur n
In Salah

Snøhvit C Century Occiden t

Lost Ca b Illinois I n and Seq Bounda r Capture Demons t A grium C Kemper (formerl y Gorgon C Project Source: 

## O N



# FIV E

Large- S

N ame

e Natural Ga y Sharon Rid g
r tilizer

r eek Gas Pro CO2 Injectio
a ins Synfuel s n -Midale Proj e

CO2 Storag e
C O2 Injectio n Plant (forme r t al Gas Proc e La r b in Gas Plan t
n dustrial Car b uestration Pr o r y Dam Integ r and Sequest t ration Proje c C O2 Capture County IGC C y Plant Ratcli f C arbon Dioxi d
Global CCS I 

# E

S cale Integr a in P e

Large- s s Plants g e)

cessing

n
s Plant and e c t

e

n
r ly e ssing Plant) r ge-scale int e

b on Capture o jec t
r ated Carbon ration c t

with ACTL C Project f fe) d e Injection
nstitute 2011 a ted CCS Pr o e rmitting, C o

Location

s cale integr a Texas, US Oklahoma USA Wyoming, North Sea , Norway Saskatche Canada Wilaya de Ouargla, Algeria Barents S e Norway Texas, US
e grated CC S Wyoming, Illinois, U S
Saskatche Canada Alberta, Canada Mississipp USA Western Australia , The global s

5-7 Table 5- 1 o jects Listed o nstruction a

Indu s

a ted CCS pr o A Natur a Proc e

, Fertili z Prod u US A Natur a Proc e

, Natur a Proc e wan, Synth Natur a Natur a Proc e
e a, Natur a Proc e A Natur a Proc e S projects in

USA Natur a Proc e SA Che m Prod u wan, Coal P Gene Fertili z Prod u i, IGCC Gene Natur a Proc e s tatus of CC S 1 by the Glo b a nd Operati o

s try Ca

o jects in Op e al Gas e ssing Pr e
zer u ction Pr e al Gas e ssing Pr e al Gas e ssing Pr e h etic

al Gas Pr e
al Gas e ssing Pr e
al Gas e ssing Pr e al Gas e ssing Pr e

Permitting o al Gas e ssing Pr e
m ical u ction In d Se P ower ration Po s

zer u ction Pr e Power ration Pr e al Gas e ssing Pr e S : 2011, Can b 

### GHG

Fredonia GH G b al CCS Insti t o n

pture Type

e ration
e -combustion

e -combustion

e -combustion

e -combustion

e -combustion

e -combustion

e -combustion

e -combustion
o r Construct i
e -combustion d ustrial

paration

s t-combustio n

e -combustion

e -combustion

e -combustion b erra, Austra l 

### BACT Ana l

G BACT 2011.10. t ute
Primary Storage

Enhanc e Recover y Enhanc e Recover y Enhanc e Recover y Offshore Formati o Enhanc e Recover y Onshore Formati o Offshore Formati o Enhanc e Recover y i on Enhanc e Recover y Onshore Formati o

n Enhanc e Recover y Enhanc e Recover y Enhanc e Recover y Onshore Formati o l ia 

### l ysis

31.docx Option

e d Oil y e d Oil y e d Oil y

Saline o ns e d Oil y

Saline o ns

Saline o ns e d Oil y

e d Oil y

Saline o ns
e d Oil y
e d Oil y e d Oil y

Saline o ns

## SECTI O
predom i implem e to PSE’ Bounda r The Gl o storage operati o several p most ar e were n o Mitchel Sufficie for the M CO 2 ca p econo m located without neither o PSE is a Florida Compa r PSE’s p plant ( n Siemen s steam t u B elling h was op e the con t operate Corpor a http://w w operate Appare n plant o p attempt e sale du r facility w PSE be l facilitie s the pur p EPA. 

## O N



# FIV E

i nantly gase nted at the s proposed P r y Dam nor
o bal CCS I n

demonstrat i o n due to ec o p rojects. T h e not compa r o longer eco n

l Energy pr o nt data wer e M itchell E n p ture and s e m ically feasi b in Norway CCS, the o o f the Norw e a ware of a c Power and r ed to other p roposed Pr o n ow jointly s Westingh o u rbine in a c h am Cogen e e rated on a f t rol device

in peak lo a tion, 2011 w w.fluor.co as a peaki n n tly, contin u p eration ch a e d at the Be r ing the de m w ould be a n l ieves that t h s , and remai p oses of thi s 

# E

fired comb u Boundary D P roject. Ope would they
n stitute’s lis t i on projects o nomic reas h e primary s o

r able to the p n omically f e o

ject involv e e not readil y n ergy projec t

e questration b le. Two pr o

and were s l o ther projec t

e gian proje c apture tech n Light (FP& L projects in T o

ject, so it i s owned by N o use W501 D c ombined c y e ration Faci l f raction of t h ceased afte r ad shaving

. Econami m/econoam i n g plant dur i u ed operati o a nged from llingham pl a m onstration p n inconsiste n h is technolo g ns undemo n s BACT an a u stion turbi n D am power p

rational cos t be applicab l t does not i n

that were b o ns. Readil y o urce of ex h p roposed Pr o e asible. Thr e e d a range o y available t t as compar e

stopped at o posed nat u l ated to inc l t is on hold. c ts has impl e n ology that w L ) natural g T ables 5-1 a s discussed N extEra En D 5 combusti o y cle configu r l ity. Review e h is facility’s r increased mode whi c n e FG P l i ne/Pages/f a i ng the 14 y o n of the E c

baseload o p a nt. The pla p roject; this n t and unreli a g y remains i n strated for s a lysis, CCS

5-8 n e(s). In s u p lant is unpr o t effectiven e l e to the pro p n clude a ha n uilt and op e y available i n h aust from t h

o

ject, and a l e e of these p f combustio t o assess th e e d to the p r

the Mitch e u ral gas CC C l ude post-c o Due to pr o e mented CC S
w as develop e g as turbine p a nd 5-2, FP &

in greater d ergy and S U o n turbines, t r ation (EPA , e d on June 2 exhaust for natural gas c h rendered l us FAQs

. a qs.aspx ). T h y ears when t c onoamine F p eration to p n t’s capture is not a vi a a ble source o n a class of s imple cycle

is consider e u mmary, the o ven to date
e ss data are n p osed Proje c n dful of po s e rated over t n formation i h ese project s l l stopped w h p rojects incl o n devices, o e similarity o r oposed P r o j e ll Energy f C T power p o mbustion C o

ject econo m S

. ed and teste p ower plant & L’s projec t d etail below. U EZ Energ y t wo heat re c

, 2006. App l 2 3, 2011). F r14 years fr o

prices in 2

the captur e Reviewed h e Bellingh a t he Econoa m F G system b

p eaking op e d CO 2 was t a ble option f o f CO 2 for s a demonstrati peaking ap p e d in Step 3 

