Capital Cost Estimates for Utility

Scale Electricity Generating

Plants

November 2016

Independent Statistics & Analysis

www.eia.gov

U.S. Department of Energy

Washington, DC 20585
U.S. Energy Information Administration | Capital Cost Estimatesfor Utility Scale Electricity Generating Plants ii

This report was prepared by the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), the statistical and

analytical agency within the U.S. Department of Energy. By law, EIA’s data, analyses, and forecasts are

independent of approval by any other officer or employee of the United States Government. The views

in this report therefore should not be construed as representing those of the Department of Energy or

otherfederal agencies.
U.S. Energy Information Administration | Capital Cost Estimatesfor Utility Scale Electricity Generating Plants ii

November 2016

Contents

Introduction .............................................................................................................................................1

Developing updated estimates: key design considerations ....................................................................1

Findings....................................................................................................................................................2

EIA's analysis of technology choice in the electric power sector.............................................................3

Impact of location on power plant capital costs......................................................................................5

Summary..................................................................................................................................................6

Appendix A ‐ Acronym List..........................................................................................................................12

Appendix B – Full Report.............................................................................................................................13
U.S. Energy Information Administration | Capital Cost Estimatesfor Utility Scale Electricity Generating Plants iii

November 2016

Tables

Table 1. Updated estimates of power plant capital and operating costs......................................................7

Table 2. Overnight cost comparison with 2010 estimates.............................................................................8

Table 3. Status of technologies and components modeled by EIA..............................................................10

Table 4. Regional cost adjustments for technologies modeled by NEMS by Electric Market Module (EMM)

region..................................................................................................................................................................11
U.S. Energy Information Administration | Capital Cost Estimatesfor Utility Scale Electricity Generating Plants 1

November 2016

Introduction

The current and future projected cost and performance characteristics of new electric generating

capacity are critical inputs into the development of energy projections and analyses. The construction

and operating costs, along with the performance characteristics of new generating plants, play an

important role in determining the mix of capacity additions that willserve future demand for electricity.

These parameters also help to determine how new capacity competes against existing capacity, and the

response of the electric generatorsto the imposition of environmental controls on conventional

pollutants or any limitations on greenhouse gas emissions.

EIA commissioned an external consultant to develop up‐to‐date cost and performance estimates for

utility‐scale electric generating plants for AEO2013.1 Thisinformation allowed EIA to compare the costs

of different power plant technologies on a standardized basis and was a key input enhancement to the

National Energy Model System (NEMS). Forthe AEO 2016 development, EIA commissioned the same

consultant group to update the cost and performance estimates for a select set of the technologies

evaluated in the original 2012 study. This paper summarizes the results of the findings and discusses

how EIA used the updated information to analyze the development of new capacity in the electric

powersector.

Developing updated estimates: key design considerations

The focus of the 2016 update wasto gather current information on the "overnight" construction costs,

operating costs, and performance characteristicsfor a wide range of generating technologies.2 The

estimates were developed through costing exercises, using a common methodology acrosstechnologies.

Comparing cost estimates developed on a similar basis using the same methodology is of particular

importance to ensure modeling consistency.

Each technology is represented by a generic facility of a specific size and configuration, in a location that

does not have unusual constraints or infrastructure requirements. Where possible, costs estimates were

based on information on system design, configuration, and construction derived from actual or planned

projects known to the consultant, using generic assumptions for labor and materials rates. When this

information was not available, the project costs were estimated using a more generic technology

representation and costing models that account for the current labor and materials rates necessary to

complete the construction of a generic facility as well as consistent assumptions for the contractual

relationship between the project owner and the construction contractor.

The specific overnight costsfor each type of facility were broken down to include:

 Civil and structural costs: allowance for site preparation, drainage, the installation of

underground utilities, structuralsteelsupply, and construction of buildings on the site

 Mechanical equipmentsupply and installation: major equipment, including but not limited to,

boilers, flue gas desulfurization scrubbers, cooling towers, steam turbine generators,

1 U.S. Energy Information Administration, Updated Capital Cost Estimates for Utility Scale Electricity Generating Plants 2013

2 The term “overnight” refers to the cost of the project as if no interest were incurred during its construction.
U.S. Energy Information Administration | Capital Cost Estimatesfor Utility Scale Electricity Generating Plants 2

November 2016

condensers, photovoltaic modules, combustion turbines, wind turbines, and other auxiliary

equipment

 Electrical and instrumentation and control: electrical transformers,switchgear, motor control

centers,switchyards, distributed controlsystems, and other electrical commodities

 Project indirect costs: engineering, distributable labor and materials, craft labor overtime and

incentives, scaffolding costs, construction management start up and commissioning, and fees

for contingency3

 Owners costs: development costs, preliminary feasibility and engineering studies,

environmentalstudies and permitting, legal fees, insurance costs, property taxes during

construction, and the electrical interconnection costs, including a tie‐in to a nearby electrical

transmission system

Non‐fuel operations and maintenance (O&M) costs associated with each of the power plant 

technologies were evaluated as well. The O&M costs that do not vary significantly with a plant’s

electricity generation are classified as fixed, including salaries for facility staff and maintenance that is

scheduled on a calendar basis. The costs incurred to generate electricity are classified as variable such as

the cost of consumable materials and maintenance that may be scheduled based on the number of

operating hours orstart‐stop cycles of the plant. The heat rates4 were also evaluated for the appropriate

technologies. Itshould be noted that all estimates provided in this report are broad in scope. A more in‐

depth cost assessment would require a more detailed level of engineering and design work, tailored to a

specific site.

Findings

Table 1 summarizes updated cost estimatesfor generic utility‐scale generating technologies, including

four powered by coal,six by natural gas, three by solar energy, and one each by wind, biomass, uranium,

and battery storage. EIA does not model all of these generating plant types, but included them in the

study in order to present consistent cost and performance information for a broad range of generating

technologies and to aid in the evaluation for potential inclusion of new or different technologies or

technology configurationsin future analyses.

The specific technologies represented in the NEMS model forAEO2016 that use the cost data from this

report are identified in the last column of Table 1.

Table 2 compares the updated overnight cost estimates to those developed for the 2013 report. To

facilitate comparisons, the costs are expressed in 2016 dollars.5 Notable changesinclude:

 Ultra Supercritical Coal (USC) with and without carbon capture and storage (USC/CCS). USC

with carbon capture and storage was added for this study to help meet EPA’s 111b new source

performance standard for carbon emissions. While USC without carbon capture cannot be built

under currentregulations, inclusion of thistechnology maintains the capability to analyze policy

alternativesthat may exclude 111b requirements.

3 Fees for contingency include contractor overhead costs, fees, profit, and construction.

4 Heat Rate is a measure of generating station thermal efficiency commonly stated as Btu per kilowatthour. 

5 U.S. Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Outlook 2016, Table 20, GDP chain‐type price index
U.S. Energy Information Administration | Capital Cost Estimatesfor Utility Scale Electricity Generating Plants 3

November 2016

 Conventional Natural Gas Combined Cycle (NGCC) and Advanced Natural Gas Combined Cycle

(ANGCC): The updated overnight capital cost for conventional and advanced NGCC plants

remained level relative to the cost in the 2013 study. The capacity of the NGCC unit increased

from 400 MW in the 2013 study to 429 MW, while the capacity of the ANGCC unit increased

from 620 MW to 702 MW for ANGCC to reflect trendstoward larger installations for this

technology.

 Onshore Wind: Overnight costs for onshore wind decreased by approximately 25 percent relative

to the 2013 study, primarily due to lower wind turbine prices. EIA adjusted regional cost factors

for wind plants from those reported in thisreport for inclusion in AEO 2016[hyper link to Table

8.2]. The regional factors in this report primarily account for regional variation in labor and

materials costs, but subsequent evaluation of the regional variation in wind plant costs found

that other factors, such as typical plant size, may account for a larger share of the observed

regional differences in cost for the wind plants.

 Solar Photovoltaic: The overnight capital costsforsolar photovoltaic technologies decreased by

67 percent for the 20 MW fixed tilt photovoltaic systems from the costs presented in the 2013

study. Solar photovoltaic single‐axistracking systems were introduced in thisreport (including

both a 20 MW and 150 MW system configurations). There is not a significant difference in

Capital costs between fixed‐tilt and single‐axis‐tracking systems. The overall decreasesin costs

can be attributed to a decline in the component costs and the construction cost savings for the

balance of plantsystems.

As previously noted, costs are developed using a consistent methodology that includes a broad

project scope and includes indirect and owners costs. The cost figures will not necessarily match

those derived in other studies that employ different approaches to cost estimation.

EIA's analysis of technology choice in the electric powersector

EIA’s modeling employs a net present value (NPV) capital budgeting methodology to evaluate different

investment options for new power plants. Estimates of the overnight capital cost, fixed and variable

operations and maintenance costs, and plant heat rates for generic generating technologies serve as a

starting point for developing the total cost of new generating capacity. However, other parameters also

play a key role in determining the total capital costs. Because several of these factors are dynamic, the

realized overall capital cost for given technologies can vary based on a variety of circumstances. Five of

the most notable parameters are:

 Financing: EIA determinesthe cost of capital required to build new power plants by calculating a

weighted average cost of capital using a mix of macro‐economic parameters determined through

EIA’s modeling and an assumed capitalstructure for the electric power industry.

 Lead Time: The amount of time needed to build a given type of power plant varies by

technology. Projects with longer lead times increase financing costs. Each year of construction

represents a year of additional interest charges before the plant is placed in service and starts

generating revenue. Furthermore, plants with front‐weighted construction and development

profiles will incur higher interest charges during construction than plants where most of the

construction expenditures occur at the end of the development cycle.
U.S. Energy Information Administration | Capital Cost Estimatesfor Utility Scale Electricity Generating Plants 4

November 2016

 Inflation of material and construction costs: The projected relationship between the rate of

inflation for the overall economy and key drivers of plant costs, such as materials and

construction, are important elementsimpacting overall plant costs. A projected economy‐wide

inflation rate that exceedsthe projected inflation rate for materials and construction costs

results in a projected decline in real (inflation‐adjusted) capital costs and vice versa.

 Resource Supply: Technologies such as wind, geothermal, or hydroelectric must be sited in

suitable locations to take advantage of the particular resource. In order to capture the site

specific costs associated with these technologies, EIA develops upward sloping supply curves for

each of these technologies. These curves assume that the lowest‐cost, most‐favorable resources

will be developed first, and when only higher‐cost, less‐favorable sites remain, development

costs will increase and/or project performance will decrease.

 Learning by doing: The overnight capital costs developed for the report serve as an input to EIA's

long term modeling and represent the cost of construction for a project that could begin as early

as 2015. However, these costs are assumed to decrease over time in real terms as equipment

manufacturers, power plant owners, and construction firms gain more experience 

with certain technologies. The rate at which these costs decline is often referred to as the

learning rate.

EIA determines learning rates at the power plant component level, not for the power plant

technology itself because some technologiesshare the same component types. It is assumed that

the knowledge and experienced gained through the manufacture and installation of a given

component in one type of power plant can be carried over to the same component in another

type of plant. As an example, the experience gained through the construction of natural gas

combustion turbine plants can be leveraged to influence the overall cost of building a Natural

Gas Combined Cycle unit, which in part, includes the components of a combustion turbine

natural gas plant. Other technologies,such as nuclear power and pulverized coal (PC) plants

without CCS, do not share componentsystems, and their learning rates are determined solely as

a function of the amount of capacity built over time.

Technologies and their components are represented in the NEMS model at various stages of

maturity. EIA classifies technologiesinto three such stages: mature, evolutionary, and

revolutionary. The initial learning rate is evaluated for each technology. The technology

classification determines how the rate of cost reduction changes as each technology progresses

through the learning function. Generally, overnight costs fortechnologies and associated

components decline at a specified rate based on a doubling of new capacity. The cost decline is

fastest for revolutionary technologies and slower for evolutionary and mature technologies.6

6 U.S. Energy Information Administration, Electricity Market Module Assumptions Document, Table 8.3.
U.S. Energy Information Administration | Capital Cost Estimatesfor Utility Scale Electricity Generating Plants 5

November 2016

The capacity additions used to influence learning are primarily developed from NEMS results.

However, external capacity additions from international projects are also included for some

technologies, to account for additional learning from such projects. For power plant technologies

with multiple components, the capacity additions are weighted by the contribution of 

each component to the overall plant construction cost.7

Table 3 classifiesthe status of each technology and component as modeled in AEO2016

The NEMS model also assumes that efficiency for all fossil‐fueled plants improves as a result of learning

by doing. The power plant heat rates provided by the consultant are intended to represent the

characteristics of a plant that starts construction in 2015 referred to as “first‐of‐a‐kind.” NEMS assumes

that the heat rate for all fossil fueled technologies declines over time to a level referred to as an “nth‐of‐

a‐kind” heat rate.8 The magnitude of heat rate improvement depends on the currentstate of the

technology, with revolutionary technologiesseeing a more significant decline in heat rate than mature

technologies. Heat rate improvements are independent of capacity expansion. Fixed and variable O&M

are not assumed to achieve learning‐related savings. The performance of wind plants, as measured by

capacity factor, is also assumed to improve as a result of learning by doing.9

Impact of location on power plant capital costs

The estimates provided in this report are representative of a generic facility located in a region without

any special issues that would alter its cost. However, the cost of building power plants in different regions

of the United States can vary significantly. The report includes location‐based cost adjustment 

tables for each technology in 64 metropolitan areas. These adjustments were made to reflect the impact

of remote location costs, costs associated with seismic design that may vary by region, and labor wage

and productivity differences by region. In order to reflect these costs in EIA's modeling, these

adjustments were aggregated to represent the 22 Electricity Market Module regions. EIA also assumes

that the development of certain technologies is not feasible in given regions for geographic, logistical, or

regulatory reasons. The regional cost adjustments and development restrictions are summarized

in Table 4.

Subsequent peer review of these results indicated that the regional factors used for wind plants do not

adequately reflect observed regional variation of wind plant costs, which appear to be substantially

determined by factors other than those considered above. In particular, EIA found a significant regional

variation in typical plant size that generally correlated with regional variation in installation costs.

Therefore, EIA does not use the regional factorsincluded in this report for its analysis of wind

technologies. Regional factors used for AEO 2016 and related analyses can be found in Table 8.2 of the

AEO 2016 Assumptions document, and are also shown in Table 4.

7 U.S. Energy Information Administration, Electricity Market Module Assumptions Document, Table 8.4.

8 U.S. Energy Information Administration, AEO 2016 Cost and Performance Characteristics of New Central Station Electricity

Generating Technologies, Table 8.2.

9 U.S. Energy Information Administration, Renewable Fuels Module
U.S. Energy Information Administration | Capital Cost Estimatesfor Utility Scale Electricity Generating Plants 6

November 2016

Summary

The estimates provided by the consultant for this report are key inputs for EIA electric market

projections, but they are not the sole driver of electric generation capacity expansion decisions. The

evolution of the electricity mix in each of the 22 regions modeled in AEO2016 is sensitive to many

factors, including the projected evolution of capital costs over the modeling horizon, projected fuel

costs, whether wholesale power markets are regulated or competitive, the existing generation mix,

additional costs associated with environmental controlrequirements, and future electricity demand.

Usersinterested in additional detailsregarding these updated cost estimates should review the

consultantstudy prepared by Leidos Engineering, LLC in Appendix B.
November 2016

Table 1. Updated estimates of power plant capital and operating costs

Plant Characteristics Plant Costs(2016$)

Technology

Nominal

Capacity (MW)

Heat Rate

(Btu/kWh)

Overnight

Capital Cost

($/kW)

Fixed

O&M

($/kW‐yr)

Variable

O&M

($/MWh)

NEMS

Input

Coal

Ultra Supercritical Coal (USC)10 650 8,800 3,636 42.1 4.6 N

Ultra Supercritical Coal with CCS (USC/CCS)11 650 9,750 5,084 70 7.1 Y

Pulverized Coal Conversion to Natural Gas(CTNG) 300 10,300 226 22 1.3 N

Pulverized Coal Greenfield with 10‐15 percent 300 8,960 4,620 50.9 5 N

Pulverized Coal Conversion to 10 percent biomass – 300 10,360 537 50.9 5 Y

NaturalGas

Natural Gas Combined Cycle (NGCC) 702 6,600 978 11 3.5 Y

Advanced Natural Gas Combined Cycle (ANGCC)13 429 6,300 1,104 10 2 Y

Combustion Turbine (CT) 100 10,000 1,101 17.5 3.5 Y

Advanced Combustion Turbine (ACT) 237 9,800 678 6.8 10.7 Y

Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engine (RICE) 85 8,500 1,342 6.9 5.85 N

Uranium

Advanced Nuclear(AN) 2,234 N/A 5,945 100.28 2.3 Y

Biomass

Biomass(BBFB) 50 13,500 4,985 110 4.2 N

Wind

Onshore Wind (WN) 100 N/A 1,877 39.7 0 Y

Solar

Photovoltaic – Fixed 20 N/A 2,671 23.4 0 N

Photovoltaic – Tracking 20 2,644 23.9 0 N

Photovoltaic – Tracking 150 N/A 2,534 21.8 0 Y

Storage

Battery Storage (BES) 4 N/A 2,813 40 8 N

10 USC coal without CCS is not compliant with 111b new source standards for carbon emissions and cannot be built in the AEO2016

forecast.

11 Ultra Supercritical Coal with 30% CCS

12 Represents capital cost to retrofit existing coal plants to operate with 10% biomass fuel.

13 "Advanced"‐higher capital cost with reduced operating costs

U.S. Energy Information Administration | Capital Cost Estimates for Utility Scale Electricity Generating Plants 7
U.S. Energy Information Administration | Capital Cost Estimatesfor Utility Scale Electricity Generating Plants 8

Natural Gas

November 2016

Table 2. Overnight cost comparison with 2013 estimates

Overnight Capital Cost (2016 $/kW) 

2016 Report 2013 report % Difference

 Coal

Single Unit Advanced PC N/A $3,453 N/A

Dual Unit Advanced PC N/A $3,121 N/A

Single Unit Advanced PC with CCS N/A $5,561 N/A

Dual Unit Advanced PC with CCS N/A $5,026 N/A

Single Unit IGCC N/A $4,681 N/A

Dual Unit IGCC N/A $4,026 N/A

Single Unit IGCC with CCS N/A $7,020 N/A

Ultra Supercritical Coal (USC) $3,636 N/A 5%14

Ultra Supercritical Coal with CCS (USC/CCS) $5,084 N/A N/A

Pulverized Coal Conversion to Natural Gas (CTNG) $226 N/A N/A

Pulverized Coal Greenfield with 10‐15 percent biomass (GCBC) $4,620 N/A N/A

Pulverized Coal Conversion to 10 percent biomass Co‐Firing 30 MW (CTCB) $537 N/A N/A

Conventional CC $978 $976 0.3%

Advanced CC $1,104 $1,088 1%

Advanced CC with CCS N/A $2,229 N/A

Conventional CT $1,101 $1,035 6%

Advanced CT $678 $719 (6%)

Fuel Cells N/A $7,562 N/A

Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engine (RICE) $1,342 N/A N/A

Dual Unit Nuclear $5,945 $5,883 1%

Biomass CC N/A $8,702 N/A

Biomass BFB $4,985 $4,377 12%

Wind

14 Comparison of costs of coal units without carbon control, despite difference in generation performance (ultra supercritical vs

supercritical)

Onshore Wind

Offshore Wind

$1,877 $2,354

$6,628
U.S. Energy Information Administration | Capital Cost Estimatesfor Utility Scale Electricity Generating Plants 9

November 2016

Table 2. Overnight cost comparison with 2013 estimates(cont.)