### GHG

Fredonia GH G post-comb u and not dir e n either read i c t. s t-combusti o t he years, b u i s summari z s varied co n h en capture l ude/include d o ne of whic h o f the post- c j ect; howev e f

acility whe n p lant projec t C O 2 capture; m ics and fu n

d on a dem o in Bellingh a t appears to

. The Bellin y Generati o c overy stea m l ication for F luor’s Econ o o m 1991 to 2 004-2005 f e plant un e on June a m cogener a m ine proces s b ecame infe a e ration. Se q tr ansported f

or the Proj e ale. i on projects p lications to

at the requ 

### BACT Ana l

G BACT 2011.10. u stion CO 2 e ctly compa r i ly availabl e

o n CO 2 capt u

u t are no l o z ed in Table n siderably, a l

and sequest r d gas turbi n h was a gas t c ombustion e r, it is kno w n it was no t s in Table

one is ope r n ding uncer t

o nstration s c a m, Massac h be more si m gham coge n o n) consists m

generation s F uel Oil Fl e o amine FG p 2005. Oper a f

orced the u e conomical” 6, 2011; a tion plant s was in op e asible whe n q uestration w

offsite by t r e ct since a p for combin e date. Howe est of Ecol o 

### l ysis

31.docx capture r able
e for the

u re and o nger in

5-2 for l though r ation n es. The

t urbine. capture w n that

longer 5-2 are r ational t ainties,

c ale at a h usetts. m ilar to n eration

of two s , and a e xibility p rocess a tion of u nit “to

(Fluor from: did not e ration. n power w as not r uck for p eaking

e d cycle

ver, for o gy andSECTProjecNameAEPMountaLubbocTexasMitchelEnergyN-ReNSouthwNaturkrKarstoPowerStatoilMongstIONFIVtLocaaineerWestVirginUSAck, LubbTexallyBridgTexawestCarlsNMraftPlantKarstNorwtadMongNorwVEation Indutnia,CoaPowGenbock,asGasgeport,asGasheatengiturbisbad,Gasplusreforexhato,wayNatuGasComCyclgstad,wayNatuGasComCyclustryCapTyplwererationPoscomboilerPoscomters,nes,nesPoscomboilerNH3rmeraustPoscomuralmbinedePoscomuralmbinedePoscom5-9OthpturepePrStoOpstmbustionOnSaFostmbustionEnOilRe(EOstmbustionEnOilRestmbustionEnOilRestmbustionAqstmbustionSaFoher Post-ComimaryorageptionODnshorealineormationsOprS2020nhancedlecoveryOR)O19NnhancedlecoveryO19NnhancedlecoveryC19quifersO20Cpoinalineormations20propdadeprGHFredonia GHmbustion CCOperatingateOperated pilotroject fromeptember009 to May011Operated982-1984.ow closedOperated991-1999.ow closedClosed in990sOpened in007 withoutCCS. CCSostponedndefinitely012roposedperationate foremonstrationroject.G BACT AnaHG BACT 2011.1CS ProjectsnCommentsDue to theclimate poleconomy,tShut downuneconomCaptured5EOR wasrCaptured1due to ecoAlthough thscrubbingfinstalled laFunding fountil 2016,alysis10.31.docxnot Listed bys/Statuscurrent uncelicy and the cthe project wawhen EORwical, Captured500 ton/dayCrendered une104 ton/dayonomic reasonhe plant wasfor CO2 emister.or commercialand still unceTable 5-ythe Globalrtain status oontinued weaas put on holdwas renderedd1200 ton/daCO2, shut dowconomicalfCO2, bud shnsbuilt withoutgssions, this maoperationspertain.-2CCS InstitutfU.S.akd.ay CO2wn whenhut downgasay beushed backte – ProposeReferenceshttp://www.ahttp://www.wpture%20OvandENERGY INonshore carhttp://www.wpture%20OvandENERGY INonshore carhttp://www.mandENERGY INonshore carhttp://www.phttp://sequed or with Opsaep.com/enviworleyparsonverview%20(3NSTITUTE, LOrbon captureworleyparsonverview%20(3NSTITUTE, LOrbon captureme.unm.edu/~NSTITUTE, LOrbon capturepower-technoestration.mit.eperational Exronmental/clis.com/CSG/H3).pdfONDON, Gooinstallationsas.com/CSG/H3).pdfONDON, Gooinstallationsa~mammoli/MEONDON, Gooinstallationsaology.com/proedu/tools/projexperienceimatechange/Hydrocarbonsod plant desigand onshoreHydrocarbonsod plant desigand onshoreE561_stuff/ecod plant desigand onshoreojects/karsto/ects/index.htm/carboncapturs/SpecialtyCagn and operapipelines, Ses/SpecialtyCagn and operapipelines, Seconomics_in_gn and operapipelines, Semlre/apabilities/Docation forpt 2010apabilities/Docation forpt 2010_technology.pation forpt 2010cuments/Carbcuments/Carbpdfbon%20Cabon%20Ca

## SECTI O
Potenti a and thei r 173-407

- a contai n departm e the gree n a consid e Enhanc e Californ i enhance d formatio n location s b eds. Fo r pipeline) opportu n transpor t fields in definitio n would b e obtainin g uncertai n permane n recovere d formatio n G b een pr o perform e Weybur n demonst r CO 2 seq u if suffici western W meet W a result, v e serve a s geophys i Another underlie southern of the P

1 Report o f August 20 

## O N



# FIV E

a l Sequestr a r feasibilitie s

- 110) requir e n ment syste e nt and that n house gase s e ration in th e e d Oil Reco i a, eastern T d oil and na t n s that are n s are also pr o ruse in EO R , and inject e n ities do n o t ation of C O

Washingto n n of “perm a e a very e x g , permits, n . Also n o n t sequestr a d CO 2 wo u n and oil fie l G eolo g ic Se q o posed and e d at Sleip n n in Canada 1 r ated long-t e u estration. F ently cappe d W ashington , a shington’s e ry few for m s pathways i cs data are a

geologic s e tight cappi Washingto n P roject site.

f the Interagen c 10 

# E

a tion Optio n s in western e that perm a m

using a m creates a hi g s will remai n e following r v er y – CO 2 T exas, and s t ural gas re c n o longer pr o

o posing or u R , the CO 2 e d into the w o t exist in O 2 to distant

n , it is unli k a nent seque s x pensive an d l and, rights

o te that not a tion. The C u ld need to l d equipme n q uestration s ome are c u n er in the N

for the pri m e rm operati o or example, d by imper m

, as geologi c permanenc y m ations in t h

for the C O a vailable to c e questratio n ng formati o n State. Suc h

In theory,

c y Task Force n s. Potentia l Washingto n a nent seques m ethod tha t g h degree o f n contained r eview. has been u s outhern Al b c overy (EO R o ductive usi n u sing comp r must be co m w ell fields. D

the Pacifi c EOR opera t k ely that in j s tration” qu o d time-con s

- of-way an d every oil f O 2 acts lik e

be separa t n t would ne e

– Geologi c u rrently un d N orth Sea, S m ary purpose

o n at the sc a

d eep saline m eable laye r c faulting a n y requirem e h is area are O 2 to mig r c onfir m the
n example i o ns. This o p h basalt for m

a third ge o

on Carbon Ca p 5-10 l alternative n State are b r

t ration achi e t is in acco r f confidenc e for at least o

s ed in other r b erta) and i n R ) operation s n g typical d r r essed CO 2 t m pressed, tr a D ue to the l a c Northwes t ions. Base d j ection into o ted above. s uming pro p d easement s f ield would e a solvent a t ed and rei n e d to be reas o
c sequestra t d er research S nøhvit in t h

of EOR. N o a le required

formations r s. Deep sal i n d fractures r e nt. The re g

likely to b e r ate. PSE u viability of d i s CO 2 inje c p tion is cu r m ations are n o logic sequ e

p ture and Stor a s for CO 2 s e r iefly revie w e ve the “ret e rdance wit h e that substa n o ne thousan d

r egions of N n other part s s to recover r ill and pu m t o recover m ansporte d i n a ck of oil a n t and pipe d on the kn o

coal beds w Developi n p osition. Fu r s for a lon g

satisfy W a a nd is reco v n

jection or o nably leak t ion technol

and devel o h e Barents S o geological

for this Pro j could store i ne formati o r aise the qu e g ion is hig h e free of fr a u nderstands d eep injecti o ction into d r rently bein g n ot availabl e e stration op t

a ge, US EPA, 

### GHG

Fredonia GH G e questratio n w e d . Washin e ntion of gr e h standards n tially ninet d years.” T h
N orth Ameri s of the wo r

additional o m p technique m ethane fro m n large qua n n d gas prod u

lines do n o o wn geolog y w ould satis f n g a pipelin e

r thermore, t g pipeline t a shington’s v ered along w

reused co n proof. ogies other o pment. CO 2 S ea, In Sala h

sequestrati o j ect solely fo CO 2 for lo n o ns are not a e stion whet h h ly active t e a ctures and

that insuf f o n options i n d eep b asalt g researche e within a re a t ion would
OAR, Climat e 

### BACT Ana l

G BACT 2011.10. n are liste d b

gton rules ( W e enhouse ga s

approved b y y-nine perc e h is requirem ca (e.g., so u r ld to suppl e o il from ge o s. Note that m

unminabl e n tities (usua l u ction areas,

o t exist fo r y of existin g f y the regu l e for this p r t he feasibil i t o EOR fie l requiremen t w ith the oil n sumptively ,

than EOR 2 sequestrat i h in Algeri a o n project h a fo r the purp o n g periods o f a viable opt i h er storage w e ctonically.

faults that m f icient dee p n western W

formation s d b y Batte l a sonable di s be to comp

e Change Divi s 

### l ysis

31.docx b elow W AC s es in y the e nt of ent is

u thern e ment o logic

other e coal l ly by

EOR r the g coal l atory r oject i ty of l ds is t s for . The

, and
have i on is a , and a s yet o se of f time i on in w ould

As a m ight p -hole W A.

s that l le in s tance p ress,

s ion,

## SECTI O transpor t where o c In all thr e more) a n these g e demonst r S olivine o source o f undevel o develop e (likely b y process t b e of a l a access t o landfill o disposal I n Howeve r need to b uses suc eventual l usages o No larg e Project s i Note als o disposal Althoug h project, t 

### 5.3.3 S The rem a propose s natural g operatin g total ann u CO 2 cap t gas strea m is 90 p e compres s estimate d alone. D u 

## O N



# FIV E t and inject c ean waters a e e cases, th e n d injected. A e ologic seq u r ated in pra c ilicate Min e o r serpentini t

f such silic a o ped, makin g ed , the mine y rail) and t h t o react the c a rger physic o the site, e o f sufficien t sites at or a d
n dustrial R r , to meet W b e permane n h as weldi n l y result th e f CO 2 do n o e -volume p e i te, and no p o that additi o related to t h h PSE does t hey are carr 

### S tep 3: Ran k

a ining cont r to use the l g as, using U L g history, P S u al use to n o t ure process m

of a pow e e rcent of t h s ion proces s d 7 percent o u e to increa s 

# E

liquid CO 2 a re deep.
e CO 2 woul d A s mention e u estration a c tice. e ral Reacti o t e) can be r e a te material s g the miner a rals, would h e resultant c ollected C O al scale tha n e tc. A relati v t capacity w d

jacent to th e R euse – In t h W ashington S n tly consum p n g operatio n e CO 2 b ein g o t qualify a s e rmanently- c p ipeline syst e o nal CO 2 e m e options li s not conside i ed forward 

### k

Remainin g r ol options c east emittin g L SD only w S E expects o more than
es are curre e r plant. Th e h e CO 2 pro d

s es are ene r o f the gross s e d auxiliar y deep into t h
d need to b e c e d above, C O a pproaches

o ns – Rese a e acted with s exists in n a l unavaila b need to be solid waste O 2 with the s n the Projec t v ely large l w ould need t

e FGS site t o h eory CO 2 f S tate requir e p tive (i.e., n o n s that use g released b s permanent c onsumptiv e e ms are loc a m issions wo u

s ted above.
rthese CC S into the ne x 

### g

Control O p c onsist of C C g feasible f u w hen natural

f uel oil use 336 hours ( p ntly limited e refore, the m d uced duri n r gy intensi v electricity p y electric lo a 5-11 h e tectonic

c ompressed , O 2 pipelines are innova t

a rch has sh o CO 2 to for m n orthwester n b le for the P

transported would nee d s ilicate min e t itself, requ i a ndfill wou l t o be used. o support th e f rom the pr o e ments for p o t rerelease d CO 2 as a s b ack into t h sequestrati o e CO 2 indu s a lly availabl e u ld result fro m S technologi x t step of the 

### p tions C S, fuel ch o u el choice, w

gas is not r e to be very p er turbine f

to 90 perc e m aximu m C n g the com b v e. If the P p roduced wo a d required t o subduction

, transporte d

do not exis t t ive techn o

o wn that so m m

stable sol i n Washingto n P roject. Unti

to the P r oj e d to be disp o e rals, the e m i ring additi o ld need to b

There are e se activitie s o

ject could p ermanent s d into the at m s hielding ga h e atmosph e o n and wou l s trial uses a e to transpo r m

compress i es to be fe a BACT ana l

o ice, and tu r w hich is to f u e asonably a v infrequent a f

or the GE L
e nt or less r e O 2 capture r b ustion pro c P roject’s pr o o uld be cons u

o operate th 

### GHG

Fredonia GH G zone offsh o d long dista n t in Washin g o logies that

m e ultrama f id (carbonat e n, but the m i l such time e ct site fro m o se d . Due to m ission cont r o nal land, de v

b e develop e no existing s . be sold for s equestratio n m osphere). T s, or dry i c ere. Thus, t l d not reduc a re known t r t it, as state d
s ion, long-ra n

a sible for th e l ysis at Ecol o

rbine/engin e u el the Proj e v ailable. Ba s a nd propos e MS100 opti
e moval of C r ate assume d c ess. The C o posed unit ( u med by th e e CCS syst e 

### BACT Ana l

G BACT 2011.10. o re in the P a

n ces (200 mi l

g ton. All th r

have not
f ic minerals e ) compoun d m ineral dep o

as the dep o m

a long di s the nature o r ol project w v elopment o e d or an ex i

rail transp o industrial r n , that use w T ypical ind u c e manufac t t ypical ind u e CO 2 emis s t o exist ne a d above.
n ge transpo r

e FGS expa n o gy's reque s

e efficiency

. e ct primaril y s ed on the F e s to limit U

on). C O 2 from th e d for this an a C O 2 captur e ( s) had CC S e se two pro c e ms, and res u 

### l ysis

31.docx a cific
l es or r ee of

been (e.g., ds. A o sit is o sit is s tance o f the w ould o f rail i sting o rt or

r euse. w ould u strial t uring u strial s ions. a r the

r t and

n sion s t.

. PSE y with F GS’s U LSD

e flue a lysis e and S , an c esses u ltant

## SECTI O increase d emissio n proven t o factors, a percent r Tables 5

- efficienc CCS, re s decrease s percent m analysis, lb/MW- h emissio n

PEAKER A LTERNAT Manufactur e Technology Heat rate @ (Btu/KWh ( H Fuel CO 2 C (lb/MMBtu Fuel CO 2 e ( 2 (lb/MMBtu ( CO 2 e Emis s (lb/MWh) Rank (1= lowest e

(1) CCS = C O (2) The fuel C Natur a lb lb / ULSD

– lb lb / (3) In compli a Notes:
• P S r e a c w i
• F o p r



## O N



# FIV E d fuel used n s per net M

o reduce/re m a pplication o r eduction in C

- 3 and 5-4 c i es and CO 2 s pectively. T s (i.e., heat m ore fuel be

the six tur b h r. When C C n s efficiency
Efficiency
IVES e r @ Full-Load

H HV)) ontent (HHV)) (2) 2 ) (3) ( HHV)) s ions

e mitting) O 2 capture, com p C O 2 content is b a a l Gas – The Pr o -CO2/MMBtu (H / lbmol-CO2 / 12

.