Overnight Capital Cost (2016 $/kW)

Solar

2016 Report 2013 report % Difference

Solar Thermal N/A $5,390 N/A

Solar Photovoltaic (20 MW) $2,671 $4,450 (67%)

Solar Photovoltaic (150 MW) N/A $4,120 N/A

Solar Photovoltaic ‐Tracking (20 MW) $2,644 N/A N/A

Solar Photovoltaic ‐ Tracking (150 MW) $2,534 N/A N/A

Geothermal – Dual Flash N/A $6,641 N/A

Geothermal – Binary N/A $4,640 N/A

Municipal Solid Waste

Municipal Solid Waste N/A $8,843 N/A

Hydroelectric

Conventional Hydroelectric N/A $3,123 N/A

Pumped Storage N/A $5,626 N/A

Battery Storage (4 MW) 2,813 N/A N/A
U.S. Energy Information Administration | Capital Cost Estimatesfor Utility Scale Electricity Generating Plants 10

November 2016

Table 3. Status of technologies and components modeled by EIA

Revolutionary Evolutionary Mature

Pulverized Coal X

Pulverized Coal with CCS

‐ Non‐CCS portion of Pulverized Coal Plant X

‐ CCS X

Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle

‐ Advanced Combustion Turbine X

‐ Heat Recovery Steam Generator X

‐ Gasifier X

‐ Balance of Plant X

Conventional Natural Gas Combined Cycle

‐ Conventional Combustion Turbine X

‐ Heat Recovery Steam Generator X

‐ Balance of Plant X

Advanced Natural Gas Combined Cycle

‐ Advanced Combustion Turbine X

‐ Heat Recovery Steam Generator X

‐ Balance of Plant X

Advanced Natural Gas Combined Cycle with CCS

‐ Advanced Combustion Turbine X

‐ Heat Recovery Steam Generator X

‐ Balance of Plant X

‐ CCS X

Conventional Natural Gas Combustion Turbine

‐ Conventional Combustion Turbine X

‐ Balance of Plant X

Advanced Natural Gas Combustion Turbine

‐ Advanced Combustion Turbine X

‐ Balance of Plant X

Advanced Nuclear X

Biomass

‐ Pulverized Coal X

‐ Fuel Preparation X

Geothermal X

Municipal Solid Waste/Landfill Gas X

Conventional Hydroelectric X

Wind

‐ Onshore/Common Components X

‐ Offshore Components X

Solar Thermal X

Solar PV

‐ Modules (Utility and End Use) X

‐ Utility Balance of Plant X
U.S. Energy Information Administration | Capital Cost Estimatesfor Utility Scale Electricity Generating Plants 11

November 2016

Table 4. Regional cost adjustmentsfor technologies modeled by NEMS by Electric Market Module (EMM) region15

EMM PC Conv. Adv. Conv. Adv.

Adv.

CC Fuel

On‐

shore

Off‐

shore Solar Solar

Region PC IGCC w/CCS CT CT CC CC w/CCS Cell Nuclear Biomass MSW Wind Wind Thermal PV

1 (ERCT) 0.91 0.92 0.92 0.93 0.95 0.91 0.92 0.9 0.96 0.96 0.93 0.93 0.95 0.92 0.86 0.87

2 (FRCC) 0.92 0.93 0.94 0.93 0.93 0.91 0.92 0.92 0.97 0.97 0.94 0.94 N/A N/A 0.89 0.9

3 (MROE) 1.01 1.01 0.99 0.99 1.01 0.99 0.99 0.97 0.99 1.01 0.99 0.98 0.99 0.97 N/A 0.96

4 (MROW) 0.95 0.96 0.96 0.98 1.00 0.97 0.97 0.96 0.98 0.98 0.96 0.96 1.03 1.01 N/A 0.95

5 (NEWE) 1.1 1.09 1.05 1.16 1.2 1.16 1.15 1.08 1.01 1.05 1.04 1.02 1.06 1.03 N/A 1.03

6 (NYCW) N/A N/A N/A 1.63 1.68 1.68 1.66 1.5 1.14 N/A 1.26 1.26 N/A 1.29 N/A N/A

7 (NYLI) N/A N/A N/A 1.63 1.68 1.68 1.66 1.5 1.14 N/A 1.26 1.26 1.25 1.29 N/A 1.45

8 (NYUP) 1.11 1.1 1.05 1.17 1.22 1.16 1.16 1.06 1.00 1.07 1.03 1.00 1.01 0.99 N/A 0.98

9 (RFCE) 1.15 1.14 1.09 1.21 1.25 1.21 1.21 1.12 1.02 1.08 1.07 1.03 1.05 1.03 N/A 1.05

10 (RFCM) 0.98 0.98 0.98 1.01 1.02 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.98 0.98 1.00 0.98 N/A 0.97

11 (RFCW) 1.05 1.04 1.02 1.05 1.06 1.04 1.04 1.02 1.00 1.03 1.02 1.00 1.02 1.01 N/A 1.00

12 (SRDA) 0.92 0.93 0.93 0.95 0.96 0.93 0.93 0.92 0.97 0.96 0.93 0.94 0.96 1.00 N/A 0.89

13 (SRGW) 1.07 1.06 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.06 1.05 1.04 1.02 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.04 1.00 N/A 1.05

14 (SRSE) 0.92 0.93 0.93 0.95 0.97 0.93 0.94 0.92 0.97 0.96 0.93 0.94 0.96 0.93 N/A 0.89

15 (SRCE) 0.93 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.95 0.93 0.93 0.92 0.97 0.97 0.94 0.94 0.96 1.00 N/A 0.89

16 (SRVC) 0.89 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.93 0.88 0.89 0.88 0.96 0.95 0.91 0.91 0.95 0.92 N/A 0.84

17 (SPNO) 0.98 0.99 0.98 1.00 1.01 0.99 0.99 0.98 0.99 0.99 0.98 0.98 1.02 N/A 0.97 0.97

18 (SPSO) 0.98 0.99 0.98 1.00 1.01 0.99 0.99 0.98 0.99 0.99 0.98 0.98 1.02 N/A 0.97 0.97

19 (AZNM) 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.03 1.04 1.02 1.02 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.03 1.00 0.99 0.99

20 (CAMX) N/A N/A 1.12 1.24 1.29 1.25 1.24 1.15 1.03 N/A 1.08 1.06 1.12 1.05 1.13 1.11

21 (NWPP) 1.01 1.01 1.00 1.02 1.03 1.01 1.01 0.99 0.99 1.01 1.00 0.98 1.05 1.02 0.99 0.99

22 (RMPA) 0.99 0.99 0.97 1.02 1.05 1.01 1.01 0.96 0.98 1.01 0.97 0.95 1.03 N/A 0.93 0.93

Note: Geothermal and Hydroelectric plants are not included in the table because EIA uses site specific cost estimates for these technologies which include

regional factors.

15 The regional tablesin the report were aggregated to the appropriate Electricity Market Module region in orderto represent regional cost factorsin NEMS
U.S. Energy Information Administration | Capital Cost Estimatesfor Utility Scale Electricity Generating Plants 12

November 2016

Appendix A - Acronym List

BFB ‐ Bubbling Fluidized Bed

CC ‐ Combined Cycle

CCS ‐ Carbon Capture and Sequestration

CT ‐ Combustion Turbine

CTCB – Conversion to Biomass Co‐Firing

CTNG – Conversion to Natural Gas

GCBC – Greenfield Conversion Biomass Co‐Firing

IGCC ‐ Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle

PC ‐ Pulverized Coal

PV – Photovoltaic

RICE – Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engine

USC – Ultra Supercritical Coal
U.S. Energy Information Administration | Capital Cost Estimatesfor Utility Scale Electricity Generating Plants 13

November 2016

Appendix B – Full Report
EOP III TASK 10388, SUBTASK 4 and TASK 10687, SUBTASK 

2.3.1 – REVIEW OF

POWER PLANT COST AND PERFORMANCE

ASSUMPTIONS FOR NEMS

Technology Documentation Report

FINAL - REVISED

Prepared by: 

LEIDOS ENGINEERING, LLC

Prepared For:

Energy Information Administration

Office of Electricity, Coal, Nuclear, and Renewables Analysis

Chris Namovicz

Jim Diefenderfer

April 2016
Disclaimer

Certain statements included in this report constitute forward-looking statements. The achievement 

of certain results or other expectations contained in such forward-looking statements involve 

known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors which may cause actual results, 

performance or achievements described in the report to be materially different from any future 

results, performance or achievements expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements. 

We do not plan to issue any updates or revisions to the forward-looking statements if or when our 

expectations or events, conditions, or circumstances on which such statements are based occur.
i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Introduction 1-1

1.1Technologies Assessed 1-1

2. General Basis for Technology Evaluation Basis 2-1

2.1Leidos Engineering, LLC Background 2-1

2.2Base Fuel Characteristics 2-1

2.3Environmental Compliance Basis 2-4

2.4Local Capacity Adjustments 2-4

2.5Technology Specifications 2-6

2.6Cost Estimation Methodology 2-6

2.6.1 Capital Cost 2-6

2.6.2 Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Expenses 2-7

3. Ultra Supercritical Coal (USC) 3-1

3.1Mechanical Equipment and Systems 3-1

3.2Electrical and Control Systems 3-2

3.3Off-Site Requirements 3-2

3.4Capital Cost Estimate 3-3

3.5O&M Estimate 3-4

3.6Environmental Compliance Information 3-5

4. Ultra Supercritical Coal with CCS (USC/CCS) 4-1

4.1Mechanical Equipment and Systems 4-1

4.2Electrical and Control Systems 4-2

4.3Off-Site Requirements 4-2

4.4Capital Cost Estimate 4-2

4.5O&M Estimate 4-4

4.6Environmental Compliance Information 4-4

5. Pulverized Coal Brownfield Conversion to Natural Gas (CTNG) 5-1

5.1Mechanical Equipment and Systems 5-1

5.2Electrical and Control Systems 5-2

5.3Off-Site Requirements 5-2

5.4Capital Cost Estimate 5-2

5.5O&M Estimate 5-4
ii

5.6Environmental Compliance Information 5-4

6. Pulverized Coal Greenfield with 10-15% Biomass (GCBC) 6-1

6.1Mechanical Equipment and Systems 6-1

6.2Electrical and Control Systems 6-1

6.3Off-Site Requirements 6-2

6.4Capital Cost Estimate 6-2

6.5O&M Estimate 6-3

6.6Environmental Compliance Information 6-3

7. Pulverized Coal Brownfield Conversion to Coal with 10% Biomass – 30 MW Co-Firing (CTCB)

7-1

7.1Mechanical Equipment and Systems 7-1

7.2Electrical and Control Systems 7-1

7.3Off-Site Requirements 7-2

7.4Capital Cost Estimate 7-2

7.5O&M Estimate 7-3

7.6Environmental Compliance Information 7-3

8. Conventional Natural Gas Combined Cycle (NGCC) 8-1

8.1Mechanical Equipment and Systems 8-1

8.2Electrical and Control Systems 8-2

8.3Off-Site Requirements 8-2

8.4Capital Cost Estimate 8-3

8.5O&M Estimate 8-5

8.6Environmental Compliance Information 8-5

9. Advanced Generation Natural Gas Combined Cycle (AG-NGCC) 9-1

9.1Mechanical Equipment and Systems 9-1

9.2Electrical and Control Systems 9-1

9.3Off-Site Requirements 9-1

9.4Capital Cost Estimate 9-2

9.5O&M Estimate 9-2

9.6Environmental Compliance Information 9-3

10. Conventional Combustion Turbine (CT) 10-1

10.1 Mechanical Equipment and Systems 10-1

10.2 Electrical and Control Systems 10-1
iii

10.3 Off-Site Requirements 10-1

10.4 Capital Cost Estimate 10-2

10.5 O&M Estimate 10-3

10.6 Environmental Compliance Information 10-4

11. Advanced Combustion Turbine (ACT) 11-1

11.1 Mechanical Equipment and Systems 11-1

11.2 Electrical and Control Systems 11-1

11.3 Off-Site Requirements 11-1

11.4 Capital Cost Estimate 11-1

11.5 O&M Estimate 11-2

11.6 Environmental Compliance Information 11-3

12. Advanced Nuclear (AN) 12-1

12.1 Mechanical Equipment and Systems 12-1

12.2 Electrical and Control Systems 12-3

12.3 Off-Site Requirements 12-3

12.4 Capital Cost Estimate 12-4

12.5 O&M Estimate 12-5

12.6 Environmental Compliance Information 12-5

13. Biomass Bubbling Fluidized Bed (BBFB) 13-1

13.1 Mechanical Equipment and Systems 13-1

13.2 Electrical and Control Systems 13-2

13.3 Off-Site Requirements 13-2

13.4 Capital Cost Estimate 13-2

13.5 O&M Estimate 13-4

13.6 Environmental Compliance Information 13-4

14. Onshore Wind (WN) 14-1

14.1 Mechanical Equipment and Systems 14-1

14.2 Electrical and Control Systems 14-1

14.3 Off-Site Requirements 14-2

14.4 Capital Cost Estimate 14-2

14.5 O&M Estimate 14-4

14.6 Environmental Compliance Information 14-4
iv

15. Utility-Scale Photovoltaic (PV) Facility 15-1

15.1 Mechanical Equipment and Systems 15-1

15.2 Electrical and Control Systems 15-2

15.3 Off-Site Requirements 15-2

15.4 Capital Cost Estimate 15-2

15.5 O&M Estimate 15-6

15.6 Environmental Compliance Information 15-7

16. Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engine (RICE) 16-1

16.1 Mechanical Equipment and Systems 16-1

16.2 Electrical and Control Systems 16-2

16.3 Off-Site Requirements 16-2

16.4 Capital Cost Estimate 16-3

16.5 O&M Estimate 16-4

16.6 Environmental Compliance Information 16-4

17. Battery Storage (BES) 17-1

17.1 Mechanical Equipment and Systems 17-1

17.2 Electrical and Control Systems 17-1

17.3 Off-Site Requirements 17-2

17.4 Capital Cost Estimate 17-2

17.5 O&M Estimate 17-4

17.6 Environmental Compliance Information 17-4
v

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 3-1 – Ultra Supercritical Coal Design Configuration 3-2

Figure 4-1 – USC Facility Diagram 4-1

Figure 4-2 – USC/CCS Facility Diagram 4-2

Figure 5-1 – CTNG Design Configuration 5-2

Figure 6-1 – GCBC Design Configuration 6-1

Figure 7-1 – CTCB Design Configuration 7-1

Figure 8-1 – Conventional NGCC Design Configuration 8-2

Figure 9-1 – AG-NGCC Design Configuration 9-1

Figure 10-1 – Conventional CT Design Configuration 10-1

Figure 11-1 – Advanced CT Design Configuration 11-1

Figure 12-1 – AN Design Configuration 12-3

Figure 13-1 – BBFB Design Configuration 13-1

Figure 14-1 – WN Design Configuration 14-1

Figure 15-1 – Typical PV Facility 15-1

Figure 16-1 – RICE Schematic Configuration 16-2

Figure 17-1 – BES Design Configuration 17-1
vi

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1-1 – List of Technologies for Review 1-2