– The Project’s d -CO2/MMBtu (H / lbmol-CO2 / 12

. a nce with WAC S E in 2009 to m e sults were sub m c count for appr o i thout CCS for c a o r consistency, h r ocess. 

# E to meet t h M W-hr woul d

m ove other o f post-co m C O 2 e emiss i ompare and 2 e emission s T he rank or d

rate is hig h i ng burned p b ine options C S is inclu d range of 12 0

a nd CO 2 e E m LMS-100 GE Aero 9,007 115.9 116.8 1,052

1 p ression, and s e a sed on the follo w o ject’s design na t

HV) = (0.7422 l b

. 01 lb/lbmol-car b d esign distillate f HV) = (0.8716 l b

. 01 lb/lbmol-car b 173-407-120, 1 7
m easure N 2 0, C H m itted to Washi n o x. 99.27% of to a lculations in thi s h eat rate estimat e h e increase d d be less th a GHGs suc h m

bustion CO i ons.

rank PSE’s s in lb/M W d er is the sa m h er) when C p er MW-hr f

fall within a d ed in the a 0 to 143 lb/ M

m issions fro m LM-600 0 GE Aero 9,871 115.9 116.8 1,153

2 e questration.
w ing design ass u t ural gas fuel is 7 b -carbon / 1.0 lbb on) = 115.9 lb/ M f uel is 87.16 wt- % b -carbon / 1.0 lbb on) = 163.4 lb/ M 7 3-407-140, an d H 4 and CO 2 emi s n gton Departme n tal CO 2 e emissi o s table. e s are based on

5-12 d auxiliary e a n 90 perce n h as CH 4 , S F

2 capture w six feasible W -hr of elect r

m e with an d C CS is incl u f

or each eng a CO 2 e emi s a nalysis, th e M W-hr.
Table 5-3 m Available 0 7FA.0 5 GE Fram e 10,14 5 115.9 116.8 1,18 5

3

u mptions and c a 7 4.22 wt-% carb o fuel) * (1 lb-fuel / M MBtu (HHV) % carbon with a h fuel) * (1 lb-fuel / M MBtu (HHV) d 173-407-230, f
s sions at the Mi n t of Ecolog yth o ns. Therefore, ISO conditions a e lectric loa d n t. CO 2 cap t F 6 , and N 2 O w ould achie v

e turbine opt i

r icity gener a d without C C u ded, result i g ine option. W s sions effici e e six turbin e

Turbine Opt 5 5000 Siem e e Fra m 5 10,1 5 9 115 8 116 5 1,1 8
4

a lculations: (HH V o n with a higher / 23,473 Btu-HH V
h ighe r heating v a / 19,550 Btu-HH V
f our quarterly s o nt Farm and S u at yea r . Based total CO 2 e = 1 1 and were used f 

### GHG

Fredonia GH G d , the net r t ure process O . After acc o v e at most a

i ons based o ate d , witho u C S. Estimat e i ng in appr o W hen CCS i e ncy range o e options fa l

ions withou t 0 F4 7F A
e ns G m e Fr a 5 2 10 , .9 11 .8 11 8 6 1, 1
5
V = higher heatin g

heating value of V ) * (1,000,000 B

a lue of 19,550 B t V ) * (1,000,000 B

o urce tests were
u mas Generatin g

on those sourc e 1 5.9 / 0.9927 = f or the prelimina r 

### BACT Ana l

G BACT 2011.10. eduction in es have not o unting fo r a n estimate d

o n their esti m u t CCS and e d fuel effic o ximately 7 i s excluded i o f 1,052 to l l within a

t CCS (1) A .04 F G E P a me A

, 193 1 0 5.9 1 6.8 1 1 91 1
5
g value) 23,473 Btu/lb. B tu / 1 MMBtu) *

t u/lb. B tu / 1 MMBtu) * performed by U g Stations, and t e tests, CO 2 e m 116.8 lb/MMBtu
r y technology sc r 

### l ysis

31.docx

CO 2 been these d 88.5

m ated

with iency to 8 i n the 1,235 CO 2 e

F T8-3 P &W A ero 0,570 1 15.9 1 16.8 1 ,235

6

* (44.01

* (44.01
U RS for t he test m issions

(HHV)
r eening

## SECTI O

PEAKER A LTERNAT Manufactur e Technology Heat rate @ (Btu/KWh ( H Fuel CO 2 C (lb/MMBtu Fuel CO 2 e (2 (lb/MMBtu ( CO 2 e Emis s (lb/MWh) Rank (1= lowest e

(1) CCS – C O (2) Based on total CO 2 e e Notes:
• F o p r • H
The leas t option is from fu r turbine o “most ef f 

### 5.3.4 S In this s consider e cost effe c As men t sequeste r a scale o for the F estimate estimate s perform a turbine w In Nov e Laborat o and wit h NETL e s 

## O N



# FIV E

Efficiency a IVES e r @ Full-Load

H HV)) ontent (HHV)) 2) ( HHV)) s ions

e mitting) O 2 capture, com p

2009 source te s e missions. There

o r consistency, h r ocess. HV = higher hea

t efficient, h also one o f r ther consi d o ptions emit f

ective cont r 

### S tep 4: Eval u s tep, the op t e d technical l c tiveness. t ione d abov e rCO 2 from t r applicatio n F GS expans i

for implem e s prepared b a nce impact s w ere develo p e mber 2010 , o ry (NETL) p h out CCS sy s timated a $ 7 

# E

a nd CO 2 e E m LMS-100 GE Aero 9,647 11.6 12.5 120

1 p ression, and se q s ting at PSE's M i fore, total CO 2 e
h eat rate estimat e ting value.
h ighest emit t f the most e x d eration dur

significantl y r ols” for an a 

### u ate Most E f

t ions found l y feasible w

e , the tech n t he flue gas n similar to i on project, e nting one o f b y others. P s associated p ed and the r

, the U.S. p ublished c o stems insta l 7 6 per ton c T m issions fro m LM-600 0 GE Aero 10,645

11.6 12.5 133

2 q uestration. i nt Farm and Su m = 115.9 / 0.992 7

e s are based on

t ing option x pensive a n i ng prelimi n y less CO 2 e a lysis in Ste p 

### f fective Con

to be the w ere further

n ologies ne c

of a combu s the Project’ s

PSE has n f the CCS o p P SE is not

with the ad d r efore was n o

Departmen t o st and perf o le d . For a n ost of CO 2 a 5-13 T able 5-4 m Available T 0 7FA.0 5 GE Fram e 10,97 3

11.6 12.5 137

3

m as Generating 7 = 116.8 lb/MM B

ISO conditions a

is the Pratt n d offered n o

n ary engin e

per MW-h r p 4.



### trols and D o most effect i evaluated r e

c essary to c s tion turbin e s proposed n o t attempte d p tions discu s aware of a n d ition of C C o t able to u s t of Energ y o rmance esti n et 550 M W a voided usi n T urbine Opti o 5 5000 Siem e e Fra m 3 10,9 6 11. 6 12. 5 13 7

4 Stations, CO 2 e m B tu (HHV) witho u
and were used f

& Whitney o significan t e ering eval u rand are, t h



### o

cument R e i ve at mini m e lative to th e

c apture, co m e exist but h a n ew unit(s). d a projectssed above. n y studies w C S systems t s e such esti m y (DOE) N i mates fo rf o W natur a l ga s

n g post-com b 

### GHG

Fredonia GH G o ns with 90 % 0 F4 7F A
e ns G m e Fr a 6 5 11 , 6 1 1 5 1 2 7 1 3
5
missions accou n u t CCS.
f or the prelimina r

FT8-3. Be c t advantage s u ations. Th e h erefore, co n


### e

sults
m izing CO 2 e ir emission

m press, tran s

a ve not bee n Because C C specific or Instead, PS E w here esti m t o a simple c m ates as par N ational En e o ssil fueled p s -fired com b m

bustion CC S 

### BACT Ana l

G BACT 2011.10. % CCS (1) A .04 F G E P a me A

, 021 1 1 .6 2 .5 38
5

n t for approx. 99

.

r y technology sc r

c ause this t u s , PSE drop p e remainin g n sidered to b

2 e emission s

performanc

s port, inject n demonstra t C S is not fe a site-specifi c E considere d m ates of cos t

c ycle comb u r t of this an a e rgy Techn o p ower plant s b ined cycle p S compared 

### l ysis

31.docx F T8-3 P &W A ero 1,463 11.6 12.5 143

6

. 27% of

r eening

u rbine p ed it g five b e the

s and e and , and t ed at a sible c cost d cost t and u stion a lysis. o logy s with p lant, to an

## SECTI O analogo u Energy P Novemb e provide d social c o (OAQP S Emissio n larger fa c (Enviro n Technol o 2011). There ar e plant co n plant su c increase cycle pl a

• T w n t h e x p a v

• T c o u n g t h
• T d c i A c o a f r a d w

2 There ar e the princi p natural ga s simple cy c 

## O N



# FIV E

u s combined P lants, Vol u e r 2010. D O d in Attach m o st of carbo n S ), June 17, 2 n s from E le c c tor, the $7 n , Combined

o gy Analysi s

e a number n cept prese n c h as the Pr o

the actual c a nts:
T he DOE-N E w ith a capaci

ew unit(s) w h an 3,200 h o x penses an d eaking unit v oide d

.
T he CO 2 cap

o ncept utili z n it(s) at F G enerato r s ( H h e CO 2 capt u T he CO 2 ca p

i ssipate pro i rculating w A dditional h e

o oling towe r

dedicated h r om the CO 2 d dition, the w hich was c o

e multiple con f p al study autho r s -fired combin e c le gas turbine 

# E

cycle plant u me 1: B i O E/NETL-2 0 m ent A. Thi s n recently ci t 2 011) Panel c tric Utility S

per ton rec

- Cycle Com b s , Kalama E

o f importan t ted in the D o

ject’s prop o ost per ton o

E TL combin

ty factor of w ould opera t o urs per tur b d other fixe d

compared t

ture system z ed steam f G S will not H RSG) or a n u re syste m . S p ture and c o cess heat. T w ater syste m e at rejectio n rand a corr e h eat rejectio n 2 capture an DOE-NET L o oled to 85 °

f licting cost va l r , Mr. James B e d cycle gas t u applications. without CC i tuminous C 0 10/1397) 2

. s is more t h t ed by EPA

Outreach M S team Gen e ently propo s b ustion Tur b E nergy Cent e

t difference s D OE-NETL r

o sed new u n o f CO 2 avoi
ed cycle co n 85 percent ( t e as a peaki b ine annuall y d costs wo u t o a base-l o

would req u f rom the st e have a ste a n auxiliary b S uch additi o o mpression T he DOE- N m

and coo l n duty was a e sponding i n n system w o d compress i L combined
° F with hea t

l ues in the NE T B lack, confirm e u rbines. Mr. Bl a 5-14 S (NETL, C C oal and N

An explana t h an three ti m

(EPA Offic M eeting wit h e rating Unit s s ed BACT t b ine Project e r. Prepare d

s between a r eport, and a n it(s). These ded above t h

n cept was a s equivalent t o ng unit wit h y (2,400 ho u u ld be spre a o aded plant,

u ire process e am cycle p a m source. A b oiler woul d o ns would in

systems w o N ETL comb i

l ing tower a ccomplishe n crease in ci r o uld be req u i on systems cycle conc e t being reje c

T L study. In a e d that $76 is t h a ck also confi r C ost and Pe rf N

atural Gas t ion of the t e m es the $2 0 c e of Air Q u h SERs: R ul e

s (page 62) ) t hreshold fo

Greenhous e d for Kalam a

combined c a simple cy c e differences t he $76 per t

s sumed to o p o 7,446 hou r h expected h u rs for the fr a a d over far

resulting i n

stea m . The p ortion of t h

Addition o f d be require d n crease the c o o uld requir e i ned cycle c to reject h d by the a d r culating w a u ired to dis s for the pro p e pt had a fl u c ted to the a September 27 , h e correct val u r med that he is 

### GHG

Fredonia GH G rf

ormance B a to Electri c e rm "cost o f 0 per ton C u ality Planni n e making for ) , and it exc r the Kala m e Gas Best A a Energy C e

c ycle power c le combusti s , as discuss e t on value ci t

p erate as a b rs at full lo a h ours of ope r

a me turbine fewer oper a n a higher c

DOE-NET L h e plant. T h f eithe rhea t d to supply o st per ton C
e a heat rej c oncept alr e h eat from t d dition of se v a ter flow rat e s ipate suffi c p osed new u u e gas temp e a tmosphere
, 2011 email t o u e for CCS ap p s not aware of a 

### BACT Ana l

G BACT 2011.10. a seline for F c ity . Revisi o f CO 2 avoid e O 2 e approx i n g and Stan Greenhous e c eeds, by an m a Energy C A vailable C o e nter, LLC, plant such a on turbine p e d below, f u t e d for com b

b ase-loaded p a d). The pro p r ation of no

options). C a a ting hours c ost per ton

L combined h e propose d t recovery s process ste a C O 2 avoide d ection syst e e ady had a t he steam c v eral cells t e s. It is likel y c ient proces s u nit(s) at F G e rature of 2 9 through th e

o URS Corpor a p lications with a ny cost numb e 

### l ysis

31.docx F

ossil o n 2, ed ” is i mate dards e Gas

even C enter o ntrol

June

a s the p ower u rther b ined

p lant, p osed more a pital for a n CO 2

cycle d new s team a m to d

. e m to

large c ycle. t o the y that s heat G S. In

9 0°F, e heat

a tion,

e rs for

## SECTI O

r e f r l o r e f

o c o s y D
• T i n i n s u b
• T t h h c o The cost CCS sy s consider a Given t h viable fo to the co s The five evaluate d CCS. A l effective In order assumes electricit y annual c o option. I n consider s addition a Table 5- 5 removal, of using further C 

### 5.3.5 S Ecology options. criteria p 

## O N



# FIV E

e

jection sys t r om 741°F t o a d . Coolin g e

jection sys t o r the CO 2 o ncept. Th e y stem cost f D OE-NETL r T he DOE-N E n

jection int o n troducing l a u ch geologi c etween the F T he DOE-N E h e CCS sys t i gher proje c o mpared to t per ton of C s tems are, t h a tion in this h at carbon c a

r the Projec t s t, further a n most effici e d below for r l l five opti o

feasible fu e to make an that using y per year, o sts (using s n order to d e s the fifth- r a l CO 2 e emi s 5 summariz e

the analysi s the other t u C O 2 e reducti o 

### S tep 5: Sele c has reques t Such an e v p ollutants. I n 

# E t e m . The flu e t o over 1,1 0 g the flue t em with a c

capture a n e se two fac t f

or the prop o r eport. E TL report a o a saline fo r a rge quantit i c formation s F GS facility E TL combi n t em for the p c t costs pe r t he DOE-N E C O 2 avoide d h erefore, f o BACT anal y a pture, alon e t and any of n alysis of se q e nt available r elative emi o ns are ver y e l choice for

apples-to-a p any of the and that na t s tandard bo o e termine th e r anked opti o s sions avoi d
e s the cost a n s treats the 7 u rbine mod e o ns would c o 