Table 2-1 – Reference Coal Specification 2-2

Table 2-2 – Natural Gas Specification 2-3

Table 2-3 – Wood Biomass Specification (1) 2-3

Table 2-4 – CT Capacity Adjustments 2-5

Table 2-5 – Technology Performance Specifications 2-10

Table 3-1 – Base Plant Site Capital Cost Estimate for USC 3-3

Table 3-3 – O&M Expenses for USC (650,000 kw) 3-5

Table 3-4 – Environmental Emissions for USC 3-5

Table 4-1 – Base Plant Site Capital Cost Estimate for USC/CCS 4-3

Table 4-3 – O&M Expenses for USC/CCS (650,000 kW) 4-4

Table 4-4 – Environmental Emissions for USC/CCS 4-4

Table 5-1 – Base Plant Site Capital Cost Estimate for CTNG 5-3

Table 5-3 – O&M Expenses for CTNG 5-4

Table 5-4 – Environmental Emissions for CTNG 5-4

Table 6-1 – Location-Based Costs for GCBC 6-2

Table 6-3 – O&M Expenses for GCBC 6-3

Table 6-4 – Environmental Emissions for GCBC 6-4

Table 7-1 – Location-Based Costs for CTCB 7-2

Table 7-3 – O&M Expenses for CTCB 7-3

Table 7-4 – Environmental Emissions for CTCB 7-3

Table 8-1 – Base Plant Site Capital Cost Estimate For Conventional NGCC 8-3

Table 8-3 – O&M Expenses for Conventional NGCC 8-5

Table 8-4 – Environmental Emissions for Conventional NGCC 8-5

Table 9-1 – Base Plant Site Capital Cost Estimate for AG-NGCC 9-2

Table 9-3 – O&M Expenses for AG-NGCC 9-3

Table 9-4 – Environmental Emissions for AG-NGCC 9-3

Table 10-1 – Base Plant Site Capital Cost Estimate For Conventional CT 10-2

Table 10-3 – O&M Expenses for Conventional CT 10-4

Table 10-4 – Environmental Emissions for Conventional CT 10-4
vii

Table 11-1 – Base Plant Site Capital Cost Estimate for Advanced CT 11-2

Table 11-3 – O&M Expenses for Advanced CT 11-3

Table 11-4 – Environmental Emissions for Advanced CT11-3

Table 12-1 – Base Plant Site Capital Cost Estimate For AN 12-4

Table 12-3 – O&M Expenses for AN 12-5

Table 12-4 – Environmental Emissions for AN 12-5

Table 13-1 – Base Plant Site Capital Cost Estimate For BBFB 13-3

Table 13-3 – O&M Expenses for BBFB 13-4

Table 13-4 – Environmental Emissions for BBFB 13-5

Table 14-1 – Location-Based Costs for WN 14-3

Table 14-3 – O&M Expenses for WN 14-4

Table 14-4 – Environmental Emissions for WN 14-4

Table 15-1 – Base Plant Site Capital Cost Estimate For PV 15-3

Table 15-2 – Base Plant Site Capital Cost Estimate For PV 15-4

Table 15-3 – Base Plant Site Capital Cost Estimate For PV 15-5

Table 15-7 – O&M Expenses for PV FIXED Facility (20 MW) 15-6

Table 15-8 – O&M Expenses for PV-tracker Facility (20 MW) 15-6

Table 15-9 – O&M Expenses for PV-tracking Facility (150 MW) 15-6

Table 15-10 – Environmental Emissions for PV 15-7

Table 16-1 – Location-Based Costs for RICE 16-3

Table 16-3 – O&M Expenses for RICE 16-4

Table 16-4 – Environmental Emissions for RICE 16-5

Table 17-1 – Location-Based Costs for BES 17-3

Table 17-3 – O&M Expenses for BES 17-4

Table 17-4 – Environmental Emissions for BES 17-4

Table 3-2 – Location-Based Costs for USC (650,000 kW) A-1

Table 4-2 – Location-Based Costs for USC/CCS Facility (650,000 kW) A-3

Table 5-2 – Location-Based Costs for CTNG Facility (300,000 kW) A-5

Table 6-2 – Location-Based Costs for GCBC Facility (300,000 kW) A-7

Table 7-2 – Location-Based Costs for CTCB Facility (300,000 kW) A-9

Table 8-2 – Location-Based Costs for NGCC Facility (702,000 kW) A-11

Table 9-2 – Location-Based Costs for AG-NGCC Facility (429,000 kW) A-13
viii

Table 10-2 – Location-Based Costs for CT Facility (100,000 kW) A-15

Table 11-2 – Location-Based Costs for ACT Facility (237,000 kW) A-17

Table 12-2 – Location-Based Costs for AN Facility (2,234,000 kW) A-19

Table 13-2– Location-Based Costs for BBFB Facility (50,000 kW) A-21

Table 14-2 – Location-Based Costs for WN Facility (100,000 kW) A-23

Table 15-4 – Location-Based Costs for PV Fixed Facility (20,000 kW) A-25

Table 15-5 – Location-Based Costs for PV Tracker Facility (20,000 kW) A-27

Table 15-6 – Location-Based Costs for PV Tracker Facility (150,000 kW) A-29

Table 16-2 – Location-Based Costs for RICE Facility (85,000 kW)A-31

Table 17-2 – Location-Based Costs for BES Facility (4,000 kW) A-33
ix

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

AC Alternating Current

AG Advanced Generation

AG-NGCC Advanced Generation Natural Gas Combined Cycle

AG-NGCC/CCS Advanced Generation Natural Gas Combined Cycle with CCS

AGR Acid Gas Removal

AN Advanced Nuclear

ASU Air Separation Unit

BACT Best Available Control Technology

BBFB Biomass Bubbling Fluidized Bed

BES Battery Storage

BFB Bubbling Fluidized Bed

BOP Balance-of-Plant

Btu British Thermal Unit

C Carbon

CCS Carbon Capture and Sequestration

C2H6 Ethane

C3H8 Propane

C4H10 n-Butane

CH4 Methane

CO Carbon Monoxide

CO2 Carbon Dioxide

COS Carbonyl Sulfide

CT Combustion Turbine

DC Direct Current

DCS Distributed Control System

DLN Dry Low-NOX Combustion

EIA Energy Information Administration

EMM Electricity Market Module of NEMS

EPC Engineering, Procurement and Construction

F Degrees Fahrenheit

FGD Flue Gas Desulfurization

FOM Fixed O&M

GHG Greenhouse Gas

GSU Generator Step-up Transformer

GT Geothermal

H2S Hydrogen Sulfide

HHV High(er) Heating Value

HP High Pressure

HRSG Heat Recovery Steam Generator

HY Hydroelectric

Hz Hertz

I&C Instrumentation and Controls

IP Intermediate Pressure

ISO International Standard Organization

kg Kilograms

KJ Kilojoules

kW Kilowatt

kWh Kilowatt-hour
x

kV Kilovolt

kVA kilovolt-amperes

lb Pound

Leidos Leidos Engineering, LLC

LHV Low(er) Heating Value

LP Low Pressure

MEA Monoethanolamine

MJ Mega joules

MMBtu Million Btu

MSW Municipal Solid Waste

MW Megawatt

MWe Megawatts Electric

MWh Megawatt-hour

MVA Mega-volt-amperes

N2 Nitrogen

NEMS National Energy Modeling System

NGCC Natural Gas Combined Cycle

NH3 Ammonia

NOX Oxides of Nitrogen

O2 Oxygen

O&M Operating and Maintenance

NOx Nitrogen Oxides

ppmvd Parts per Million Volume Dry

PS Pumped Storage

psia Pounds per Square Inch Absolute

PV Photovoltaic

PWR Pressurized Water Reactor

RCS Reactor Coolant System

RICE Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engine

S Sulfur

SCADA Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition

scf Standard Cubic Feet

scm Standard Cubic Meters

SCR Selective Catalytic Reduction

SNCR Selective Non-catalytic Reduction

SO Solar Thermal

SO2 Sulfur Dioxide

SRU Sulfur Recovery Unit

ST Steam Turbine

TGF Turbine Generating Facility

U.S. United States

USC Ultra Supercritical Coal Facility

USC/CCS Ultra Supercritical Coal with CCS

V Volt

VOM Variable Operating and Maintenance

WFGD Wet Flue Gas Desulfurization

WN Onshore Wind

WTG Wind Turbine Generator
1-1

1. Introduction

This report presents Leidos Engineering, LLC (“Leidos”) performance and cost assessment of 

power generation technologies utilized by the Energy Information Administration (“EIA”) in the 

Electricity Market Module (“EMM”) of the National Energy Modeling System (“NEMS”). The 

assessment for each of the technologies considered includes the following: 

 Overnight construction costs, construction lead times, first year of commercial application, 

typical unit size, contingencies, fixed and variable operating costs, and efficiency (heat 

rate). The analysis was conducted to ensure that the overnight cost estimates developed 

for use in the EMM for electric generating technologies are consistent in scope, accounting 

for generally all costs in the planning and development of a power plant including the basic 

interconnection to the grid at the plant site and other utility interconnections, but excluding 

financing costs. 

 For emission control technologies, the removal rates for pollutants and other assumptions 

were examined. 

 Review of the regional multipliers that are used to represent local conditions, such as labor 

rates that are included in EMM. 

 Review of the appropriateness of technology-specific project and process contingency 

assumptions (capturing differences between engineering estimates and realized costs for 

new technologies). 

 Where possible, compare the values used by EIA with those for recently built facilities in 

the United States (“U.S.”) or abroad. Where such actual cost estimates do not exist, an 

assessment was made between values used by EIA and other analyst estimates, as well as 

vendor estimates.

 The key factors expected to drive each technology’s costs. 

 Document the source and basis for final recommendations for altering or retaining the 

various assumptions.

1.1 Technologies Assessed

The following table lists all technologies to be assessed in this project.
1-2

TABLE 1-1 – LIST OF TECHNOLOGIES FOR REVIEW

TECHNOLOGY DESCRIPTION COMMENTS

Ultra Supercritical Coal (USC) 650 MWe with advanced pollution 

control technologies

Greenfield Installation

Ultra Supercritical Coal with 

Carbon Capture and 

Sequestration (USC/CCS)

650 MWe; supercritical; with 

advanced pollution control 

technologies, including CCS 

technologies

Greenfield Installation

Pulverized Coal Brownfield 

Conversion to Natural Gas 

(CTNG)

300 MWe Brownfield Installation

Pulverized Coal Greenfield with 

10%-15% Biomass Co-Firing 

(GCBC)

300 MWe Greenfield Installation

Pulverized Coal Brownfield 

Conversion to Coal with 10% 

Biomass Co-Firing (CTCB) 

300 MWe net plant output; 30 

MWe of added Biomass

Brownfield Installation, added 

30MWe of Wood Fuel

Conventional Natural Gas 

Combined Cycle (NGCC)

702 MWe; F-Class system Greenfield Installation

Advanced Generation Natural 

Gas Combined Cycle (AG-NGCC)

429 MWe; H-Class system Greenfield Installation

Conventional Combustion 

Turbine (CT)

100 MWe; (2) LM 6000 Class 

turbines

Greenfield Installation

Advanced Combustion Turbine 

(ACT) 

237 MWe; F-Class turbine Greenfield Installation

Advanced Nuclear (AN) 2,234 234MWe; (2) AP1000 PWR 

Basis

Brownfield Installation

Biomass Bubbling Fluidized Bed 

(BBFB) 

50 MWe Greenfield Installation; Wood Fuel

Wind Farm – Onshore (WN) 100 MWe; (56) 1.79 MWe WTG’s Greenfield Installation

Utility-Scale Photovoltaic (PV) 20 MWe –AC Fixed; 20 MWe-AC 

Tracker and 150 MWe – AC 

Tracker

Greenfield Installation

Internal Combustion (IC) 85 MWe; (5) Wartsila 17MWe 

Engines

Greenfield Installation

Battery Storage (BES) 4 MWe Greenfield Installation
2-1

2. General Basis for Technology Evaluation Basis

This section specifies the general evaluation basis used for all technologies reviewed herein.

2.1 Leidos Engineering, LLC Background

Leidos is a technical solutions and infrastructure consulting firm that has been providing technical 

and business consulting in the energy industry since 1942. Particularly, Leidos has supported the 

purchase, sale, financing and Owner’s advisory consulting for tens-of-billions of dollars of power 

plants across the world in all commercial power generating technologies as well as many emerging 

technologies. This background has supported Leidos’ acumen with respect to construction costs, 

operating costs, technology development and evolution, as well as trends in environmental 

regulation and compliance.

2.2 Base Fuel Characteristics

This section provides a general fuel basis for each of the fuel types utilized by the technologies 

considered in this report, which was listed in Table 1-1. Each of the technologies that combust a 

fuel has the ability to operate over a range of fuels; thus Table 2-1, Table 2-2 and Table 2-3 show 

a typical fuel specification for coal, natural gas, and wood-biomass, respectively. 
2-2

TABLE 2-1 – REFERENCE COAL SPECIFICATION

Rank Bituminous

Seam Illinois No. 6 (Herrin)

Source Old Ben Mine

Proximate Analysis (weight %) (Note A)

As Received Dry

Moisture 11.12 0.00

Ash 9.70 10.91

Volatile Matter 34.99 39.37

Fixed Carbon 44.19 49.72

Total 100.00 100.00

Sulfur 3 3.38

HHV (1), KJ/kg (2) 27,113 30,506

HHV, Btu/lb (3) 11,666 13,126

LHV (4), KJ/kg 26,151 29,544

LHV, Btu/lb 11,252 12,712

Ultimate Analysis (weight %)

As Received Dry

Moisture 11.12 0.00

Carbon 63.75 71.72

Hydrogen 4.50 5.06

Nitrogen 1.25 1.41

Chlorine 0.29 0.33

Sulfur 3.0 3.38

Ash 9.70 10.91

Oxygen 6.88 7.75

Total 100.00 (rounded) 100.00 (rounded)

(1) High(er) heating value (“HHV”).

(2) Kilojoules per kilogram (“KJ/kg”).

(3) British thermal units per pound (“Btu/lb”).

(4) Low(er) heating value (“LHV”).
2-3

TABLE 2-2 – NATURAL GAS SPECIFICATION

Component Volume Percentage

Methane CH4 93.9

Ethane C2H6 3.2

Propane C3H8 0.7

n-Butane C4H10 0.4

Carbon Dioxide CO2 1.0

Nitrogen N2 0.8

 Total 100.0

LHV HHV

kJ/kg

MJ/scm (1)

47.764

35

52,970

39

Btu/lb

Btu/scf (2)

20,552

939

22,792

1,040

(1) Mega joules per standard cubic meter (“MJ/scm”).

(2) Standard cubic feet (“scf”).

TABLE 2-3 – WOOD BIOMASS SPECIFICATION (1)

Component Volume Percentage

Moisture 17.27

Carbon C 41.55

Hydrogen H2 4.77

Nitrogen N2 0.37

Sulfur S <0.01

Ash 2.35

Oxygen (2) O2 33.75

 Total 100.0

HHV

Btu/lb 6,853

(1) As received.

(2) Oxygen by Difference.
2-4

2.3 Environmental Compliance Basis

The technology assessments considered the emissions rates after implementation of best available 

control technology (“BACT”), including sulfur dioxide (“SO2”), oxides of nitrogen (“NOX”), 

particulate matter, mercury, and carbon dioxide (“CO2”). With respect to CCS technologies, which 

are not currently considered “proven” or BACT by regulating bodies, Leidos assumed capture and 

sequestration technologies that are currently in development for large-scale deployment, as 

discussed herein, and at industry expected rates of CO2 removal (i.e., 30 percent). 

2.4 Local Capacity Adjustments

For power plants that use CT technologies, adjustments were made for regional ambient 

conditions. The adjustments took into consideration that CTs are machines that produce power 

proportional to mass flow. Since air density is inversely proportional to temperature, ambient 

temperature has a strong influence on the capacity of a given technology utilizing a CT 

(e.g., peaking power plant, combined-cycle power plant, and some gasification power plants). 

Additionally, relative humidity impacts the available capacity of a CT and consequently a 

CT-based power plant, primarily driven by the base assumption that the CT-based technologies 

incorporate inlet evaporative cooling. By circulating water across a porous media in the CT 

compressor inlet (across which the air flows), the inlet evaporative cooling reduces the difference 

between the ambient dry-bulb temperature (the temperature that is typically reported to the public 

as a measure of “local temperature”) and the wet-bulb temperature (a measure of relative 

humidity). Since inlet evaporative cooling is limited by the wet-bulb temperature, the 

effectiveness of these devices increases in areas of high dry-bulb temperature and low relative 

humidity. The final adjustment for ambient conditions made for the CT-based plants is ambient 

pressure, which on average (notwithstanding high or low pressure weather fronts that pass through 

a region) takes into consideration elevation (average number of feet above sea level). Air density 

is proportional to ambient pressure.

Table 2-4 provides the aggregate capacity adjustment for each location, which provides regional 

differences related to capital costs against the International Standard Organization (“ISO”) net 

capacity for the CT-based power plant technologies.
2-5

TABLE 2-4 – CT CAPACITY ADJUSTMENTS

Average 

Ambient 

Temperature 

Capacity 

Adjustment 

Factor, 

Temperature 

Simple Cycle

Average 

Barometric 

Pressure

Average 

Barometric 

Pressure

Capacity 

Adjustment 

Factor, 

Barometric 

Pressure 

Simple Cycle

Total Capacity 

Adjustment 

Factor Simple 

Cycle

Capacity 

Adjustment 

Factor, 

Temperature 

Combined 

Cycle

Capacity 

Adjustment 

Factor, 

Barometric 

Pressure 

Combined 

Cycle

Total Capacity 

Adjustment 

Factor 

Combined 

Cycle ISO Capacity

Capacity 

Adjustment 

Adjusted 

Capacity ISO Capacity

Capacity 

Adjustment

Adjusted 

Capacity ISO Capacity

Capacity 

Adjustment

Adjusted 

Capacity ISO Capacity

Capacity 

Adjustment

Adjusted 

Capacity

State City (°F) (in Hg) (psia) (MW) (MW) (MW) (MW) (MW) (MW) (MW) (MW) (MW) (MW) (MW) (MW)

Alaska Anchorage 35.9 1.09 29.60 14.534 0.990 1.08 1.06 0.989 1.05 100.00 8.14 108.14 237.00 19.29 256.29 702.00 32.61 734.61 429.00 19.93 448.93

Alaska Fairbanks 26.9 1.13 29.31 14.391 0.981 1.11 1.08 0.980 1.06 100.00 10.68 110.68 237.00 25.31 262.31 702.00 40.94 742.94 429.00 25.02 454.02

Alabama Huntsville 60.3 0.99 29.36 14.416 0.983 0.98 1.00 0.981 0.98 100.00 -2.26 97.74 237.00 -5.36 231.64 702.00 -15.26 686.74 429.00 -9.33 419.67

Arizona Phoenix 72.6 0.95 28.72 14.102 0.963 0.91 0.97 0.960 0.93 100.00 -8.98 91.02 237.00 -21.29 215.71 702.00 -50.81 651.19 429.00 -31.05 397.95

Arkansas Little Rock 61.8 0.99 29.68 14.573 0.992 0.98 0.99 0.992 0.98 100.00 -1.87 98.13 237.00 -4.44 232.56 702.00 -10.55 691.45 429.00 -6.45 422.55

California Los Angeles 63.0 0.98 29.84 14.651 0.997 0.98 0.99 0.997 0.99 100.00 -1.88 98.12 237.00 -4.45 232.55 702.00 -9.09 692.91 429.00 -5.55 423.45

California Redding 62.0 0.99 29.44 14.455 0.985 0.97 0.99 0.984 0.98 100.00 -2.70 97.30 237.00 -6.40 230.60 702.00 -16.48 685.52 429.00 -10.07 418.93

California Bakersfield 65.4 0.97 29.44 14.455 0.985 0.96 0.98 0.984 0.97 100.00 -4.04 95.96 237.00 -9.57 227.43 702.00 -22.35 679.65 429.00 -13.66 415.34

California Sacramento 60.8 0.99 29.93 14.696 1.000 0.99 1.00 1.000 1.00 100.00 -0.72 99.28 237.00 -1.71 235.29 702.00 -3.16 698.84 429.00 -1.93 427.07

California San Francisco 57.1 1.01 29.98 14.720 1.000 1.01 1.00 1.000 1.00 100.00 0.76 100.76 237.00 1.80 238.80 702.00 3.33 705.33 429.00 2.04 431.04

Colorado Denver 50.3 1.03 24.66 12.108 0.826 0.86 1.02 0.816 0.83 100.00 -14.48 85.52 237.00 -34.32 202.68 702.00 -116.78 585.22 429.00 -71.37 357.63

Connecticut Hartford 49.9 1.04 29.79 14.627 0.996 1.03 1.02 0.995 1.02 100.00 3.20 103.20 237.00 7.57 244.57 702.00 12.70 714.70 429.00 7.76 436.76

Delaw are Dover 56.0 1.01 29.97 14.715 1.000 1.01 1.01 1.000 1.01 100.00 1.20 101.20 237.00 2.84 239.84 702.00 5.27 707.27 429.00 3.22 432.22

District of Columbia Washington 53.8 1.02 29.96 14.710 1.000 1.02 1.01 1.000 1.01 100.00 2.08 102.08 237.00 4.93 241.93 702.00 9.13 711.13 429.00 5.58 434.58

Florida Tallahassee 67.2 0.97 29.96 14.710 1.000 0.97 0.98 1.000 0.98 100.00 -3.28 96.72 237.00 -7.77 229.23 702.00 -14.39 687.61 429.00 -8.79 420.21

Florida Tampa 72.3 0.95 30.01 14.735 1.000 0.95 0.97 1.000 0.97 100.00 -5.32 94.68 237.00 -12.61 224.39 702.00 -23.34 678.66 429.00 -14.26 414.74

Georgia Atlanta 61.3 0.99 28.94 14.210 0.969 0.96 0.99 0.967 0.96 100.00 -3.96 96.04 237.00 -9.39 227.61 702.00 -26.76 675.24 429.00 -16.35 412.65

Haw aii Honolulu 77.2 0.93 29.96 14.710 1.000 0.93 0.95 1.000 0.95 100.00 -7.28 92.72 237.00 -17.25 219.75 702.00 -31.94 670.06 429.00 -19.52 409.48

Idaho Boise 50.9 1.03 27.03 13.272 0.908 0.94 1.02 0.902 0.92 100.00 -6.28 93.72 237.00 -14.89 222.11 702.00 -55.85 646.15 429.00 -34.13 394.87

Illinois Chicago 49.0 1.04 29.27 14.372 0.980 1.02 1.03 0.978 1.00 100.00 1.89 101.89 237.00 4.48 241.48 702.00 2.06 704.06 429.00 1.26 430.26

Indiana Indianapolis 52.3 1.03 29.15 14.313 0.976 1.00 1.02 0.974 0.99 100.00 0.21 100.21 237.00 0.49 237.49 702.00 -6.48 695.52 429.00 -3.96 425.04

Iow a Davenport 50.0 1.04 29.41 14.440 0.984 1.02 1.02 0.983 1.01 100.00 1.94 101.94 237.00 4.60 241.60 702.00 3.61 705.61 429.00 2.21 431.21

Iow a Waterloo 46.5 1.05 29.05 14.264 0.973 1.02 1.03 0.971 1.00 100.00 2.14 102.14 237.00 5.08 242.08 702.00 1.03 703.03 429.00 0.63 429.63

Kansas Wichita 56.2 1.01 28.56 14.023 0.957 0.97 1.01 0.955 0.96 100.00 -3.18 96.82 237.00 -7.55 229.45 702.00 -27.00 675.00 429.00 -16.50 412.50

Kentucky Louisville 56.1 1.01 29.49 14.480 0.986 1.00 1.01 0.986 0.99 100.00 -0.21 99.79 237.00 -0.49 236.51 702.00 -5.06 696.94 429.00 -3.09 425.91

Louisiana New Orleans 68.1 0.96 29.99 14.725 1.000 0.96 0.98 1.000 0.98 100.00 -3.64 96.36 237.00 -8.63 228.37 702.00 -15.97 686.03 429.00 -9.76 419.24

Maine Portland 46.0 1.05 29.89 14.676 0.999 1.05 1.03 0.999 1.03 100.00 5.08 105.08 237.00 12.04 249.04 702.00 21.93 723.93 429.00 13.40 442.40

Maryland Baltimore 55.1 1.02 29.85 14.656 0.999 1.01 1.01 0.999 1.01 100.00 1.46 101.46 237.00 3.46 240.46 702.00 6.10 708.10 429.00 3.73 432.73