### c

t the BAC T t ed that this v aluation is n a tradition a e gas tempe r 0°F, depen d gas to tem p c ooling dut y n d compres s t ors combi n o sed new u n

a ssumed a C r mation at a i es of CO 2 f s available w and a suita b
n ed cycle co n p roposed ne w rton of C O E TL concep t d is much h i o und to be n y sis fo rGH G
e , is demon s the sequestr q uestration i and feasibl e ssion perfor m y efficient. A

any of the t u p ples comp a five option s t ural gas w o o k life and d e marginal c o o n to be t h d ed for the o t

n alysis. For FA.04 as th e e ls to furth e o st between 

### T

BACT an a fundament a a l BACT a n 5-15 r ature for th e d ing on the p eratures a p y many tim e s ion system s n ed would s n it(s) at FG S
C O 2 transpo r

depth of 4, 0 fo r permane n w ithin a 50 b le geologic
n cept requir e w unit(s) at O 2 captured t
. i gher than c u n ot cost ef f G s. s trated in th e r ation optio n i s not warra n e turbine ge n m ance and c A s explaine u rbine gene r a rison of th e s , the Proj e o uld be use d d iscount rat e o st per ton o h e base cas e t her four op t purposes o f e base case, e r reduce C O

$710 and $ 4

a lysis inclu d a lly differe n n alysis, the r e proposed n turbine, am b p proaching e s greater th s for the D s ignificantl y S compared

r t distance o 0 55 feet an d n t sequestra t mile radius formation w e d a CCS s y FGS. Econ o for the pr o

u rrently acc e f

ective and
e above an a n s listed in S t n te d for this
n erator opti o c ost effectiv d above, t h r ator option s e cost of C O e ct would g e d as the fue e assumpti o o f additiona l e, and det e t ions. f calculating

and calcula t O 2 e emissi o 4 ,660 per to n
d e an evalu a n t than a tr a r elative effe c 

### GHG

Fredonia GH G n ew unit(s) a b ient condi t 85°F woul d h an the cool i D OE-NETL y increase t h

to the cost s

o f 50 miles d characteris t ion. PSE is

of the faci l w ould impac t y stem about o my of scal o posed ne w

e ptable eco n were remo v

a lysis not to tep 3 would BACT anal y o ns in Tabl e v eness witho u h e Project w s . O 2 e reductio n

enerate 131 l. Total CO o ns) were c a l CO 2 e rem o e rmines the

the cost of i t es the addit o ns. The an a n of CO 2 e r e

a tion of the a ditional B A c tiveness of 

### BACT Ana l

G BACT 2011.10. a t FGS will r t ions, and t u d require a i ng duty re q

combined h e heat rej e s presented i via pipeline s tics conduc i

not aware o l ity. The di s t the project twice as la r e would res u w unit(s) at

n omic thres h v ed from f u be econom i ad d signifi c y sis.
e s 5-3 and 5

- u t the addit i w ill use the

n , this eval u ,400 MW- h 2 e emission a lculated for o ved, the an a

cost per t o i ncremental ional cost p e a lysis show s e moved.

different t u A CT analys i

ad d -on pol l 

### l ysis

31.docx r ange u rbine heat q uired

cycle e ction i n the

e with i ve to o f any s tance

cost. r ge as ult in FGS
h olds. u rther
i cally c antly

- 4 are i on of

most

u ation h rs of

s and

each a lysis o n of
CO 2 e e r ton s that

u rbine i s for l ution

## SECTI O control t equipme n BACT r e electric g selected will dep e operatio n use a m o more e x technica l b egin co n Cost be n gas pea k emissio n $4,660 p is far in e such inc r offsets. T carbon a n threshol d identifie d to requi r environ m PSE pro p expensi v approval F7A.04, propose d 

### 5.4 B As state d filled br e a result o For the technolo g circuit b r first tec h technolo g Air Qua l Section 7 

### 5.4.1 S Two ty p applicati o 

## O N



# FIV E t echnologie s n t are eval u e quires an a p g enerating f a a single ma k e nd upon a v n al perform a o re expensi v x pensive m o l ly feasible t n struction.
n efit guidan c k ing turbine n rate of 1,1 9

er ton cost a e xcess of co r emental c o T hese incre m n d, by an e v d cited abo v d in Table 5 r e a project m ental impa c p oses to use v e option, th e

to impleme n GE F7A.05 , d BACT em i 

### B ACT FOR S d previousl y e akers. A s m o f unavoida b

October 1 8 g ies: 1) die l r eakers wit h h nology ba s g y was sele c l ity Impact 7 .6.1). 

### S tep 1: Avail p es of bre o ns: SF 6 -fill 

# E

s is conside r u ated. It sho u p plicant to p u a cility. In f a k e or mode l v ariety con s a nce, reliab i v e model be c o del. More o t oday may p

c e for GHG s. The cost 9 1 lb/MW-h r a ssociated w i

sts ordinaril y o sts are ord e m ental costs v en greater m v e in Sectio

- 5 satisfy B A

to use a s p c ts of the di f

any one of f e LM6000, w n t any one o

, Siemens S G ssion rate o f 

### S WITCHY A y , the Proje c m all amount o b le leakage. 8 , 2011 PH P l ectric oil o r h 0.5% ann u s ed on pote n c ted as BA C Report – P a 

### able Contr o akers are ed and oil-f i r ed. Here, h u ld be kept u rchase a p a a ct, at this p l . PSE’s ulti m s iderations, i i lity and m a c ause of op e o ver, some p rove to be u

BACT has effectiven e rfrom the 7 F i th addition a y considere d e rs of mag n

greatly exc e m argin, the r

n 5.3.4. PS E A CT requir e p ecific turb i f ferent mode f

our most c o w ill not be p u o f the follo w G T6-5000F 4 f 1,191 lbs/ M 

### A RD BREA K

t’s propose d o f the GHG
P P PSD p e rcompresse u al leakage r

n tial adver s C T (see EP A a lmdale Hy b



### o l Technolo g commercia l i lled. Mode r 5-16 h owever, d i in mind th a a rticular ma k oint in the d m ate decisi o i ncluding e q a intenance i s e rational or m

turbine m o u navailable o

not been p r e ss evaluati o F A.04 turbi n a l CO 2 e emi s d "achievab l n itude highe r e ed the $20 r ecently pro p E contends e ments for G i ne model, ls make it i n o st effective t

u rsued for t h w ing fou rhig h

4 , and GE L M W-hr CO 2 e 

### K ERS d new 230 k pollutant S F

e rmit cite d

d air circui t r ate and lea k s e environ m A Region I X b rid Power 

### g ies ly availabl e r n breakers a i fferent cho i a t EPA has n k e and mod e d evelopmen t o n about w h q uipment av a s sues. PSE m m aintenanc e o dels that a o r infeasibl e

r ovided by E o n in Step 4 n e base case s sion reduct l e" in traditi o rthan the c per ton CO 2 p osed $7 pe r

that all of G HG. Not o n

but in this n appropriate turbine mo d h e Project. T hly efficien t L MS100, all e .
k V switchy a F 6 is emitte d above, EP A t breakers, a k

detection s m ental and e X . August 2 0

Project PS D

e for hig h a re designed 

### GHG

Fredonia GH G i ces for the n ever taken e l of turbine t of the Pro j h ich turbine

a ilability, c o m ay, for e x e advantage s a ppear to b e by the tim e
E PA to date 4 demonstr a satisfies B A t ion using al t o nal BACT c urrent mar k 2 e approxi m rton GHG c the top fiv e n ly would i t

case, the r e to exclude a d els in Table T herefore, P S t gas turbine

of which m

a rd will incl u d from switc h
A Region I X a nd 2) encl o s ystems. E P e nergy imp a 0 11. Fact S h D Permit N u

h -voltage u t

with efficie 

### BACT Ana l

G BACT 2011.10. primary p r the positio n engine for a j ect, PSE h a engines to i n o st, start-up x ample, dec i s provided b b e availabl e e PSE is re a

for simple a tes that a A CT. The $ 7

t ernative tu r analyses. I n k et price o f m ate social c o

c ost-effectiv e turbine m t be inappro p e lative cost s a ny of them

. 5-5. The m o S E requests options: th e m eet or exce e

u de 10 ne w h yard break e
X evaluate d o se d -pressur e P A eliminat e a cts. The s e h eet and A m u mber SE 0

t ility switc h nt seals to 

### l ysis

31.docx r oject n that a n a s not n stall time, i de to b y the e and a dy to

cycle CO 2 e 7 10 to r bines n deed, f CO 2 o st of eness m odels

p riate s and

. o st

e GE
e d the

w SF 6 -

e rs as d two e SF 6 e d the e cond m

bient 0 9-01,

h yard

## SECTI O

Emissi o Plant C a Generatio @ Heat rate,

Fuel CO Fuel CO 2 Plant CO ( Annual Emission s CO 2 e Re U n Cos t Plant PSE A n Fixed O& Firs

F R FOM L e

Varia b ( Firs

V R VOM L e

Fuel ( $

Fir s

F R Fuel L eAllCapi t
Ann u Total Lev e Levelized C B Incr e

E f ( $ (1) PSE ass u historical i 

## O N



# FIV E

Incre m

o ns Calculation s a pacity, net (M W n (MW-hr), 200 M @ 7.5%CF net (Btu/kWh, H H 2 Rate (lb/MMBt u

HHV) 2 e Rate (lb/MMB t

HHV) 2 e Emissions R a lb/MW-hr) CO 2 e Emission s (tons/yr) s Rank ( 1 = low e emitting) duction from Ba s n it (tons/yr) t Calculations Book Life (yrs) Discount Rate n nual O&MM (FOM) ($/kWt -Year FOM ($/y F OM Escalation ate (1) (%/yr) e velized Cost ($ / b le O&M (VOM) ( $/MW-hr) t Year VOM ($/y V OM Escalation

ate (1) (%/yr) e velized Cost ($ / $ /MMBtu, HHV)
s t Year Fuel ($/y r F uel Escalation ate (1) (%/yr)
e velized Cost ($/ y In CapEx ($) t al Recover Fact (%)
u al CapEx ($/yr) e lized Annual C o

($/yr) C ost (Savings) O B ase ($/yr) e mental Costf fectiveness $ /ton CO 2 e) u mes an escal a nflation. 

# E

m ental Emis s L M
W ) M W
H V) u , t u,
a te
s
e st
s e

yr)
r )

/ y r )

r )

/ y r )

r )

yr )

or,

o st O ver

a tion rate of 3 % T s ion Reductio M S100

199.7 131,400

9,007 115.9 116.8 1,052 69,118 1 9,101
35 8.10%

15.71 3,136,522 3.00% 4,063,695 3.58 470,713 3.00% 609,858 8.08 9,562,840 3.00% 12,389,669 279,000,000 8.67% 24,182,437 41,245,660 6,462,059 $710 % as an averag e 5-17 T able 5-5 n Cost Analy LM-6000
165.1 131,40 0

9,871 115. 9 116. 8 1,15 3 75,74 8 2 2,471
3 5 8.10 %

19.0 6 3,146,95 2 3.00 % 4,998,10 0 4.3 4 570,58 4

3.00 % 906,221 8.0 8 10,480,15 9 3.00 % 16,644,95 9 274,000,00 0 8.67 % 23,749,06 0 46,298,34 0 11,514,73 9 $4,66 0 e inflationary n sis for Five T 7FA.05

1 2 0 131 1 10 9 1 8 1 3 1 8 77 3 1

5 % 8.

6 1 2 2,403 % 3. 0 0 3,113 4 1 4 1,560 % 3. 0 1 2,021 8 9 10,771 % 3. 0 9 13,955 0 198,000 % 8. 0 17,161 0 36,252 9 1,468

0 $3 n umber. This n 

### GHG

Fredonia GH G T urbine Optio n 5000 F
09.4 2 0 ,400 131, ,145 10, 15.9 1 1 16.8 1 1 ,185 1, ,850 77, 4 368

35 10% 8. 1

1.48 1 1 ,015 2,436 , 00% 3. 0 ,360 3,156, 1.88 1 0 ,650 1,350 , 00% 3. 0 ,987 1,750, 8.08 8 ,068 10,77 8

00% 3. 0 ,056 13,96 4
,000 191,0 0

67% 8. 6 ,729 16,555 , ,133 35,426 , ,532 642 , ,987 $2 , n umber falls w 

### BACT Ana l

G BACT 2011.10. n s F 4 7FA. 0
0 7.1

, 400 1 3

, 152 1 1 5.9 1 6.8

, 186

, 904 7 5 315

35 1 0%

1 .76

, 339 2,2 4 0 0%

, 534 2,9 1 0 .28

, 846 1,4 0 0 0%

, 164 1,8 1 8 .08 8 ,50 0 10,8 2 0 0% 4 ,68 5 14,0 2 0 0,0

00 185,0 0 6 7%

, 002 16,0 3

, 384 34,7 8

, 784

, 043 w ithin the rang e 

### l ysis

31.docx 0 4

182.3 3 1,400 1 0,193

115.9 116.8 1,191 7 8,219

0
35 8.10%

12.32 4 6,140 3.00% 1 0,111

10.68 0 2,785 3.00% 1 7,457

8.08 2 2,030 3.00% 2 1,083 0 0,000 8.67% 3 4,949 8 3,600 $0
$0 e of

## SECTI O

minimiz e perform a leakage i applicati o 

### 5.4.2 S Both bre a 

### 5.4.3 S Oil-fille d 

### 5.4.4 S Althoug h risks. A n b reaker. b reakers 

### 5.4.5 S Based o n reasons. follow m replace m prior to p in-servic appropri a 

### 5.5 B A diesel

generato r gas turbi n a natural Emerge n BACT g u Bay Are a District ( guidelin e applicab l standard s greater t Standar d 2006). N the NSP S that appl y 

## O N



# FIV E

e SF 6 leaka g a nce during i s immeasur o n to estim a 

### S tep 2: Elimi

a ker types a r 

### S tep 3: Ran k d breakers a r 

### S tep 4: Eval u h oil-filled b n oil releas e

SF 6 has al s have prove n 

### S tep 5: Sele c n industry e x

In order to m anufacture r m ent of thes e

p lacing the m e breakers. B a te. 

### B ACT FOR E

- fired gener a rtechnolog y n e(s) and ot h gas outage, n cy generat o u idelines an d a Air Quali t ( SCAQMD) e s require n l e EPA NS P s for non-ro a t han 761 b h d

s for Stati o N ote that em e

S . PSE is n o y to GHGs f 

# E

g e. Limited l i

the guaran t able during a te SF 6 emis s



### nate Techn
r e technical l 

### k

Remainin g r e ranked as 

### u ate Most E f b reakers con e and/or fir e s o proven t n to be more



### c

t the BAC T
x perience, P

minimize c rrecommen d e breakers. I n m

into servi c B reakers fo u 

### E MERGEN
a tor is prop o y is not a fe a h er power p such as in t h
o r BACT de t

d determina t t y Manage m

and San Jo n ew statio n P S or CA R a d CI engin e h p, or 560 o nary Com p e rgency en g o t aware of f

or emergen c i fetime guar t eed life of the guarant e s ions is con s 

### ically Infeas l y feasible. 

### g

Control O p the top con t 

### f fective Con tain/emit n o e could res u o be a mo r reliable. 

### T P SE strongl y

c hances of d ed proced u n addition, P c e, and will p u nd to be le a 

### CY GENE R
o sed as the a sible optio n lant system s h e event of a t ermination s t ions publis h m ent District

aquin Valle y n ary emerg e R B tier stan

e s currently brake-kilo w p ression Ign g ines are ex e

any GHG B c y standby C 5-18 antees offer e the equip m e e period. T h s ervatively h 

### s ible Optio n
p tions t rol option b e



### trols and D o o GHGs, oil u lt in the e v r e effective

y prefers SF 6

S F 6 leakag e u res and sc h P SE will do u p erform mo a king will b e 

### R ATORS

only techni c n because th s if a power a strong eart h
s are much l h ed in the R B (BAAQM D y Air Pollu t e ncy comp r dards for n apply to ne w w att (bkW) (

ition Comb u e mpt from t h B ACT dete r C I engines. e d by break e m ent. PSE e x

he 0.5% an n h igh. 