Massachusetts Boston 51.3 1.03 29.95 14.705 1.000 1.03 1.02 1.000 1.02 100.00 3.08 103.08 237.00 7.30 244.30 702.00 13.51 715.51 429.00 8.26 437.26

Michigan Detroit 48.6 1.04 29.31 14.391 0.981 1.02 1.03 0.980 1.01 100.00 2.17 102.17 237.00 5.13 242.13 702.00 3.63 705.63 429.00 2.22 431.22

Michigan Grand Rapids 47.2 1.05 29.12 14.298 0.975 1.02 1.03 0.973 1.00 100.00 2.09 102.09 237.00 4.96 241.96 702.00 1.48 703.48 429.00 0.91 429.91

Minnesota Saint Paul 46.7 1.05 29.07 14.273 0.973 1.02 1.03 0.972 1.00 100.00 2.13 102.13 237.00 5.05 242.05 702.00 1.20 703.20 429.00 0.73 429.73

Mississippi Jackson 65.0 0.98 29.68 14.573 0.992 0.97 0.99 0.992 0.98 100.00 -3.16 96.84 237.00 -7.48 229.52 702.00 -16.22 685.78 429.00 -9.91 419.09

Missouri St. Louis 56.0 1.01 29.41 14.440 0.984 1.00 1.01 0.983 0.99 100.00 -0.42 99.58 237.00 -0.99 236.01 702.00 -6.74 695.26 429.00 -4.12 424.88

Missouri Kansas City 53.6 1.02 28.82 14.151 0.966 0.99 1.01 0.964 0.98 100.00 -1.35 98.65 237.00 -3.19 233.81 702.00 -16.42 685.58 429.00 -10.03 418.97

Montana Great Falls 44.8 1.06 26.19 12.859 0.880 0.93 1.04 0.872 0.90 100.00 -7.05 92.95 237.00 -16.71 220.29 702.00 -67.94 634.06 429.00 -41.52 387.48

Nebraska Omaha 50.6 1.03 28.92 14.200 0.969 1.00 1.02 0.967 0.99 100.00 0.12 100.12 237.00 0.28 237.28 702.00 -9.09 692.91 429.00 -5.55 423.45

New Hampshire Concord 45.1 1.06 29.60 14.534 0.990 1.04 1.03 0.989 1.02 100.00 4.50 104.50 237.00 10.66 247.66 702.00 16.64 718.64 429.00 10.17 439.17

New Jersey New ark 54.8 1.02 29.98 14.720 1.000 1.02 1.01 1.000 1.01 100.00 1.68 101.68 237.00 3.98 240.98 702.00 7.37 709.37 429.00 4.50 433.50

New Mexico Albuquerque 56.2 1.01 24.72 12.138 0.828 0.84 1.01 0.818 0.82 100.00 -16.23 83.77 237.00 -38.47 198.53 702.00 -123.74 578.26 429.00 -75.62 353.38

New York New York 54.8 1.02 29.98 14.720 1.000 1.02 1.01 1.000 1.01 100.00 1.68 101.68 237.00 3.98 240.98 702.00 7.37 709.37 429.00 4.50 433.50

New York Syracuse 47.4 1.05 29.51 14.489 0.987 1.03 1.03 0.986 1.01 100.00 3.28 103.28 237.00 7.76 244.76 702.00 10.37 712.37 429.00 6.34 435.34

Nevada Las Vegas 67.1 0.97 27.67 13.586 0.929 0.90 0.98 0.925 0.91 100.00 -10.12 89.88 237.00 -23.99 213.01 702.00 -66.09 635.91 429.00 -40.39 388.61

North Carolina Charlotte 60.1 1.00 29.23 14.352 0.978 0.97 1.00 0.977 0.97 100.00 -2.59 97.41 237.00 -6.14 230.86 702.00 -17.98 684.02 429.00 -10.99 418.01

North Dakota Bismarck 42.0 1.07 28.19 13.841 0.946 1.01 1.04 0.942 0.98 100.00 0.98 100.98 237.00 2.33 239.33 702.00 -12.43 689.57 429.00 -7.60 421.40

Ohio Cincinnati 51.7 1.03 29.50 14.485 0.987 1.02 1.02 0.986 1.00 100.00 1.56 101.56 237.00 3.70 240.70 702.00 2.80 704.80 429.00 1.71 430.71

Oregon Portland 54.0 1.02 29.99 14.725 1.000 1.02 1.01 1.000 1.01 100.00 2.00 102.00 237.00 4.74 241.74 702.00 8.77 710.78 429.00 5.36 434.36

Pennsylvania Philadelphia 54.3 1.02 29.98 14.720 1.000 1.02 1.01 1.000 1.01 100.00 1.88 101.88 237.00 4.46 241.46 702.00 8.25 710.25 429.00 5.04 434.04

Pennsylvania Wilkes-Barre 48.7 1.04 29.00 14.239 0.971 1.01 1.03 0.970 0.99 100.00 1.13 101.13 237.00 2.68 239.68 702.00 -3.85 698.15 429.00 -2.35 426.65

Rhode Island Providence 50.4 1.03 29.92 14.691 1.000 1.03 1.02 1.000 1.02 100.00 3.44 103.44 237.00 8.15 245.15 702.00 15.09 717.09 429.00 9.22 438.22

South Carolina Spartanburg 59.0 1.00 29.12 14.298 0.975 0.97 1.00 0.973 0.97 100.00 -2.51 97.49 237.00 -5.94 231.06 702.00 -18.67 683.33 429.00 -11.41 417.59

South Dakota Rapid City 46.6 1.05 26.67 13.095 0.896 0.94 1.03 0.890 0.92 100.00 -5.97 94.03 237.00 -14.14 222.86 702.00 -58.16 643.84 429.00 -35.54 393.46

Tennessee Knoxville 57.6 1.01 29.00 14.239 0.971 0.98 1.00 0.970 0.97 100.00 -2.33 97.67 237.00 -5.52 231.48 702.00 -18.99 683.01 429.00 -11.61 417.39

Texas Houston 67.9 0.96 29.89 14.676 0.999 0.96 0.98 0.999 0.98 100.00 -3.69 96.31 237.00 -8.74 228.26 702.00 -16.58 685.42 429.00 -10.13 418.87

Utah Salt Lake City 52.0 1.03 25.72 12.629 0.864 0.89 1.02 0.855 0.87 100.00 -11.23 88.77 237.00 -26.61 210.39 702.00 -91.09 610.91 429.00 -55.67 373.33

Vermont Burlington 44.6 1.06 29.61 14.539 0.990 1.05 1.04 0.990 1.03 100.00 4.71 104.71 237.00 11.17 248.17 702.00 17.64 719.64 429.00 10.78 439.78

Virginia Alexandria 58.0 1.00 29.90 14.681 0.999 1.00 1.00 0.999 1.00 100.00 0.30 100.30 237.00 0.71 237.71 702.00 1.02 703.02 429.00 0.62 429.62

Virginia Lynchburg 57.0 1.01 29.31 14.391 0.981 0.99 1.01 0.980 0.98 100.00 -1.13 98.87 237.00 -2.68 234.32 702.00 -10.81 691.19 429.00 -6.61 422.39

Washington Seattle 52.8 1.02 29.52 14.494 0.987 1.01 1.02 0.987 1.00 100.00 1.19 101.19 237.00 2.83 239.83 702.00 1.40 703.40 429.00 0.86 429.86

Washington Spokane 47.3 1.05 27.50 13.503 0.923 0.97 1.03 0.919 0.95 100.00 -3.35 96.65 237.00 -7.94 229.06 702.00 -38.26 663.74 429.00 -23.38 405.62

West Virginia Charleston 55.0 1.02 29.00 14.239 0.971 0.99 1.01 0.970 0.98 100.00 -1.32 98.68 237.00 -3.12 233.88 702.00 -14.57 687.43 429.00 -8.90 420.10

Wisconsin Green Bay 43.8 1.06 29.22 14.347 0.978 1.04 1.04 0.977 1.01 100.00 3.77 103.77 237.00 8.93 245.93 702.00 9.84 711.84 429.00 6.02 435.02

Wyoming Cheyenne 45.6 1.05 23.93 11.750 0.800 0.84 1.03 0.788 0.81 100.00 -15.71 84.29 237.00 -37.23 199.77 702.00 -130.37 571.63 429.00 -79.67 349.33

Puerto Rico Cayey 72.0 0.95 29.51 14.489 0.987 0.94 0.97 0.986 0.95 100.00 -6.44 93.56 237.00 -15.25 221.75 702.00 -32.20 669.80 429.00 -19.68 409.32

cityrating.com NOAA database Weatherbase.com 2 x 0 GE LM 6000 1 x 0 Siemens SGT6-5000F5 2x1 Siemens SGT6-5000F-5 1x1 Siemens SGT6-8000H

Notes:

1 Capacity based on a new and clean equipment

2 Capacity is net including auxiliary loads

3 Capacity for combined cycle is based on wet cooling tower 

Conventional Combustion Turbine 

Simple Cycle

Advanced Combution Turbine Simple 

Cycle Conventional NGCC Advanced - NGCC
2-6

2.5 Technology Specifications

This section provides the base performance specifications for each technology. Table 2-5 provides 

the current technology specifications.

2.6 Cost Estimation Methodology

The approach taken in this latest cost analysis of capital and operating estimates concentrated 

primarily in these three areas:

1. Escalation over the past three years.

2. Technology-specific changes in pricing; for example, overall wind and solar capex 

pricing lowered due to lower equipment pricing.

3. Updated actual costs being made available to Projects with which we are familiar.

2.6.1 Capital Cost

A summary base capital cost estimate (“Cost Estimate”) was developed for each power plant 

technology, based on a generic facility of a certain size (capacity) and configuration, and assuming 

a non-specific U.S. location with no unusual location impacts (e.g., urban construction constraints) 

or infrastructure needs (e.g., a project-dedicated interconnection upgrade cost). 

Each Cost Estimate was developed assuming costs in first quarter 2016 dollars on an “overnight” 

capital cost basis. In each Cost Estimate, the total project engineering, procurement and 

construction (“EPC”) cost was organized into the following categories: 

 Civil/structural material and installation, 

 Mechanical equipment supply and installation, 

 Electrical instrumentation and controls (“I&C”) supply and installation, 

 Project indirect costs, fees and contingency, and 

 Owner’s costs (excluding project financing costs).

It should be noted that an EPC (turnkey) or equipment supply/balance of plant, as applicable to a 

given technology, contracting approach was assumed for each of the technologies, which included 

a risk sharing between the project owner and project construction contractor that, based on our 

experience, would be required in typical financing markets. This approach does not always result 

in the lowest cost of construction; however, on average, we believe this approach to result in an 

achievable cost of construction, given the other considerations discussed herein. 

In addition to the base Cost Estimate provided for the given technology, specific regional cost 

differences were determined. Regional costs for 64 unique locations in the U.S. were analyzed. 

Eleven subcategories were used (depending on the specific technology under review) to estimate 

the differences in various regions of the U.S. for the each power plant technology. The regional 

analyses include, but are not limited to, assessing the cost differences for outdoor installation 

considerations, air-cooled condensers versus cooling tower issues, seismic design differences, 

zero-water discharge issues, local enhancements, remote location issues, urban high-density 

population issues, labor wage and productivity differences, location adjustments, owner cost 
2-7

differences, and the increase in overheads associated with these locations. More detail with respect 

to regional differences for each given technology is provided in the following sections.

2.6.1.1 Costing Scope

The civil and structural costs include allowance for site preparation, such as clearing, roads, 

drainage, underground utilities installation, concrete for foundations, piling material, structural 

steel supply and installation, and buildings. 

The mechanical equipment supply and installation includes major equipment (technology and 

process dependent), including but not limited to, boilers, scrubbers, cooling towers, combustion 

turbines (“CT”), steam turbines (“ST”) generators, wind turbine generators (“WTG”), PV 

modules, as well as auxiliary equipment such as material handling, fly and bottom ash handling, 

pumps, condensers, and balance of plant (“BOP”) equipment such as fire protection, as applicable 

to a given technology. 

The electrical and I&C supply and installation includes electrical transformers, switchgear, motor 

control centers, switchyards, distributed control systems (“DCS”) and instrumentation, and 

electrical commodities, such as wire, cable tray, and lighting. 

While commodities, project equipment, and site assumptions can vary widely from project-toproject for a given technology, the Cost Estimates are based upon a cross section of projects.

The project indirect costs include engineering, distributable labor and materials, craft labor 

overtime and incentives, scaffolding costs, construction management, and start-up and 

commissioning. The fees and contingency include contractor overhead costs, fees and profit, and 

construction contingency. Contingency in this category is considered “contractor” contingency, 

which would be held by a given contractor to mitigate its risk in the construction of a project. 

The owner’s costs include development costs, preliminary feasibility and engineering studies, 

environmental studies and permitting, legal fees, project management (including third-party 

management), insurance costs, infrastructure interconnection costs (e.g., gas, electricity), Owner’s 

Contingency, and property taxes during construction. The electrical interconnection cost includes 

an allowance for the plant switchyard and a subsequent interconnection to an “adjacent” (e.g. 

within a mile) of the plant, but does not include significant transmission system upgrades.

2.6.2 Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Expenses

O&M expenses consist of non-fuel O&M costs, owner’s expenses, and fuel-related expenses. In 

evaluating the non-fuel O&M expenses for use in the EMM of NEMS, we focused on non-fuel 

O&M costs associated with the direct operation of the given power plant technology, referred to 

here as the “Production Related Non-Fuel O&M Expenses,” to allow for comparison of O&M 

costs on the same basis. 

Production Related Non-Fuel O&M Expenses include the following categories:

 Fixed O&M (“FOM”)

 Variable O&M (“VOM”)

 Major Maintenance

Presented below is a brief summary below of the expense categories included within the categories 

of Fixed O&M, Variable O&M, and Major Maintenance. Further, Sections 3 through 17 provide 
2-8

more specific information related to Production-Related Non-Fuel O&M Expenses for each 

technology.

Owner’s expenses, which are not addressed in this report, include expenses paid by plant owners 

that are plant specific and can vary significantly between two virtually identical plants in the same 

geographic region. For example, the owner’s expenses include, but are not limited to, property 

taxes, asset management fees, energy marketing fees, and insurance. 

2.6.2.1 Fixed O&M (FOM)

FOM expenses are those expenses (excluding fuel-related costs) incurred at a power plant that do 

not vary significantly with generation and include the following categories:

 Staffing and monthly fees under pertinent operating agreements

 Typical bonuses paid to the given plant operator

 Plant support equipment which consists of equipment rentals and temporary labor

 Plant-related general and administrative expenses (postage, telephone, etc.)

 Routine preventive and predictive maintenance performed during operations

 Maintenance of structures and grounds

 Other fees required for a project to participate in the relevant National Electric Reliability 

Council region and be in good standing with the regulatory bodies 

Routine preventive and predictive maintenance expenses do not require an extended plant 

shutdown and include the following categories:

 Maintenance of equipment such as water circuits, feed pumps, main steam piping, and 

demineralizer systems

 Maintenance of electric plant equipment, which includes service water, DCS, condensate 

system, air filters, and plant electrical

 Maintenance of miscellaneous plant equipment such as communication equipment, 

instrument and service air, and water supply system

 Plant support equipment which consists of tools, shop supplies and equipment rental, and 

safety supplies

2.6.2.2 Variable O&M (VOM)

VOM expenses are production-related costs (excluding fuel-related costs) which vary with 

electrical generation and include the following categories, as applicable to the given power plant 

technology: 

 Raw water

 Waste and wastewater disposal expenses

 Purchase power (which is incurred inversely to operating hours), demand charges and 

related utilities

 Chemicals, catalysts and gases
2-9

 Ammonia (“NH3”) for selective catalytic reduction (“SCR”), as applicable

 Lubricants

 Consumable materials and supplies

2.6.2.3 Major Maintenance

Major maintenance expenses generally require an extended outage, are typically undertaken no 

more than once per year; and are assumed to vary with electrical generation or the number of plant 

starts based on the given technology and specific original equipment manufacturer 

recommendations and requirements. These major maintenance expenses include the following 

expense categories:

 Scheduled major overhaul expenses for maintaining the prime mover equipment at a power 

plant

 Major maintenance labor

 Major maintenance spare parts costs

 BOP major maintenance, which is major maintenance on the equipment at the given plant 

that cannot be accomplished as part of routine maintenance or while the unit is in 

commercial operation.

 Major maintenance expenses are included in the O&M Expenses for each plant. These 

expenses may be in either the fixed or variable O&M rate depending on the cost structure 

of the particular plant considering such things as capacity factor, hour and start cycling 

patterns, O&M contract structure (if applicable), and major maintenance timing triggers.
2-10

TABLE 2-5 – TECHNOLOGY PERFORMANCE SPECIFICATIONS

Technology Fuel

Net Nominal 

Capacity

(kW) (1)

Net Nominal

Heat Rate

(Btu/kWh) (2)

Capital 

Cost 

($/kW) (3)

Fixed O&M 

($/kW-yr) (4)

Variable 

O&M 

($/MWh) (5)

SO2 (lb/

MMBtu (6)

NOX

(lb/MMBtu)

CO2

(lb/MMBtu)

Ultra Supercritical Coal (USC) Coal 650,000 8,800 3,636 42.10 4.60 0.1 (7) 0.06 206 (7)

Ultra Supercritical Coal with 

CCS (USC/CCS) Coal 650,000 9,750 5,084 70.0 7.10 0.02 (8) 0.06 144 (9)

Pulverized Coal Conversion to 

Natural Gas (CTNG) Gas 300,000 10,300 226 22.0 1.30 .001 0.11 117

Pulverizer Coal Greenfield with 

10-15 percent biomass (GCBC) Coal/Biomass 300,000 8,960 4,620 50.90 5.00 0.1 0.06 204

Pulverized Coal Conversion to 10 

percent biomass – 30 MW 

(CTCB) Coal/Biomass 300,000 10,360 537 50.90 5.00 0.1 0.06 204

NGCC Gas 702,000 6,600 978 11.00 3.50 0.001 0.0075 (10) 117

AG-NGCC Gas 429,000 6,300 1,104 10.00 2.00 0.001 0.0075 (10) 117

CT Gas 100,000 10,000 1,101 17.50 3.50 0.001 0.03 (11) 117

ACT Gas 237,000 9,800 678 6.80 10.70 0.001 0.03 (11) 117

Advanced Nuclear (AN) Uranium 2,234,000 N/A 5,945 100.28 2.30 0 0 0

Biomass (BBFB) Biomass 50,000 13,500 4,985 110.00 4.20 0 0.08 195 (12)

Onshore Wind (WN) Wind 100,000 N/A 1,877 39.70 0 0 0 0

Photovoltaic - Fixed Solar 20,000 N/A 2,671 23.40 0 0 0 0

Photovoltaic – Tracking Solar 20,000 2,644 23.90 0 0 0 0

Photovoltaic – Tracking Solar 150,000 N/A 2,534 21.80 0 0 0 0

Reciprocating Internal 

Combustion Engine (RICE) Gas 85,000 8,500 1,342 6.90 5.85 0.001 0.07 117

Battery Storage (BES) 4,000 N/A 2,813 40.00 8.00 N/A N/A N/A

Footnotes are listed on the next page.
2-11

(1) Capacity is net output basis and includes auxiliary loads.

(2) Heat Rate is on a HHV basis for British thermal units per kilowatt-hour (“Btu/kWh”) at ISO conditions.

(3) Capital Cost excludes financing-related costs (e.g., fees, interest during construction).

(4) FOM expenses exclude owner's costs (e.g., insurance, property taxes, and asset management fees).

(5) VOM expenses include major maintenance but not fuel-related expenses.

(6) Million Btu (“MMBtu”).

(7) Based on high sulfur bituminous fuel.

(8) Assuming 3 percent sulfur coal at 12,000 British thermal units per pound (“Btu/lb”) and a 99.5 percent sulfur removal rate.

(9) Assuming 30 percent capture.

(10) Assuming 2 ppmvd corrected to 15 percent O2 for F-Class engine. 

(11) Assuming 9 parts per million volume dry (“ppmvd”) corrected to 15 percent O2; simple-cycle E-Class or F-Class engine.

(12) Does not account for the life-cycle fate of CO2 after emission from power generation unit.
3-1

3. Ultra Supercritical Coal (USC)

3.1 Mechanical Equipment and Systems

The following describes the Ultra Supercritical Coal (“USC”) Facility, which is a nominal 

650 MW net output coal-fired supercritical steam-electric generating unit built in a Greenfield 

location. This unit employs a supercritical Rankine power cycle in which coal is burned to produce 

steam in a boiler, which is expanded through a ST to produce electric power. The steam is then 

condensed to water and pumped back to the boiler to be converted to steam once again to complete 

the cycle.

The unit will operate at steam conditions of approximately 3,800 pounds per square inch-absolute 

(“psia”) and 1,112 degrees Fahrenheit (“oF”) at the ST inlet. The superheated steam produced in 

the boiler is supplied to the ST, which drives an electric generator. After leaving the high-pressure 

(“HP”) ST, the steam is reheated and fed to the intermediate-pressure (“IP”) ST. In the 

low-pressure (“LP”) ST, the steam admitted directly from the IP ST expands to condenser pressure 

and is condensed in the condenser. Cooling tower water is used for the condensing process. 

Condensate collected in the condenser hotwell is discharged by the main condensate pumps and 

returned to the deaerator/feedwater storage tank via the LP feedwater heaters. The feedwater 

pumps discharge feedwater from the feedwater storage tank to the boiler via the HP feedwater 

heaters. In the boiler, the supercritical fluid is heated for return to the ST.

The combustion air and flue gas systems are designed for balanced draft and start with the ambient 

air drawn in by the forced draft fans. This air is heated by steam preheaters and the regenerative 

air heaters. Some of the air is passed through the primary air fans for use in drying and conveying 

the pulverized coal to the boiler. The air and coal combust in the boiler furnace and the flue gas 

passes through the furnace and back passes of the boiler, giving up heat to the supercritical fluid 

in the boiler tubes. The flue gas exiting the boiler economizer enters the SCR equipment for NOX

reduction (low NOX burners are assumed for the boiler) and into the regenerative air heaters where 

it transfers heat to the incoming air. From the regenerative air heaters, the flue gas is treated with 

an injection of hydrated lime, enters a pulse-jet fabric filter (baghouse) for the collection of 

particulate material, and then flows to the induced draft fans. From the fans, gas enters the Wet 

Flue Gas Desulfurization (“WFGD”) absorber. From the absorber, the flue gas discharges into the 

stack. Figure 3-1 presents the USC process flow diagram.
3-2

FIGURE 3-1 – ULTRA SUPERCRITICAL COAL DESIGN CONFIGURATION

3.2 Electrical and Control Systems

The USC Facility has one ST electric generator. The generator is a 60 Hertz (“Hz”) machine rated 

at approximately 720 mega-volt-amperes (“MVA”) with an output voltage of 24 kilovolts (“kV”). 

The ST electric generator is directly connected to generator step-up transformer (“GSU”), which 

in turn is connected between two circuit breakers in the high-voltage bus in the USC Facility 

switchyard through a disconnect switch. The GSU increases the voltage from the electric generator 

from 24 kV to interconnected transmission system high voltage.

The USC Facility is controlled using a DCS. The DCS provides centralized control of the plant 

by integrating the control systems provided with the boiler, ST and associated electric generator 

and the control of BOP systems and equipment.

3.3 Off-Site Requirements

Coal is delivered to the facility via rail, truck or barge. Water for all processes at the USC Facility 

can be obtained from one of a variety of sources; however, water is typically sourced from an 

adjacent river, when possible. The USC Facility uses a water treatment system and a highefficiency reverse osmosis system to reduce the dissolved solids from the cooling water and to 

provide distilled water for boiler makeup. Wastewater is sent to an adjacent river or other approved 

alternative. Further, the electrical interconnection from the USC on-site switchyard is effectuated 
3-3

by a connection to an adjacent utility substation, assumed to be no more than 1 mile from the USC

Facility.

3.4 Capital Cost Estimate

The base Cost Estimate for the USC Facility with a nominal capacity of 650 MW is 

$3,636/kilowatt (“kW”). Table 3-1 summarizes the Cost Estimate categories for the USC Facility.

TABLE 3-1 – BASE PLANT SITE CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE FOR USC

Technology: USC

Nominal Capacity (ISO): 650,000 kW

Nominal Heat Rate (ISO): 8,800 Btu/kWh-HHV

Capital Cost Category (000s) (January 1, 2016$)

Civil Structural Material and Installation 247,250

Mechanical Equipment Supply and 

Installation 991,831

Electrical / I&C Supply and Installation 141,900

Project Indirects (1) 393,350

EPC Cost before Contingency and Fee 1,774,331

Fee and Contingency 195,176

Total Project EPC 1,969,507

Owner's Costs (excluding project finance) 393,901

Total Project Cost (excluding finance) 2,363,408

Total Project EPC $ / kW 3,030

Owner Costs 20% (excluding project finance) $ / kW 606

Total Project Cost (excluding project finance) $ / kW 3,636

(1) Includes engineering, distributable costs, scaffolding, construction management, and start-up.
3-4

For this type of technology and power plant configuration, our regional adjustments took into 

consideration the following: outdoor installation considerations, seismic design differences, 

remote location issues, labor wage and productivity differences, location adjustments, owner cost 

differences, and the increase in overheads associated with these six adjustment criteria.

Outdoor installation locations are considered in geographic areas where enclosed structures for the 

boilers would not be required due to the low probability of freezing. The locations that were 

included in outdoor installation are Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, 

Mississippi, New Mexico, and South Carolina. 

Seismic design differences among the various locations were based on U.S. seismic map 

information that detailed the various seismic zones throughout the U.S. No cost increases were 

associated with seismic Zone 0 and cost step increases were considered for Zones 1, 2, 3 and 4.

Remote location issues are related to geographic areas that typically require installation of man 

camps, higher craft incentives, and higher per diems are generally required with respect to 

construction, due to the fact that such areas are long distances from urban areas, where labor is 

generally abundant. Remote location designations were also considered in locations where higher 

equipment freight costs are typically incurred, which for example are regions not near established 

rail or highway access. Remote locations related to the USC Facility include Fairbanks, Alaska; 

Great Falls, Montana; Albuquerque, New Mexico; and Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Labor wage and productivity differences were handled as discussed in Section 2.6.1, taking into 

consideration the amount of labor we estimated for the USC Facility. 

Location adjustments were made to locations where higher cost of living levels are incurred and/or 

where population density generally correlates to higher construction costs for power and other 

infrastructure projects. These locations include, but are not limited to, Alaska, California, 

Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Illinois, Indiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, 

Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin, and 

Wyoming.

Owner costs were reviewed based on the need for utility upgrades and/or infrastructure costs such 

as new facility transmission lines to tie to existing utility transmission substations or existing 

transmission lines.

Table 3-2 in the Appendix shows the USC capital cost variations for alternative U.S. plant 

locations, including the difference between the given location and the average location specified 

for the Cost Estimate.

3.5 O&M Estimate

In addition to the general O&M items discussed in Section 2.6.2, the USC Facility includes the 

major maintenance for boiler, ST, associated generator, BOP, and emissions reduction catalysts. 

These major maintenance expenses are included with the VOM expense for this technology and 

are given on an average basis across the megawatt-hours (“MWh”) incurred. Typically, significant 

overhauls on an USC Facility occur no less frequently than six or seven years. Table 3-3 presents 

the FOM and VOM expenses for the USC Facility. Table 3-3 presents the O&M expenses for the 

USC Facility.
3-5

TABLE 3-3 – O&M EXPENSES FOR USC (650,000 KW)

Technology: USC

Fixed O&M Expense $42.10/kW-year

Variable O&M Expense $4.60/MWh

3.6 Environmental Compliance Information

As mentioned in Section 3.1, the USC Facility is assumed to include low NOX combustion burners 

in the boiler, SCR, and a flue gas desulfurization (“FGD”) to further control the emissions of NOX

and SO2, respectively. Table 3-4 presents the environmental emissions for the USC Facility.

TABLE 3-4 – ENVIRONMENTAL EMISSIONS FOR USC

Technology: USC

NOX 0.06 lb/ MMBtu

SO2 0.1 lb/MMBtu

CO2 206 lb/MMBtu (1)

(1) Variable O&M costs shown in this report do not account for state or regional 

carbon trading programs
4-1

4. Ultra Supercritical Coal with CCS (USC/CCS)

4.1 Mechanical Equipment and Systems

The plant configuration for the USC with CCS Facility (“USC/CCS”) is the same as the USC case 

with two exceptions: (1) an amine scrubbing system, utilizing monoethanolamine (“MEA”) as a 

solvent, to capture CO2 from the flue gas, and (2) the scaling of the boiler to a larger size, as 

described below. The assumed carbon capture was set at 30 percent. The captured CO2 is 

compressed to approximately 2,000 psia for injection into a pipeline at the plant fence line as a 

supercritical fluid. The net output of the USC/CCS Facility case is 650 MW, and since the CCS 

system requires about 10 percent of the given facility’s gross capacity in auxiliary load, the 

USC/CCS Facility assumes that the boiler is increased by approximately 12 percent (i.e., it is 

approximately 110 percent the size of the boiler in the USC Facility), which provides the necessary 

steam to facilitate the capture process and to run a steam-driven compressor for compressing the 

CO2 for sequestration. Leidos used 800 MW gross output to obtain the 650 MW net output. 

Figure 4-1 presents a diagram of the USC and Figure 4-2 presents a diagram of the USC/CCS 

Facility.

FIGURE 4-1 – USC FACILITY DIAGRAM
4-2

FIGURE 4-2 – USC/CCS FACILITY DIAGRAM

4.2 Electrical and Control Systems

The electrical and control systems for the USC/CCS Facility are materially similar to the USC

Facility.

4.3 Off-Site Requirements

The off-site requirements for the USC/CCS Facility are materially similar to the USC Facility, 

except that the CO2 needs sequestering in one of the following geologic formations: (1) exhausted 

gas storage location, (2) unminable coal seam, (3) enhanced oil recovery, or (4) saline aquifer. To 

the extent that a sequestration site is not near the given facility being analyzed, transportation for 

a viable sequestration site has the potential to materially affect the capital cost estimates discussed 

below.

4.4 Capital Cost Estimate

The base Cost Estimate for the USC/CCS Facility with a nominal capacity of 650 MW is 

$5,084/kW. The capital cost estimate was based on the USC Facility (without CCS) and the base 

Cost Estimate was increased to include the expected costs of CCS at 30 percent. Since there are 

limited full-scale pulverized coal facilities operating with CCS in the world, our estimate is based 

on industry research. Our team tested the veracity of this research against assumptions for 

implementing the additional equipment necessary to effectuate CCS on an advanced coal facility. 

Table 4-1 summarizes the Cost Estimate categories for the USC/CCS Facility.
4-3

TABLE 4-1 – BASE PLANT SITE CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE FOR USC/CCS

Technology: USC/CCS

Nominal Capacity (ISO): 650,000 kW

Nominal Heat Rate (ISO): 9,750 Btu/kWh-HHV

Capital Cost Category (000s) (January 1, 2016$)

Civil Structural Material and Installation 299,790

Mechanical Equipment Supply and 

Installation 1,414,117

Electrical / I&C Supply and Installation 215,293

Project Indirects (1) 549,580

EPC Cost before Contingency and Fee 2,478,780

Fee and Contingency 275,176

Total Project EPC (2) 2,753,956

Owner Costs (excluding project finance) (2) 550,791

Total Project Cost (excluding finance) 3,304,747

Total Project EPC / kW 4,237

Owner Costs 20% (excluding project finance) / kW 847

Total Project Cost (excluding project finance) / kW 5,084

(1) Includes engineering, distributable costs, scaffolding, construction management, and start-up.

(2) EPC costs include Sequestration to Plant Fence, Owners cost may not bear all pipeline costs required past the 

demarcation point. 

For this type of technology and power plant configuration, our regional adjustments took into 

consideration the following: outdoor installation considerations, seismic design differences, 

remote location issues, labor wage and productivity differences, location adjustments, owner cost 

differences, and the increase in overheads associated with these six adjustment criteria. The 

methodology used for the USC/CCS Facility is the same as that discussed in Section 3.4 for the 

USC Facility (without CCS). 

Table 4-2 in the Appendix shows the USC capital cost variations for alternative U.S. plant 

locations, including the difference between the given location and the average location specified 

for the Cost Estimate.
4-4

4.5 O&M Estimate

The O&M items for the USC/CCS Facility are the same as those discussed in Section 3.5 for the 

USC Facility (without CCS), except that adders are included to both FOM and VOM to 

accommodate the expenses associated with compressor maintenance, sequestration maintenance, 

and the associated additional labor required to manage, operate, and maintain the additional 

equipment. Table 4-3 presents the FOM and VOM expenses for the USC/CCS Facility.

TABLE 4-3 – O&M EXPENSES FOR USC/CCS (650,000 KW)

Technology: USC/CCS

Fixed O&M Expense $70.00/kW-year

Variable O&M Expense $7.10/MWh

4.6 Environmental Compliance Information

In addition to the equipment utilized for environmental compliance in the USC Facility, the 

USC/CCS Facility includes an amine scrubber that is intended to remove 30 percent of the CO2

produced in the combustion process, wherein the captured CO2 is later compressed to HP and 

sequestered, as discussed above. Increased amount of SO2 scrubbing is required to avoid 

contamination of the MEA. Such costs for increased scrubbing are included. Table 4-4 presents 

the environmental emissions for the USC/CCS Facility.

TABLE 4-4 – ENVIRONMENTAL EMISSIONS FOR USC/CCS

Technology: USC/CCS

NOX 0.06 lb/MMBtu

SO2 0.02 lb/MMBtu

CO2 144 lb/MMBtu
5-1

5. Pulverized Coal Brownfield Conversion to Natural Gas (CTNG)

5.1 Mechanical Equipment and Systems

The Conversion from Coal to Natural Gas Facility (“CTNG”) is based on an existing 300 MWe 

Coal plant and converting to a Natural Gas fired plant. The total design capacity is 300 MWe. 

The following describes the Pulverized Coal Brownfield Conversion to Natural Gas (“CTNG”)

Facility, which is a nominal 300 MW net output coal-fired subcritical steam-electric generating 

unit built in a Brownfield location. This unit employs a subcritical Rankine power cycle in which 

natural gas burning capability is added, replacing coal, to produce steam in a boiler which is 

expanded through a ST to produce electric power. The steam is then condensed to water and 

pumped back to the boiler to be converted to steam once again to complete the cycle.

The unit will operate at steam conditions of approximately 2,600 pounds per square inch-absolute 

(“psia”) and 1,005 degrees Fahrenheit (“oF”) at the ST inlet. The superheated steam produced in 

the boiler is supplied to the ST, which drives an electric generator. After leaving the high-pressure 

(“HP”) ST, the steam is reheated and fed to the intermediate-pressure (“IP”) ST. In the 

low-pressure (“LP”) ST, the steam admitted directly from the IP ST expands to condenser pressure 

and is condensed in the condenser. Cooling tower water is used for the condensing process. 

Condensate collected in the condenser hotwell is discharged by the main condensate pumps and 

returned to the deaerator/feedwater storage tank via the LP feedwater heaters. The feedwater 

pumps discharge feedwater from the feedwater storage tank to the boiler via the HP feedwater 

heaters. In the boiler, the subcritical fluid is heated for return to the ST.

The combustion air and flue gas systems are designed for balanced draft and starts with the ambient 

air drawn in by the forced draft fans. This air is heated by steam preheaters and the regenerative 

air heaters. The air and natural gas combust in the boiler furnace and the flue gas passes through 

the furnace and back passes of the boiler, giving up heat to the subcritical fluid in the boiler tubes. 

The flue gas exiting the boiler economizer enters the regenerative air heaters where it transfers 

heat to the incoming air. From the regenerative air heaters, the flue gas then flows to the induced 

draft fans and then into the stack. Figure 3-1 presents the USC process flow diagram.
5-2

FIGURE 5-1 – CTNG DESIGN CONFIGURATION

5.2 Electrical and Control Systems

The electrical and control systems for the CTNG Facility are materially similar to the USC Facility 

with a smaller output capacity.

5.3 Off-Site Requirements

The off-site requirements for the CTNG Facility are materially similar to the CCNG Facility, 

except that the Facility will use lower pressure natural gas than that required for the combustion 

turbines.

5.4 Capital Cost Estimate

The base Cost Estimate for the CTNG with a nominal capacity of 300 MW is $226/kW. Table 5-

1 summarizes the Cost Estimate categories for the CTNG Facility.
5-3

TABLE 5-1 – BASE PLANT SITE CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE FOR CTNG

Technology: CTNG

Nominal Capacity (ISO): 300,000 kW

Nominal Heat Rate (ISO): 10,300 Btu/kWh-HHV (3)

Capital Cost Category (000s) (January 1, 2016$)

Civil Structural Material and Installation 7,820

Mechanical Equipment Supply and 

Installation 26,300

Electrical / I&C Supply and Installation 6,370

Project Indirects (1) 12,310

EPC Cost before Contingency and Fee (2) 52,800

Fee and Contingency 6,154

Total Project EPC 58,954

Owner Costs (excluding project finance) 8,843

Total Project Cost (excluding finance) 67,797

Total Project EPC / kW 197

Owner Costs 15% (excluding project finance) / kW 29

Total Project Cost (excluding project finance) / kW 226

(1) Includes engineering, distributable costs, scaffolding, construction management, and start-up.

(2) Assumes demolition and mitigation will not be required

(3) Assumes Subcritical for conversion

For this type of technology and power plant configuration, our regional adjustments took into 

consideration the following: seismic design differences, remote location issues, labor wage and 

productivity differences, location adjustments, and owner cost differences and the increase in 

overheads associated with these five adjustments.

Seismic design differences among the various locations were based on U.S. seismic map 

information that detailed the various seismic zones throughout the U.S. No cost increases were 

associated with seismic Zone 0 and cost step increases were considered for Zones 1, 2, 3 and 4.

Remote location issues are related to geographic areas that typically require installation of man 

camps, higher craft incentives, and higher per diems are generally required with respect to 

construction, due to the fact that such areas are long distances from urban areas, where labor is 

generally abundant. Remote location designations were also considered in locations where higher 
5-4

equipment freight costs are typically incurred, which for example are regions not near established 

rail or highway access. Remote locations related to the Facility include Fairbanks, Alaska; Great 

Falls, Montana; Albuquerque, New Mexico; Cheyenne, Wyoming; and Cayey, Puerto Rico.

Labor wage and productivity differences were handled as discussed in Section 2.6.1, taking into 

consideration the amount of labor we estimated for the CTNG Facility. 

Location adjustments were made to locations where higher cost of living levels are incurred and/or 

where population density generally correlates to higher construction costs for power and other 

infrastructure projects. These locations include, but are not limited to, Alaska, California, 

Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, 

Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, 

Pennsylvania, South Dakota, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.

Owner costs were reviewed based on the need for utility upgrades and/or infrastructure costs such 

as new facility transmission lines to tie to existing utility transmission substations or existing 

transmission lines.

Table 5-2 in the Appendix shows the CTNG capital cost variations for alternative U.S. plant 

locations, including the difference between the given location and the average location specified 

for the Cost Estimate.

5.5 O&M Estimate

The O&M for a natural gas fired facility is much lower than a pulverized coal facility since coal 

conveying and pulverizing equipment is not used. Additionally, the emissions controls equipment 

that is required for pulverized coal firing is not needed for natural gas firing.