### n s

e cause they 

### o

cument R e presents ot h vent of ov e insulating m

6 -filled brea k e into the a t h edules for u ble check n o nthly intern

e serviced t o

c ally feasibl h ere is a risk

grid outage t hquake. less comm o B LC and b y D ), South C o

t ion Control r ession ign i n on-GHG ai

w stationar y (EPA, Fin a u stion Engi n h e more stri n r minations o 

### GHG

Fredonia GH G e r manufact u x perience i n n ual leakag e

do not emit 

### e

sults h er environ m e rheating a n m edium, a n

k ers for reli a t mosphere, operation, m n ew breaker n al gas press u o stop the l e

e option. A k

of signific a occurred at

o n than gas y California D o ast Air Qu a l District (S J i tion (CI) e r pollutants y emergenc y a l New Sou r

n es , 71 FR ngent Tier 4 o r emission 

### BACT Ana l

G BACT 2011.10. u rers addres n dicates tha t e rate used i n

any GHGs.

m ental and s n d rupture o n d therefore

a bility and s PSE propo s m aintenanc e

units for le a u re checks o e ak or repla c

natural gas

a nt damage t

the same ti m turbines. C u D istricts. C u a lity Manag e J VAPCD) B e ngines to s . Federal T y standby e n r ce Perfor m 39154. Jul y 4 requireme n standards t o 

### l ysis

31.docx s seal t SF 6 n this

s afety o f the

, SF 6

s afety s es to e , and a kage o n all c ed as

- fired t o the m e as

u rrent u rrent e ment B ACT

meet T ier 2 n gines m ance

y 11, n ts in o date

## SECTI O

For the O purchas e with N S maintain Impact R At time certified Section 5 different Project, a For GH G that any c from sc h Applicat i cannot b emergen c 

## O N



# FIV E

O ctober 18, d engines w S PS requir e i ng efficien c R eport – Pal m

of purchas e by the ma n 5 .1 and At t

make/mod e a Tier 2 cert i G BACT pu r c hange in e n h eduled testi n

i on Attach m e reliably p r c y standby g 

# E

2011 PHP P w ould be the e ments (for c y (see EP A m dale Hybri

, the Proje c n ufacturer t t achment A

e l emergen c i fied engine
r poses, the p n gine efficie n n g of the e m m ent A-12 fo r

r edicted, is n g enerator m e P PSD perm

most energ y

other poll A Region IX

d Power Pr o c t’s propose d

o meet Tie r

- 9 of the P S c y standby g

will be spe c p roposed e m n cy would h m ergency ge

restimated h n ot include d e ets BACT.

5-19 it cited abo v y efficient a v utants) wil l . August 20 o

ject PSD P e d new eme r r2 standar d S D Permit A g enerator is c ified at tim e m ergency g e h ave little e ff

nerator are e h ourly emis s d in this e m v e, EPA Re v ailable and l ensure p r 11. Fact Sh e e rmit Numb e r gency stan d d s. The Ca t A pplication

selected d u e of purchas e e nerator wil l ff

ect on Proj e e stimated t o s ion rates). A m ission esti m 

### GHG

Fredonia GH G e gion IX ass

that operati n r oper main t e et and Am b e r SE 09-01 , d by generat o t erpillar en g

meets thes u ring detail e e . l be operate d e ct emissio n o be about 2 4 A ctual emer m ate. Theref o 

### BACT Ana l

G BACT 2011.10. s umed that n ng in comp l t enance, th e b ient Air Q u

, Section 7. 3
o r engine w g ine identifi e

e standards , ed design f o d so infreq u n s. CO 2 emi s

4 tpy (see P gency use, w o re, the pro p 

### l ysis

31.docx n ewly l iance e reby u ality 3 .1).

ill be e d in

, If a o r the

u ently s sions P ermit w hich p osedThe “co s increase s would i n CO 2 avo i Followi n changes i explaine d technolo g The cos t reduce C realized:

Cost C O ($/ton)

The cost year or $ time. Th e (analogo u expense s from we a

Cost o f ($/M W The gre a with CC plant ov e 5.3.4, bo t a peakin g s t of CO 2 a v s or decreas e n dicate that r

i ded indicat e n g is an exp l

i n power pl a d , specifical g ies. t of CO 2 av o C O 2 emissio n O 2 Avoided =

of electricit y per hour, d i e expenses o u s to a mor t s ), variable o a r and tear), f Electricity = W -hr)

a ter the cap i S, the great e r a given t t h of these t r g simple cy c v oide d ” is a e s the cost r educing C O e s that redu c l anation of h a nt capital c o ly when it c

o ided is a fu n s, measure

= Electri c CO 2 e m

y is a functi o i vided by th e o f a power p t gage paym e o perating co s

and fuel co s

= Cos t

tal cost dif f er the cost o t ime period, r ends occur c le power pl a metric use d equired to p 2 emissions c ing CO 2 e m h ow the co s o st and ope r c omes to im p fu nction of t

d in $ per M

c ity Cost wi t m issions wit h

o n of the ex p e amount o f p lant are co m e nt on a ho u s ts (e.g., wa t s ts (natural g t of Capital + Net A m
f

erence bet w o f CO 2 avo i

the greate r when comp a a nt.

A-1 d to show h o p roduce elec t

produces el e m issions incr e

s t of CO 2 a v r ating hours p lementing

t he increase M W-hr, div i

t h CCS – El h out CCS – C

p enses of a p f electricity s m prised of f o u se), the fi x t er, chemic a g as or ULS D
+ Fixed/Va r m ount of El e

w een a pow e

i de d . In ad d r the cost o f a ring a base 

### Explana t

o w implem e tricity. A n e e ctricity co s e ases the co s v oided is c a have on the CCS proce s or decreas e i ded by the
l ectricity Co C O 2 emissi o

p ower plant s old by the p o ur basic co x ed operatin g a ls, and othe r D in this cas e
r ia b le Opera t e ctricity Pr o

e r plant wit h d ition, the l e f CO 2 -avoi d loaded co m 

### t

ion – Cost

Fredonia GH G e nting CO 2 e e gative cost s t savings. A s t of electri c a lculate d . T h

cost of CO 2 s ses for elec t

e in the cos t

reduction i n st without C o ns with CC S

over time, m p lant over th o mponents: t h

g cost (mai n rmaintenan e ). t ing Costs + o duce d (M W
h out CCS a n e ss electrici t d e d . As dis c m

bined cycle 

### Attachm e of CO 2 

### Avo

G BACT 2011.10. e mission co n per CO 2 av o A positive co s c ity produce d h e influence s 2 avoided ar e t ricity gene r
t of electric i n CO 2 emi s C CS ($/MW

S (tons/M W

m easured in at same per i h e cost of c a n ly plant st a ce costs res u Fuel Cost ( $ W -hr)

n d a power t y produced c ussed in S e

power plan t 

### e nt A ided

31.docx n trols o ided st per d

. s that e also r ation
i ty to s sions

- hr) W -hr) $ per i od of a pital a ffing u lting
$ )

plant by a e ction t with