TABLE 5-3 – O&M EXPENSES FOR CTNG

Technology: CTNG

Fixed O&M Expense $22.00/kW-year

Variable O&M Expense $1.30/MWh

5.6 Environmental Compliance Information

Table 5-4 presents environmental emissions for the CTNG Facility. Since the conversion of coal 

to gas fuel would inherently reduce emissions, the installation of an SCR with gas fuel was not 

assumed. Low NOX burners on the gas-fired boiler are assumed. 

TABLE 5-4 – ENVIRONMENTAL EMISSIONS FOR CTNG 

Technology: CTNG

NOX 0.11 lb/MMBtu

SO2 0.001 lb/MMBtu

CO2 117 lb/MMBtu
6-1

6. Pulverized Coal Greenfield with 10-15% Biomass (GCBC)

6.1 Mechanical Equipment and Systems

The Coal Co-Firing with 10-15% Biomass Facility (“GCBC”) is based on a total design capacity 

of 300 MWe. 

The plant configuration for the Pulverized coal greenfield with 10-15% biomass (“GCBC”) is the 

same as the USC case with two exceptions: (1) the size of the plant is 300 MW net capacity, and 

(2) the modifications to feed and burn biomass are made to the facility. These modifications would 

include conveyors, feeders, storage capability, and sootblowers. This biomass fuel for this facility 

is assumed to be a dry, pelletized fuel which can be mixed directly into the coal pulverizers.

FIGURE 6-1 – GCBC DESIGN CONFIGURATION

6.2 Electrical and Control Systems

The electrical and control systems for the GCBC Facility are materially similar to the USC Facility 

with a smaller output capacity.
6-2

6.3 Off-Site Requirements

The off-site requirements for the GCBC Facility are materially similar to the USC Facility, except 

that pelletized biomass will need to be prepared and delivered to the site for storage.

6.4 Capital Cost Estimate

The base Cost Estimate for the GCBC Facility with a nominal capacity of 300 MWe is $4,620/kW. 

Table 6-1 summarizes the Cost Estimate categories for the GCBC Facility.

TABLE 6-1 – LOCATION-BASED COSTS FOR GCBC

Technology: GCBC

Nominal Capacity (ISO): 300,000 kW

Nominal Heat Rate (ISO): 8,960 Btu/kWh-HHV 

Capital Cost Category (000s) (January 1, 2016$)

Civil Structural Material and Installation 115,992

Mechanical Equipment Supply and 

Installation 583,500

Electrical / I&C Supply and Installation 106,179

Project Indirects (1) 228,694

EPC Cost before Contingency and Fee 1,034,365

Fee and Contingency 120,559

Total Project EPC 1,154,924

Owner Costs (excluding project finance) 230,985

Total Project Cost (excluding finance) 1,385,909

Total Project EPC / kW 3,850

Owner Costs 20% (excluding project finance) / kW 770

Total Project Cost (excluding project finance) / kW 4,620

(1) Includes engineering, distributable costs, scaffolding, construction management, and start-up.

For this type of technology and power plant configuration, our regional adjustments took into 

consideration the following: seismic design differences, remote location issues, labor wage and 
6-3

productivity differences, location adjustments, and owner cost differences and the increase in 

overheads associated with these five adjustments.

Seismic design differences among the various locations were based on U.S. seismic map 

information that detailed the various seismic zones throughout the U.S. No cost increases were 

associated with seismic Zone 0 and cost step increases were considered for Zones 1, 2, 3 and 4.

Remote location issues are related to geographic areas that typically require installation of man 

camps, higher craft incentives, and higher per diems are generally required with respect to 

construction, due to the fact that such areas are long distances from urban areas, where labor is 

generally abundant. Remote location designations were also considered in locations where higher 

equipment freight costs are typically incurred, which for example are regions not near established 

rail or highway access. Remote locations related to the Coal Biomass Co-Firing Facility include,

Fairbanks, Alaska; Great Falls, Montana; and Cayey, Puerto Rico.

Labor wage and productivity differences were handled as discussed in Section 2.6.1, taking into 

consideration the amount of labor we estimated for the GCBC Facility. 

Location adjustments were made to locations where higher cost of living levels are incurred and/or 

where population density generally correlates to higher construction costs for power and other 

infrastructure projects. These locations include, but are not limited to, Alaska, California, 

Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, 

Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Rhode Island, Virginia, Washington, and 

Wisconsin.

Owner costs were reviewed based on the need for utility upgrades and/or infrastructure costs such 

as new facility transmission lines to tie to existing utility transmission substations or existing 

transmission lines.

Table 6-2 in the Appendix presents the GCBC Facility capital cost variations for alternative U.S. 

plant locations.

6.5 O&M Estimate

The O&M expenses for the GCBC facility are materially similar to the pulverized coal fired 

facility.

TABLE 6-3 – O&M EXPENSES FOR GCBC

Technology: GCBC

Fixed O&M Expense $50.90/kW-year

Variable O&M Expense $5.00/MWh

6.6 Environmental Compliance Information

Since wind utilizes a renewable fuel and no additional fuel is combusted to make power from an

Greenfield Coal Biomass Co-Firing Facility, air emissions are not created. Table 6-4 presents 

environmental emissions for the GCBC Facility.
6-4

TABLE 6-4 – ENVIRONMENTAL EMISSIONS FOR GCBC 

Technology: GCBC

NOX 0.06 lb/MMBtu

SO2 0.1 lb/MMBtu

CO2 204 lb/MMBtu
7-1

7. Pulverized Coal Brownfield Conversion to Coal with 10% 

Biomass – 30 MW Co-Firing (CTCB)

7.1 Mechanical Equipment and Systems

The Coal Brownfield Conversion to 10% Biomass Co-Firing Facility (“CTCB”) is the addition of 

30 MWe to an existing 300 MWe Coal plant; the overall net MWe output will remain 300 MWe. 

The plant configuration for the Pulverized coal brownfield with 10% biomass (“GCBC”) is the 

same as the pulverized coal brownfield conversion to natural gas (“CTNG”) case with the 

exception that pulverized coal firing will not be discontinued. The size of the plant is 300 MW 

net capacity and the modifications to feed and burn biomass are made to the facility. These 

modifications would include conveyors, feeders, storage capability, and sootblowers. This 

biomass fuel for this facility is assumed to be a dry, pelletized fuel which can be mixed directly 

into the coal pulverizers.

FIGURE 7-1 – CTCB DESIGN CONFIGURATION

7.2 Electrical and Control Systems

The electrical and control systems for the CTNG Facility are materially similar to the USC Facility 

with a smaller output capacity.
7-2

7.3 Off-Site Requirements

The off-site requirements for the CTCB Facility are materially similar to the USC Facility, except 

that pelletized biomass will need to be prepared and delivered to the site for storage.

7.4 Capital Cost Estimate

The base Cost Estimate for the CTCB Facility with a nominal capacity of 300 MW is $537/kW. 

Table 7-1 summarizes the Cost Estimate categories for the CTCB Facility.

TABLE 7-1 – LOCATION-BASED COSTS FOR CTCB

Technology: CTCB

Nominal Capacity (ISO): 300,000 kW

Nominal Heat Rate (ISO): 10,360 Btu/kWh-HHV 

Capital Cost Category (000s) (January 1, 2016$)

Civil Structural Material and Installation 11,688

Mechanical Equipment Supply and 

Installation 78,338

Electrical / I&C Supply and Installation 4,801

Project Indirects (1) 21,846

EPC Cost before Contingency and Fee 116,674

Fee and Contingency 17,501

Total Project EPC 134,175

Owner Costs (excluding project finance) 26,835

Total Project Cost (excluding finance) 161,010

Total Project EPC / kW 447

Owner Costs 20% (excluding project finance) / kW 89

Total Project Cost (excluding project finance) / kW 537

(1) Includes engineering, distributable costs, scaffolding, construction management, and start-up.

For this type of technology and power plant configuration, our regional adjustments took into 

consideration the following: seismic design differences, remote location issues, labor wage and 
7-3

productivity differences, location adjustments, and owner cost differences and the increase in 

overheads associated with these five adjustments.

Seismic design differences among the various locations were based on U.S. seismic map 

information that detailed the various seismic zones throughout the U.S. No cost increases were 

associated with seismic Zone 0 and cost step increases were considered for Zones 1, 2, 3, and 4.

Remote location issues are related to geographic areas that typically require installation of man 

camps, higher craft incentives, and higher per diems are generally required with respect to 

construction, due to the fact that such areas are long distances from urban areas, where labor is 

generally abundant. Remote location designations were also considered in locations where higher 

equipment freight costs are typically incurred, which for example are regions not near established 

rail or highway access. Remote locations related to the CTCB Facility include Fairbanks, Alaska; 

Great Falls, Montana; and Cayey, Puerto Rico.

Labor wage and productivity differences were handled as discussed in Section 2.6.1, taking into 

consideration the amount of labor we estimated for the CTCB Facility.

Location adjustments were made to locations where higher cost of living levels are incurred and/or 

where population density generally correlates to higher construction costs for power and other 

infrastructure projects. These locations include, but are not limited to, Alaska, California, 

Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, 

Minnesota, Oregon, Virginia, and Washington.

Owner costs were reviewed based on the need for utility upgrades and/or infrastructure costs such 

as new facility transmission lines to tie to existing utility transmission substations or existing 

transmission lines.

Table 7-2 in the Appendix presents the CTCB Facility capital cost variations for alternative U.S. 

plant locations.

7.5 O&M Estimate

The O&M expenses for a CTCB facility are materially similar to a pulverized coal facility.

TABLE 7-3 – O&M EXPENSES FOR CTCB

Technology: CTCB

Fixed O&M Expense $50.90/kW-year

Variable O&M Expense $5.00/MWh

7.6 Environmental Compliance Information

Table 7-4 presents environmental emissions for the CTCB Facility.

TABLE 7-4 – ENVIRONMENTAL EMISSIONS FOR CTCB 

Technology: CTCB

NOX 0.06 lb/MMBtu

SO2 0.1 lb/MMBtu

CO2 204 lb/MMBtu
8-1

8. Conventional Natural Gas Combined Cycle (NGCC)

8.1 Mechanical Equipment and Systems

The Conventional Natural Gas Combined Cycle (“NGCC”) produces 702 MW of net electricity. 

The facility utilizes two natural gas-fueled F5-class CTs and associated electric generators, two 

supplemental-fired heat recovery steam generators (“HRSG”), and one condensing ST and 

associated electric generator operating in combined-cycle mode. Each CT is designed to produce 

nominally 242 MW and includes a dry-low NOX (“DLN”) combustion system and a 

hydrogen-cooled electric generator. The two triple-pressure HRSGs include integrated deaerators, 

SCRs, oxidation catalyst for the control of carbon monoxide (“CO”), and supplemental duct firing 

with associated combustion management. The ST is a single-reheat condensing ST designed for 

variable pressure operation, designed to produce an additional 246 MW. The ST exhaust is cooled 

in a closed-loop condenser system with a mechanical draft cooling tower. The CTs are equipped 

with inlet evaporative coolers to reduce the temperature of the turbine inlet air to increase summer 

output. The Conventional NGCC plant also includes a raw water treatment system consisting of 

clarifiers and filters and a turbine hall, in which the CTs, ST, and HRSGs are enclosed to avoid 

freezing during periods of cold ambient temperatures. Figure 8-1 presents the Conventional 

NGCC process flow diagram.
8-2

FIGURE 8-1 – CONVENTIONAL NGCC DESIGN CONFIGURATION

8.2 Electrical and Control Systems

The Conventional NGCC has two CT electric generators and one ST electric generator. The 

generators for the CTs are 60 Hz and rated at approximately 215 MVA with an output voltage of 

18 kV. The ST electric generator is 60 Hz and rated at approximately 310 MVA with an output 

voltage of 18 kV. Each CT and ST electric generator is connected to a high-voltage bus in the 

Conventional NGCC via a dedicated generator circuit breaker, generator GSU, and a disconnect 

switch. The GSUs increase the voltage from the electric generators from 18 kV to interconnected 

high voltage. 

The Conventional NGCC is controlled using a DCS. The DCS provides centralized control of the 

facility by integrating the control systems provided with each individual CT and associated electric 

generator, ST and associated electric generator, and the control of BOP systems and equipment. 

8.3 Off-Site Requirements

Natural gas is delivered to the facility through a lateral connected to the local natural gas trunk 

line. Water for all processes at the Conventional NGCC Facility is obtained from one of several 

available water sources (e.g., municipal water supply). The Conventional NGCC Facility uses a 

water treatment system and a high-efficiency reverse osmosis system to reduce the dissolved solids 

from the cooling water and to provide distilled water for HRSG makeup. Wastewater is sent to a 
8-3

municipal wastewater system. Further, the electrical interconnection from the Conventional 

NGCC on-site switchyard is effectuated by a connection to an adjacent utility substation.

8.4 Capital Cost Estimate

The base Cost Estimate for the Conventional NGCC Facility with a nominal capacity of 702 MW 

is $978/kW. Table 8-1 summarizes the Cost Estimate categories for the Conventional NGCC 

Facility. 

TABLE 8-1 – BASE PLANT SITE CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE FOR CONVENTIONAL 

NGCC

Technology: Conventional NGCC

Nominal Capacity (ISO): 702,000 kW

Nominal Heat Rate (ISO): 6,600 Btu/kWh-HHV

Capital Cost Category (000s) (January 1, 2016$)

Civil Structural Material and Installation 49,126

Mechanical Equipment Supply and 

Installation 324,043

Electrical / I&C Supply and Installation 43,753

Project Indirects (1) 99,220

EPC Cost before Contingency and Fee 516,142

Fee and Contingency 55,743

Total Project EPC 571,885

Owner Costs (excluding project finance) 114,377

Total Project Cost (excluding finance) 686,262

Total Project EPC / kW 815

Owner Costs 20% (excluding project finance) / kW 163

Total Project Cost (excluding project finance) / kW 978

(1) Includes engineering, distributable costs, scaffolding, construction management, and start-up.

For this type of technology and power plant configuration, our regional adjustments took into 

consideration the following: outdoor installation considerations, air-cooled condensers compared 

to cooling towers, seismic design differences, zero-water discharge issues, local technical 

enhancements (e.g., additional noise remediation that is generally required in urban siting), remote 

location issues, urban – high density population issues, labor wage and productivity differences, 
8-4

location adjustments, owner cost differences, and the increase in overheads associated with these 

10 adjustments.

Outdoor installation locations are considered in geographic areas where enclosed structures for the 

boilers would not be required due to the low probability of freezing. The locations that were 

included in outdoor installation are Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, 

Mississippi, New Mexico, South Carolina, and Puerto Rico. 

The potential locations relating to the use of air-cooled condensers in place of mechanical draft 

wet cooling towers were identified as Arizona, California, Connecticut, Delaware, District of 

Columbia, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode 

Island, Virginia, and Puerto Rico. These locations are identified as those where conservation of 

water, notwithstanding supply, has been and/or is becoming a significant issue in plant 

permitting/siting.

Seismic design differences among the various locations were based on U.S. seismic map 

information that detailed the various seismic zones throughout the U.S. No cost increases were 

associated with seismic Zone 0 and cost step increases were considered for Zones 1, 2, 3 and 4.

The potential locations relating to the need of zero-water discharge were identified as Arizona, 

California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Maryland, Massachusetts, 

New Hampshire, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Virginia, and Puerto Rico. 

Similar to water usage discussed above in this section on Conventional NGCC, wastewater 

treatment and disposal is considered a critical permitting/siting issue in these areas.

The locations with local technical enhancements include California, Colorado, Connecticut, 

Delaware, District of Columbia, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, New Jersey, New York, 

Rhode Island, Vermont, and Virginia. These areas are places where noise, visual impacts, and 

other technical enhancements generally need to be made by a project developer or utility to comply 

with the applicable permitting/siting requirements. 

Remote location issues are related to geographic areas that typically require installation of man 

camps, higher craft incentives, and higher per diems are generally required with respect to 

construction, due to the fact that such areas are long distances from urban areas, where labor is 

generally abundant. Remote location designations were also considered in locations where higher 

equipment freight costs are typically incurred, which for example are regions not near established 

rail or highway access. Remote locations related to the Conventional NGCC include Fairbanks, 

Alaska; Albuquerque, New Mexico; Cheyenne, Wyoming; and Cayey, Puerto Rico.

Labor wage and productivity differences were handled as discussed in Section 2.6.1, taking into 

consideration the amount of labor we estimated for the Conventional NGCC Facility. 

Location adjustments were made to locations where higher cost of living levels are incurred and/or 

where population density generally correlates to higher construction costs for power and other 

infrastructure projects. These locations include, but are not limited to, Alaska, California, 

Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, 

Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, 

Pennsylvania, South Dakota, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.

Owner costs were reviewed based on the need for utility upgrades and/or infrastructure costs such 

as new facility transmission lines to tie to existing utility transmission substations or existing 

transmission lines. 
8-5

Table 8-2 in the Appendix presents the Conventional NGCC capital cost variations for alternative 

U.S. plant locations, including the difference between the given location and the average location 

specified for the Cost Estimate.

8.5 O&M Estimate

In addition to the general O&M items discussed in Section 2.6.2, the Conventional NGCC Facility 

includes the major maintenance for the CTs, as well as the BOP, including the ST, associated 

electric generators, HRSGs, and emissions reduction catalysts. These major maintenance expenses 

are included with the VOM expense for this technology and are given on an average basis across 

the MWhs incurred. Typically, significant overhauls on a Conventional NGCC Facility occur no 

less frequently than 16,000 operating hour intervals. Recently, some manufacturers are extending 

these intervals to 25,000 operating hours. Table 8-3 presents the O&M expenses for the 

Conventional NGCC Facility.

TABLE 8-3 – O&M EXPENSES FOR CONVENTIONAL NGCC

Technology: Conventional NGCC

Fixed O&M Expense $11.00/kW-year

Variable O&M Expense $3.50/MWh

8.6 Environmental Compliance Information

The Conventional NGCC utilizes DLN combustion systems in the primary combustion zone of 

the CT and best available burner technology with respect to the duct burners in the HRSGs to 

manage the production of NOX and CO. Additional control of NOX and CO is accomplished 

through an SCR and an oxidization catalyst, respectively. Oxides of sulfur in the Conventional 

NGCC are managed through the natural gas fuel quality, which is generally very low in sulfur U.S. 

domestic pipeline quality natural gas, and consequently the low sulfur content translates into SO2

after combustion. The Conventional NGCC does not include any control devices for CO2, which 

is proportional to the heat rate (inversely proportional to the efficiency) of the technology. Water, 

wastewater, and solid waste compliance are achieved through traditional on-site and off-site 

methods, and the costs for such compliance are included in the O&M estimate for the Conventional 

NGCC Facility. Table 8-4 presents environmental emissions for the Conventional NGCC Facility.

TABLE 8-4 – ENVIRONMENTAL EMISSIONS FOR CONVENTIONAL NGCC

 Technology: Conventional NGCC

NOX 0.0075 lb/MMBtu

SO2 0.001 lb/MMBtu

CO2 117 lb/MMBtu
9-1

9. Advanced Generation Natural Gas Combined Cycle (AG-NGCC)

9.1 Mechanical Equipment and Systems

The Advanced Generation (“AG”)-NGCC design is the same as the Conventional NGCC, except 

an H-class CT is utilized in lieu of F-class, and there is only one CT/HRSG supporting the ST 

included. Since the H-class CT design employs steam cooling of both stationary and rotational 

hot parts, the HRSG systems and the ST are both considered “advanced” designs, as compared to 

the Conventional NGCC. The AG-NGCC has advantages compared to the Conventional NGCC. 

The advantages of the AG-NGCC are for the same size of equipment – more megawatt output due 

to higher firing temperature. The higher firing temperature is due to more technically advanced 

metallurgical metals and coatings, and blade cooling systems. The AG-NGCC may or may not 

have a better ramping rate depending on the geographical location of the facility. The net output 

of the AG-NGCC is 429 MW. Figure 9-1 presents the AG-NGCC process flow diagram.

FIGURE 9-1 – AG-NGCC DESIGN CONFIGURATION

9.2 Electrical and Control Systems

The AG-NGCC electrical and control systems are similar to the Conventional NGCC Facility, 

except that the sizing of the generators and transformers are larger to support the larger CT and ST 

equipment utilized in the AG-NGCC. 

9.3 Off-Site Requirements

The off-site requirements for the AG-NGCC Facility are the same as the Conventional NGCC. 

Refer to Section 8.3 for the description of the Conventional NGCC off-site requirements.
9-2

9.4 Capital Cost Estimate

The base Cost Estimate for the AG-NGCC Facility with a nominal capacity of 429 MW is 

$1,104/kW. Table 9-1 summarizes the Cost Estimate categories for the AG-NGCC Facility. 

TABLE 9-1 – BASE PLANT SITE CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE FOR AG-NGCC 

Technology: AG-NGCC

Nominal Capacity (ISO): 429,000 kW

Nominal Heat Rate (ISO): 6,300 Btu/kWh-HHV

Capital Cost Category (000s) (January 1, 2016$)

Civil Structural Material and Installation 25,790

Mechanical Equipment Supply and 

Installation 214,313

Electrical / I&C Supply and Installation 30,370

Project Indirects (1) 86,695

EPC Cost before Contingency and Fee 357,168

Fee and Contingency 37,503

Total Project EPC 394,671

Owner Costs (excluding project finance) 78,934

Total Project Cost (excluding finance) 473,605

Total Project EPC / kW 920

Owner Costs 20% (excluding project finance) / kW 184

Total Project Cost (excluding project finance) / kW 1,104

(1) Includes engineering, distributable costs, scaffolding, construction management, and start-up.

The locational adjustments for the AG-NGCC Facility similar to those made for the Conventional 

NGCC Facility. 

Table 9-2 in the Appendix presents the AG-NGCC Facility capital cost variations for alternative 

U.S. plant locations, including the difference between the given location and the average location 

specified for the Cost Estimate.

9.5 O&M Estimate

The O&M items for the AG-NGCC Facility are the same as those described in Section 8.5 for the 

Conventional NGCC Facility. Table 9-3 presents the O&M expenses for the AG-NGCC Facility.
9-3

TABLE 9-3 – O&M EXPENSES FOR AG-NGCC 

Technology: AG-NGCC

Fixed O&M Expense $10.00/kW-year

Variable O&M Expense $2.00/MWh

9.6 Environmental Compliance Information

The environmental compliance strategy and equipment for the AG-NGCC Facility is the same as 

those described in Section 8.6 for the Conventional NGCC Facility. Table 9-4 presents 

environmental emissions for the AG-NGCC Facility.

TABLE 9-4 – ENVIRONMENTAL EMISSIONS FOR AG-NGCC

Technology: AG-NGCC

NOX 0.0075 lb/MMBtu

SO2 0.001 lb/MMBtu

CO2 117 lb/MMBtu
10-1

10. Conventional Combustion Turbine (CT)

10.1 Mechanical Equipment and Systems

The Conventional Combustion Turbine (“CT”) Facility produces 100 MW of electricity using two

single natural gas-fueled LM-6000 CTs and associated electric generators in simple-cycle mode. 

The CTs are equipped with an inlet evaporative cooler to reduce the temperature of the turbine 

inlet air to increase summer output. Figure 10-1 presents the Conventional CT Facility process 

flow diagram.

FIGURE 10-1 – CONVENTIONAL CT DESIGN CONFIGURATION

10.2 Electrical and Control Systems

The Conventional CT Facility has two CT electric generators. The generators are 60 Hz machines

rated at approximately 101 MVA with an output voltage of 13.8 kV. The CT electric generators

are connected to a high-voltage bus in the Conventional CT Facility switchyard via a dedicated 

generator circuit breaker, GSU, and a disconnect switch. The GSU increases the voltage from the 

electric generator from 13.8 kV to interconnected transmission system high voltage.

The Conventional CT Facility is controlled using a DCS. The DCS provides centralized control 

of the facility by integrating the control systems provided with the individual CT and associated 

electric generator and the control of BOP systems and equipment. 

10.3 Off-Site Requirements

Natural gas is delivered to the facility through a lateral connected to the local natural gas trunk line

within close proximity to the Conventional CT Facility. Water for the limited processes that utilize 

water at the Conventional CT Facility is obtained from a one of several available water sources 

(e.g., municipal water supply). The Conventional CT Facility uses a water treatment system and 
10-2

a high-efficiency reverse osmosis system to reduce the dissolved solids for compressor cleaning. 

Wastewater is sent to a municipal wastewater system. Further, the electrical interconnection from 

the Conventional CT on-site switchyard is effectuated by a connection to an adjacent utility 

substation.

10.4 Capital Cost Estimate

The base Cost Estimate for the Conventional CT Facility with a nominal capacity of 100 MW is 

$1,101/kW. Table 10-1 summarizes the Cost Estimate categories for the Conventional CT 

Facility. 

TABLE 10-1 – BASE PLANT SITE

CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE FOR CONVENTIONAL CT

Technology: Conventional CT

Nominal Capacity (ISO): 100,000 kW

Nominal Heat Rate (ISO): 10,000 Btu/kWh-HHV

Capital Cost Category (000s) (January 1, 2016$)

Civil Structural Material and Installation 6,630

Mechanical Equipment Supply and 

Installation 50,350

Electrical / I&C Supply and Installation 12,065

Project Indirects (1) 14,344

EPC Cost before Contingency and Fee 83,390

Fee and Contingency 8,339

Total Project EPC 91,729

Owner Costs (excluding project finance) 18,346

Total Project Cost (excluding finance) 110,075

Total Project EPC / kW 917

Owner Costs 20% (excluding project finance) / kW 183

Total Project Cost (excluding project finance) / kW 1,101

(1) Includes engineering, distributable costs, scaffolding, construction management, and start-up.

For this type of technology and power plant configuration, our regional adjustments took into 

consideration the following: outdoor installation considerations, seismic design differences, local 

technical enhancements (e.g., additional noise remediation that is generally required in urban 
10-3

siting), remote location issues, urban – high density population issues, labor wage and productivity 

differences, location adjustments, owner cost differences, and the increase in overheads associated 

with these previous eight location adjustments.

Seismic design differences among the various locations were based on U.S. seismic map 

information that detailed the various seismic zones throughout the U.S. No cost increases were 

associated with seismic Zone 0 and cost step increases were considered for Zones 1, 2, 3 and 4.

The locations with local technical enhancements include California, Colorado, Connecticut, 

Delaware, District of Columbia, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, 

Vermont, and Virginia. These are areas where noise, visual impacts, and other technical 

enhancements generally need to be made by a project developer or utility to comply with the 

applicable permitting/siting requirements. 

Remote location issues are related to geographic areas that typically require installation of man 

camps, higher craft incentives, and higher per diems are generally required with respect to 

construction, due to the fact that such areas are long distances from urban areas, where labor is 

generally abundant. Remote location designations were also considered in locations where higher 

equipment freight costs are typically incurred, which for example are regions not near established 

rail or highway access. Remote locations related to the Conventional CT Facility include 

Fairbanks, Alaska; Honolulu, Hawaii; Great Falls, Montana; Albuquerque, New Mexico; 

Cheyenne, Wyoming; and Cayey, Puerto Rico.

Labor wage and productivity differences were handled as discussed in Section 2.6.1, taking into 

consideration the amount of labor we estimated for the Conventional CT Facility. 

Location adjustments were made to locations where higher cost of living levels are incurred and/or 

where population density generally correlates to higher construction costs for power and other 

infrastructure projects. These locations include, but are not limited to, Alaska, California, 

Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, 

Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, New York, North Dakota, 

Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.

Owner costs were reviewed based on the need for utility upgrades and/or infrastructure costs such 

as new facility transmission lines to tie to existing utility transmission substations or existing 

transmission lines. 

Table 10-2 in the Appendix presents the Conventional CT Facility capital cost variations for 

alternative U.S. plant locations.

10.5 O&M Estimate

In addition to the general O&M items discussed in Section 2.6.2, the Conventional CT Facility 

includes the major maintenance for the CT and associated electric generator. These major 

maintenance expenses are included with the VOM expense for this technology. Significant 

overhauls on a Conventional CT Facility occur every 25,000 operating hours; with more 

significant major maintenance outages occurring at 50,000 operating hour intervals. The 

frequency of starts in relation to operating hours does not have an effect on major maintenance 

timing for this type of CT, as it does for frame-type units. Table 10-3 presents the O&M expenses 

for the Conventional CT Facility.
10-4

TABLE 10-3 – O&M EXPENSES FOR CONVENTIONAL CT

Technology: Conventional CT

Fixed O&M Expense $17.50/kW-year

Variable O&M Expense $3.50/MWh

10.6 Environmental Compliance Information

Typically, a Conventional CT Facility would be equipped with only the DLN combustion 

hardware to mitigate emissions. There are some states in the U.S. that do require a “hot” SCR that 

can operate at the higher exhaust temperatures of a simple-cycle plant, though that equipment was 

not contemplated herein. Table 10-4 presents environmental emissions for the CT Facility.

TABLE 10-4 – ENVIRONMENTAL EMISSIONS FOR CONVENTIONAL CT

Technology: Conventional CT

NOX 0.03 lb/MMBtu

SO2 0.001 lb/MMBtu

CO2 117 lb/MMBtu
11-1

11. Advanced Combustion Turbine (ACT)

11.1 Mechanical Equipment and Systems

The Advanced CT (“ACT”) Facility produces 237 MW of electricity using a single natural 

gas-fueled, F-class CT and associated electric generator. The CT is equipped with an inlet 

evaporative cooler to reduce the temperature of the turbine inlet air to increase summer output. 

Figure 11-1 presents the Advanced CT process flow diagram.

FIGURE 11-1 – ADVANCED CT DESIGN CONFIGURATION

11.2 Electrical and Control Systems

The Advanced CT Facility has the same general electrical and control systems as the Conventional 

CT Facility, except that the electric generator is rated at approximately 234 MVA and the 

corresponding GSU is larger in the Advanced CT Facility. 

11.3 Off-Site Requirements

The off-site requirements for the Advanced CT Facility are materially similar to the Conventional 

CT Facility.

11.4 Capital Cost Estimate

The base Cost Estimate for the Advanced CT Facility with a nominal capacity of 237 MW is 

$678/kW. Table 11-1 summarizes the Cost Estimate categories for the Advanced CT Facility. 
11-2

TABLE 11-1 – BASE PLANT SITE CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE FOR ADVANCED CT

Technology: Advanced CT

Nominal Capacity (ISO): 237,000 kW

Nominal Heat Rate (ISO): 9,800 Btu/kWh-HHV

Capital Cost Category (000s) (January 1, 2016$)

Civil Structural Material and Installation 13,660

Mechanical Equipment Supply and 

Installation 71,245

Electrical / I&C Supply and Installation 17,896

Project Indirects (1) 18,851

EPC Cost before Contingency and Fee 121,652

Fee and Contingency 12,165

Total Project EPC 133,818

Owner Costs (excluding project finance) 26,764

Total Project Cost (excluding finance) 160,582

Total Project EPC / kW 565

Owner Costs 20% (excluding project finance) / kW 113

Total Project Cost (excluding project finance) / kW 678

(1) Includes engineering, distributable costs, scaffolding, construction management, and start-up.

The locational considerations for the Advanced CT Facility are the same as those set forth in the 

section on the Conventional CT Facility. 

Table 11-2 in the Appendix presents the Advanced CT Facility capital cost variations for 

alternative U.S. plant locations.

11.5 O&M Estimate

In addition to the general O&M items discussed in Section 2.6.2, the Advanced CT Facility 

includes the major maintenance for the CT and associated electric generator. These major 

maintenance expenses are included with the VOM expense for this technology, based upon an 

operating profile of approximately 8 hours of operation per CT start. Typically, significant 

overhauls on an Advanced CT Facility occur no less frequently than 450 starts; with more 

significant major maintenance outages occurring at 900 and 1,800 start intervals. Table 11-3 

presents the O&M expenses for the Advanced CT Facility.
11-3

TABLE 11-3 – O&M EXPENSES FOR ADVANCED CT

Technology: Advanced CT

Fixed O&M Expense $6.80/kW-year

Variable O&M Expense $10.70/MWh

11.6 Environmental Compliance Information

The environmental compliance strategy and equipment for the Advanced CT Facility are the same 

as those used for the Conventional CT Facility (see Section 10.6). Table 11-4 presents 

environmental emissions for the Advanced CT Facility.

TABLE 11-4 – ENVIRONMENTAL EMISSIONS FOR ADVANCED CT

Technology: Advanced CT

NOX 0.03 lb/MMBtu

SO2 0.001 lb/MMBtu

CO2 117 lb/MMBtu
12-1

12. Advanced Nuclear (AN)

12.1 Mechanical Equipment and Systems

The Advanced Nuclear (“AN”) Facility consists of two nominally rated 1,117 MW Westinghouse 

AP1000 nuclear power units built at a brownfield (existing nuclear facility) site. 

The steam cycle of a nuclear powered electric generation facility is similar to other steam-powered 

generating facilities. The difference is with the source of heat used to generate steam. In units 

that use fossil fuels, hydrocarbons are burned to heat water, producing steam. In the AP1000, 

splitting the nucleus (fission) of enriched-uranium atoms provides the energy to heat the water.

Nuclear fuel is a enriched-uranium dioxide ceramic pellet typically encased in a zircalloy tube. 

The uranium atoms in the pellet absorb neutrons causing the nucleus of the atoms to split, or 

fission. When the uranium atom splits, a large amount of energy, as well as additional neutrons 

and fission fragments are released. The resulting nuclei contain a great deal of kinetic energy 

which ultimately adds heat to the primary coolant. The neutrons can be absorbed by other uranium 

atoms which then fission, producing more neutrons available for further fissions. The chain 

reaction is maintained at criticality (e.g., “self-sustaining”: neither sub-critical nor super-critical) 

by controlling the number of thermal neutrons available for fission such that, on average, each 

fission results in exactly one thermal neutron being used in a subsequent thermal fission. The 

number of neutrons available is controlled by the temperature (and hence the density) of the water 

in the nuclear reactor core, the arrangement of neutron absorbing control rods inserted into the 

core, the design of the core, and by controlling the void fraction and temperature of the coolant 

water (which both affect the density of water which affects the neutrons available for the fission 

process). This concept is commonly referred to as “moderation”. Moderation is the slowing down 

or lowering the energy of a fast neutron to a thermal neutron state such that the neutron has a higher 

probability of resulting in a thermal fission.

The enriched-uranium fuel is contained inside a pressurized water reactor (“PWR”). The AP1000 

is a two-loop PWR. The fission of the uranium fuel releases heat to the surrounding water (reactor 

cooling water), which under pressure does not boil. The pressurized water from the reactor (the 

primary side) enters a heat exchanger (typically referred to as a steam generator) which converts 

lower pressure water into steam in the secondary side of the steam generator. 

In the primary loop, the cooling water inside the PWR is circulated through the nuclear core by 

reactor coolant pumps. This cooling water system is termed the Reactor Coolant System (“RCS”). 

The RCS consists of two heat transfer circuits, with each circuit containing one Delta-125 U-tube 

type steam generator, two reactor coolant pumps, and a single hot leg and two cold legs for 

circulating coolant between the reactor and the steam generators. The system also includes a 

pressurizer, interconnecting piping, and the valves and instrumentation necessary for operational 

control and the actuation of safeguards. Each AP1000 unit has a 130-foot diameter freestanding 

containment vessel with four ring sections and an upper and lower head.

In the secondary loop, the main steam from the steam generator is routed to the HP section of the 

ST. The ST consists of a double-flow HP ST section and three double-flow LP ST sections in a 

tandem-compound configuration. As the steam exits the HP section it passes through a moisture 

separator and reheater. The moisture separator and reheater dries and reheats the steam before it 

enters the LP ST section, which improves the cycle efficiency and reduces moisture related erosion 
12-2

of the LP ST blades. A portion of the steam is extracted from the HP and LP sections of the ST 

and with ST exhaust heats the condensate and feedwater before it is sent back to the reactor. The 

HP and LP STs are connected via a common shaft that drives the generator which produces the 

electrical power output of approximately 1,100 MW per unit. 

The steam that exits the LP section of the ST, as well as the drains from the feedwater heaters, are 

directed to the condenser. The condenser is a surface condensing (tube type) heat exchanger that 

is maintained under vacuum to increase the turbine efficiency. The steam condenses on the outside 

of the tubes and condenser cooling water is circulated through the inside of the tubes. 

The passive core cooling system provides protection of the facility against RCS leaks and ruptures. 

The passive containment cooling system provides for an inherently safe heat sink for the facility. 

The passive containment cooling system cools the containment following a loss of coolant accident 

by rapidly reducing the reactor coolant system pressure and promoting the natural circulation of 

air supplemented by water evaporation to transfer heat through the steel containment vessel and 

away from critical core components that may be subject to decay heat. The advantage of a passive 

core system is that less safety related equipment (e.g., pumping systems) is required to remove the 

decay heat.

Numerous other systems are needed to support and provide redundancy for the cycle process 

described herein. These include the residual heat removal system, the HP core flooder system, 

and the LP core flooder system which are redundant systems and are designed to remove heat from 

the reactor core in the event the normal core cooling system fails. Other support systems include 

the liquid and solid radioactive waste systems which handle, control, and process radioactive waste 

from the plant. The reactor containment ventilation system controls and filters airborne radiation. 

Figure 12-1 presents a simplified process flow diagram for a PWR AN plant.
12-3

FIGURE 12-1 – AN DESIGN CONFIGURATION

12.2 Electrical and Control Systems

The AN Facility has one ST electric generator for each reactor. Each generator is a 60 Hz machine 

rated at approximately 1,250 MVA with an output voltage of 24 kV. The ST electric generator is 

connected through a generator circuit breaker to a GSU that is in turn connected between two 

circuit breakers in the high-voltage bus in the facility switchyard through a disconnect switch. The 

GSU increases the voltage from the electric generator from 24 kV to interconnected transmission 

system high voltage.

The AN Facility is controlled using a DCS. The DCS provides centralized control of the facility 

by integrating the control systems provided with the reactor, ST and associated electric generator 

and the control of BOP systems and equipment.

12.3 Off-Site Requirements

Water for all processes at the AN Facility is obtained from one of several available water supply 

options; however, water is typically sourced from a nearby water source (e.g., river, lake, or ocean), 

when possible. The AN Facility uses a water treatment system and a high-efficiency reverse 

osmosis system to reduce the dissolved solids from the cooling water and to provide distilled water. 

Non-radioactive wastewater is sent to an adjacent river or other approved wastewater delivery 

point. Further, the electrical interconnection from the AN on-site switchyard is typically connected 

to the transmission line through an adjacent utility substation.
12-4

12.4 Capital Cost Estimate

The base Cost Estimate for the AN Facility with a nominal capacity of 2,234 MW is $5,945/kW. 

Table 12-1 summarizes the Cost Estimate categories for the AN Facility. 

TABLE 12-1 – BASE PLANT SITE CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE FOR AN

Technology: AN

Nominal Capacity (ISO): 2,234,000 kW

Nominal Heat Rate (ISO): N/A Btu/kWh-HHV

Capital Cost Category (000s) (January 1, 2016$)

Civil Structural Material and Installation 1,927,067

Mechanical Equipment Supply and 

Installation 3,782,925

Electrical / I&C Supply and Installation 700,954

Project Indirects (1) 3,029,122

EPC Cost before Contingency and Fee 9,440,067

Fee and Contingency 1,446,413

Total Project EPC 10,886,479

Owner Costs (excluding project finance) 2,395,025

Total Project Cost (excluding finance) 13,281,504

Total Project EPC / kW 4,873

Owner Costs 22% (excluding project finance) / kW 1,072

Total Project Cost (excluding project finance) / kW 5,945

(2) Includes engineering, distributable costs, scaffolding, construction management, and start-up.

For this type of technology and power plant configuration, our regional adjustments took into 

consideration the following: seismic design differences, remote location issues, labor wage and 

productivity differences, location adjustments, owner cost differences, and the increase in 

overheads associated with these five adjustments.

Seismic design differences among the various locations were based on U.S. seismic map 

information that detailed the various seismic zones throughout the U.S. No cost increases were 

associated with seismic Zone 0 and cost step increases were considered for Zones 1, 2, 3 and 4.
12-5

Remote location issues are related to geographic areas that typically require installation of man 

camps, higher craft incentives, and higher per diems are generally required with respect to 

construction, due to the fact that such areas are long distances from urban areas, where labor is 

generally abundant. Remote location designations were also considered in locations where higher 

equipment freight costs are typically incurred, which for example are regions not near established 

rail or highway access. Remote locations related to the Advanced Nuclear Facility include 

Fairbanks, Alaska; Albuquerque, New Mexico; and Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Labor wage and productivity differences were handled as discussed in Section 2.6.1, taking into 

consideration the amount of labor we estimated for the AN Facility. 

Location adjustments were made to locations where higher cost of living levels are incurred and/or 

where population density generally correlates to higher construction costs for power and other 

infrastructure projects. These locations include, but are not limited to, Alaska, California, 

Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Illinois, Indiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, 

Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.

Owner costs were reviewed based on the need for utility upgrades and/or infrastructure costs such 

as new facility transmission lines to tie to existing utility transmission substations or existing 

transmission lines. 

Table 12-2 in the Appendix presents the AN Facility capital cost variations for alternative U.S. 

plant locations.

12.5 O&M Estimate

In addition to the general items discussed in the section of this report entitled O&M Estimate, the 

AN Facility includes provisions for major maintenance on the steam generators, STs, electric 

generators, BOP systems, and the reactor (beyond refueling). Table 12-3 presents typical O&M 

expenses for the AN Facility.

TABLE 12-3 – O&M EXPENSES FOR AN

Technology: AN

Fixed O&M Expense $100.28/kW-year

Variable O&M Expense $2.30/MWh

12.6 Environmental Compliance Information

Environmental compliance with respect to air emissions is effectively not necessary for the AN

Facility, as this technology does not combust a fuel as is the case for other non-renewable power 

technologies. While there are environmental compliance considerations for a given nuclear facility 

(e.g., spent nuclear fuel), only air emissions were considered in this report. Table 12-4 presents 

environmental emissions for the AN Facility.

TABLE 12-4 – ENVIRONMENTAL EMISSIONS FOR AN

Technology: AN

NOX 0 lb/MMBtu

SO2 0 lb/MMBtu

CO2 0 lb/MMBtu
13-1

13. Biomass Bubbling Fluidized Bed (BBFB)

13.1 Mechanical Equipment and Systems

The Biomass BFB (“BBFB”) Facility utilizes approximately 2,000 tons per day of wood (at 

50 percent maximum moisture) for the production of 50 MW net of electricity. The BBFB Facility 

consists of a BFB boiler, which will flow to the ST. Steam leaving the ST will be condensed to 

water in a shell and tube surface condenser. The water will be pumped from the “hotwell” of the 

condenser through a series of feedwater heaters for purposes of pre-heating the water with ST 

extraction steam. The combination of feedwater heating and waste heat flowing through the 

economizer is included to improve cycle efficiency. The water will enter the first feedwater heater 

where it will be heated using extraction steam from the ST. The water will then flow to the 

deaerating feedwater heater and into an electric-driven boiler feed pump where the pressure of the 

water will be increased to approximately 1,800 psia. After leaving the boiler feed pump, the water 

will flow through two more feedwater heaters. After exiting the last feedwater heater, the water 

will flow to the economizer section of the BFB boiler for delivery to the combustion section where 

it will be converted back to steam and the cycle will be repeated. The cooling tower is to be used 

to cool the circulating water that is used to condense the steam inside the condenser.

In a BFB boiler, a portion of air is introduced through the bottom of the combustor. The bottom 

of the bed is supported by refractory walls or water-cooled membrane with specially designed air 

nozzles which distribute the air uniformly. The fuel and limestone are fed into the lower bed. In 

the presence of fluidizing air, the fuel and limestone quickly and uniformly mix under the turbulent 

environment and behave like a fluid. Carbon particles in the fuel are exposed to the combustion 

air. The balance of combustion air is introduced at the top of the lower, dense bed. This staged 

combustion limits the formation of NOX. The advantages of BFB boiler technology include fuel 

flexibility, low SO2 emissions, low NOX emissions, and high combustion efficiency. Figure 13-1 

presents the BBFB process flow diagram.

FIGURE 13-1 – BBFB DESIGN CONFIGURATION
13-2

13.2 Electrical and Control Systems

The BBFB Facility has one ST electric generator. The generator for the ST is a 60 Hz machine 

rated at approximately 65 MVA with an output voltage of 13.8 kV. The generator breakers for the 

ST electric generator are bussed together in 15 kV class switchgear that is connected to a highvoltage transmission system at the facility switchyard via a circuit breaker, GSU, and a disconnect 

switch. The GSU increases the voltage from the electric generators from 13.8 kV to interconnected 

transmission system high voltage.

The BBFB Facility is controlled using a DCS. The DCS provides centralized control of the facility 

by integrating the control systems provided with the ST and associated electric generator and the 

control of BOP systems and equipment. 

13.3 Off-Site Requirements

Biomass is delivered to the BBFB Facility by rail, truck or barge. Water for all processes at the 

BBFB Facility is obtained from one of several available water sources. The BBFB Facility uses a 

water treatment system and a high-efficiency reverse osmosis system to reduce the dissolved solids 

from the cooling water and to provide distilled water for HRSG makeup. Wastewater is sent to a 

municipal wastewater system or other available wastewater delivery point. Further, the electrical 

interconnection from the BBFB Facility on-site switchyard is effectuated by a connection to an 

adjacent utility substation.

13.4 Capital Cost Estimate

The base Cost Estimate for the BBFB Facility with a nominal capacity of 50 MW is $4,985/kW. 

Table 13-1 summarizes the Cost Estimate categories for the BBFB Facility. 
13-3

TABLE 13-1 – BASE PLANT SITE CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE FOR BBFB

Technology: BBFB

Nominal Capacity (ISO): 50,000 kW

Nominal Heat Rate (ISO): 13,500 Btu/kWh-HHV

Capital Cost Category (000s) (January 1, 2016$)

Civil Structural Material and Installation 15,349

Mechanical Equipment Supply and 

Installation 100,992

Electrical / I&C Supply and Installation 22,897

Project Indirects (1) 49,598

EPC Cost before Contingency and Fee 188,836

Fee and Contingency 18,884

Total Project EPC 207,720

Owner Costs (excluding project finance) 41,544

Total Project Cost (excluding finance) 249,264

Total Project EPC / kW 4,154

Owner Costs 20% (excluding project finance) / kW 831

Total Project Cost (excluding project finance) / kW 4,985

(1) Includes engineering, distributable costs, scaffolding, construction management, and start-up.

For this type of technology and power plant configuration, our regional adjustments took into 

consideration the following: outdoor installation considerations, seismic design differences, 

remote location issues, labor wage and productivity differences, location adjustments, owner cost 

differences, and the increase in overheads associated with these six adjustments.

Outdoor installation locations are considered in geographic areas where enclosed structures for the 

boilers would not be required due to the low probability of freezing. The locations that included 

outdoor installation are Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Louisiana, Mississippi, 

South Carolina, and Puerto Rico. 

Seismic design differences among the various locations were based on U.S. seismic map 

information that detailed the various seismic zones throughout the U.S. No cost increases were 

associated with seismic Zone 0 and cost step increases were considered for Zones 1, 2, 3 and 4.

Remote location issues are related to geographic areas that typically require installation of man 

camps, higher craft incentives, and higher per diems are generally required with respect to 
13-4

construction, due to the fact that such areas are long distances from urban areas, where labor is 

generally abundant. Remote location designations were also considered in locations where higher 

equipment freight costs are typically incurred, which for example are regions not near established 

rail or highway access. Remote locations related to the BBFB include Fairbanks, Alaska; 

Honolulu, Hawaii; Great Falls, Montana; and Cayey, Puerto Rico.

Labor wage and productivity differences were handled as discussed in Section 2.6.1, taking into 

consideration the amount of labor we estimated for the BBFB Facility. 

Location adjustments were made to locations where higher cost of living levels are incurred and/or 

where population density generally correlates to higher construction costs for power and other 

infrastructure projects. These locations include, but are not limited to, Alaska, California, 

Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Maine, Maryland, 

Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin, and 

Puerto Rico.

Owner costs were reviewed based on the need for utility upgrades and/or infrastructure costs such 

as new facility transmission lines to tie to existing utility transmission substations or existing 

transmission lines. 

Table 13-2 in the Appendix presents the BBFB Facility capital cost variations for alternative U.S. 

plant locations.

13.5 O&M Estimate

In addition to the general items discussed in the section of this report entitled O&M Estimate, the 

BBFB Facility includes the major maintenance for the ST and associated electric generator, as well 

as the BOP. These major maintenance expenses are included with the VOM expense for this 

technology and are given on an average basis across the MWhs incurred. Typically, significant 

overhauls on a BBFB Facility occur no less frequently than 6 to 8 years. Table 13-3 presents the 

O&M expenses for the BBFB Facility.

TABLE 13-3 – O&M EXPENSES FOR BBFB

Technology: BBFB

Fixed O&M Expense $110.00/kW-year

Variable O&M Expense $4.20/MWh

13.6 Environmental Compliance Information

The BBFB Facility utilizes BFB combustion to control NOX and CO. SO2 in the BFB is managed 

through the use of low-sulfur biomass feedstocks. The BBFB Facility does not include any control 

devices for CO2, which is proportional to the heat rate (inversely proportional to the efficiency) of 

the technology. Water, wastewater, and solid waste compliance are achieved through traditional 

on-site and off-site methods, and the costs for such compliance are included in the O&M Estimate 

for the BBFB Facility. Table 13-4 presents environmental emissions for the BBFB Facility.
13-5

TABLE 13-4 – ENVIRONMENTAL EMISSIONS FOR BBFB

Technology: BBFB

NOX 0.08 lb/MMBtu

SO2 0 lb/MMBtu

CO2 195 lb/ MMBtu (1)

(1) Does not account for the life-cycle fate of CO2 after emission from power 

generation unit.
14-1

14. Onshore Wind (WN)

14.1 Mechanical Equipment and Systems

The Onshore Wind (“WN”) Facility is based on 56 wind turbine generators (“WTGs”), each with 

a rated capacity of 1.79 MW. The total design capacity is 100 MW. 

The turbines are each supported by a conical steel tower, which is widest at the base and tapers in 

diameter just below the nacelle. A foundation provides the tower with a firm anchor to the ground. 

The nacelle is attached to the top of the tower and contains the main mechanical components of 

the wind turbine, which include a variable-speed generator, transmission, and yaw drive. The rotor 

hub connects to the transmission through one end of the nacelle, and the rotor is then connected to 

the hub. Each WTG has a three-bladed rotor with a diameter of 100 meters and hub height of 

80 meters. The WTG has an active yaw system in the nacelle to keep the rotor facing into the 

wind. 

Power is generated by the wind turbines, then converted using an onboard transformer to 34.5 kV 

AC. It is then delivered to a collection system at the base of each turbine. Power from all turbines 

will be collected by the underground collection circuit.

The collection system supplies power to a new substation designed to step up the voltage to 115 kV 

for interconnection with the transmission system. Other facility components include access roads, 

an O&M building and electrical interconnection facilities. Figure 14-1 presents a picture of a 

typical WN Facility.

FIGURE 14-1 – WN DESIGN CONFIGURATION

14.2 Electrical and Control Systems

The WN Facility has 56 wind turbine-driven electric generators. Each generator is a doubly-fed 

induction generator that feeds an AC/DC/AC power converter that provides an output of 

three-phase, 60 Hz electrical power. The power output available is approximately 1.75 MVA with 

an output voltage of 575 V stepped up to 34.5 kV using a pad-mounted transformer at the base of 

the wind turbine. The wind turbine transformers are interconnected on one or more underground 
14-2

collector circuits that are connected to a collector bus through a circuit breaker for each circuit. 

The collector bus is connected to a high-voltage transmission system through the facility 

substation, which includes a 34.5 kV switch or circuit breaker, GSU, high-voltage circuit breaker, 

and a disconnect switch. The GSU increases the voltage from the electric generator from 34.5 kV 

to interconnected transmission system high voltage.

The WN Facility is controlled using a control system generally referred to as the wind farm 

supervisory control and data acquisition (“SCADA”) system. The SCADA system provides 

centralized control of the facility by integrating the control systems provided with each of the wind 

turbines and the control of BOP systems and equipment.

14.3 Off-Site Requirements

Since wind uses a renewable fuel, the most significant off-site requirements are the construction 

of and interconnection to roads and the electrical interconnection to the utility high-voltage 

transmission system, as discussed in Section 14.2. 

14.4 Capital Cost Estimate

The base Cost Estimate for the WN Facility with a nominal capacity of 100 MW is $1,877/kW. 

Table 14-1 summarizes the Cost Estimate categories for the WN Facility. 
14-3

TABLE 14-1 – LOCATION-BASED COSTS FOR WN

Technology: WN

Nominal Capacity (ISO): 100,000 kW

Nominal Heat Rate (ISO): N/A Btu/kWh-HHV 

Capital Cost Category (000s) (January 1, 2016$)

Civil Structural Material and Installation 19,690

Mechanical Equipment Supply and 

Installation 122,924

Electrical / I&C Supply and Installation 15,450

Project Indirects (1) 6,480

EPC Cost before Contingency and Fee 164,544

Fee and Contingency 12,500

Total Project EPC 177,044

Owner Costs (excluding project finance) 10,623

Total Project Cost (excluding finance) 187,667

Total Project EPC / kW 1,770

Owner Costs 6% (excluding project finance) / kW 106

Total Project Cost (excluding project finance) / kW 1,877

(1) Includes engineering, distributable costs, scaffolding, construction management, and start-up.

(2) Total Project Costs excludes any transmission lines or utility interconnection facilities.

For this type of technology and power plant configuration, our regional adjustments took into 

consideration the following: seismic design differences, remote location issues, labor wage and 

productivity differences, location adjustments, and owner cost differences and the increase in 

overheads associated with these five adjustments.

Seismic design differences among the various locations were based on U.S. seismic map 

information that detailed the various seismic zones throughout the U.S. No cost increases were 

associated with seismic Zone 0 and cost step increases were considered for Zones 1, 2, 3 and 4.

Remote location issues are related to geographic areas that typically require installation of man 

camps, higher craft incentives, and higher per diems are generally required with respect to 

construction, due to the fact that such areas are long distances from urban areas, where labor is 

generally abundant. Remote location designations were also considered in locations where higher 

equipment freight costs are typically incurred, which for example are regions not near established 

rail or highway access. Although wind energy projects are typically in remote locations, the 
14-4

following locations are considered very remote and require additional costs due to their locations. 

These remote locations related to the WN Facility include Fairbanks, Alaska; Honolulu, Hawaii; 

Great Falls, Montana; and Cayey, Puerto Rico.

Labor wage and productivity differences were handled as discussed in Section 2.6.1, taking into 

consideration the amount of labor we estimated for the WN Facility. 

Location adjustments were made to locations where higher cost of living levels are incurred and/or 

where population density generally correlates to higher construction costs for power and other

infrastructure projects. These locations include, but are not limited to, Alaska, California, 

Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Maine, Maryland, 

Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North 

Dakota, and Virginia.

Owner costs were reviewed based on the need for utility upgrades and/or infrastructure costs.

Table 14-2 in the Appendix presents the WN Facility capital cost variations for alternative U.S. 

plant locations.

14.5 O&M Estimate

In addition to the general items discussed in the section of the report entitled O&M Estimate, the 

major areas for O&M for an Onshore Wind Facility include periodic gearbox, WTG, electric 

generator, and associated electric conversion (e.g., GSU) technology repairs and replacement. 

These devices typically undergo major maintenance every five to seven years. Based on recent 

experience, most WN operators do not treat O&M on a variable basis, and consequently, all O&M 

expenses are shown below on a fixed basis. Table 14-3 presents the O&M expenses for the WN

Facility.

TABLE 14-3 – O&M EXPENSES FOR WN

Technology: WN

Fixed O&M Expense $39.70/kW-year

Variable O&M Expense $0/MWh

14.6 Environmental Compliance Information

Since wind utilizes a renewable energy source and no fuel is combusted to make power from an 

Onshore Wind Facility, air emissions are not created. Table 14-4 presents environmental 

emissions for the WN Facility.

TABLE 14-4 – ENVIRONMENTAL EMISSIONS FOR WN 

Technology: WN

NOX 0 lb/ MMBtu

SO2 0 lb/MMBtu

CO2 0 lb/MMBtu
15-1

15. Utility-Scale Photovoltaic (PV) Facility

15.1 Mechanical Equipment and Systems

The following describes a nominal 20 MW-AC Fixed Photovoltaic (“PV”) Facility. An analysis 

is also provided for a nominal 20 MW-AC PV Tracker Facility and a 150 MW-AC PV Tracker 

Facility, which is essentially a significant expansion of the 20 MW Facility; however, a detailed 

technical description (due to the similarities with the 20 MW Facility and the technology 

associated therewith) is not provided herein. The PV Facility uses numerous arrays of groundmounted, single-axis tracking PV modules which directly convert incident solar radiation into DC 

electricity, which can then be inverted to AC. Additional BOP components include metal racks 

mounted to tracker components (drive motors, gearboxes, linkages, etc.) supported by foundations, 

DC wiring, combiner boxes where individual series circuits (“strings”) of panels are connected 

prior to being fed into the inverters, DC-to-AC inverters, AC wiring, various switchgear and stepup transformers, and a control system (partly incorporated into the inverter control electronics) to 

monitor plant output and adjust the balance of voltage and current to yield maximum power. 

Figure 15-1 presents a picture of a typical PV Facility.

FIGURE 15-1 – TYPICAL PV FACILITY
15-2

15.2 Electrical and Control Systems

The 20 MW-AC PV Facility is comprised of 40 half-megawatt building blocks, each block 

consisting of groups of PV modules connected to a 500 kW-AC inverter. While the ratio of DC 

module capacity to AC inverter capacity varies, for this analysis we have assumed a ratio of 1.3:1

for the fixed option and 1.2:1 for the tracker option. The project is set up so that the fixed option 

will have 650 kW-DC of modules per 500 kW-AC inverter, and the tracker option will have 

600 kW-DC of modules per 500 kW-AC inverter. Such a ratio is typical of current systems, 

though higher ratios are becoming more common. Groups of PV modules produce DC electricity 

and are connected in series to form series “strings” which are then connected in parallel in a 

combiner box which contains a fuse for each string. The cables are routed from the modules to 

combiner boxes and a number of combiner boxes are connected to the input of a 500 kW-AC

inverter, which converts the aggregate power from DC to three-phase AC electricity at an output 

voltage of typically 265 V-AC to 420 V-AC. The output voltage of an inverter (or sometimes 

several inverters connected together) is stepped up to a higher voltage level, typically in the range

of 13.8 kV (or 34.5 kV for larger systems) through a GSU connected to the inverter output 

terminals. The output of two or more inverters is frequently combined into a shared transformer, 

each of which is rated 1 MVA (or higher for larger groups of inverters). The transformers are 

connected in groups to form circuits on an underground collection system. The circuits are 

connected to a 13.8 kV circuit breaker and then to the local utility distribution grid.

Each inverter has its own integral control system. The aggregate of all the inverters and associated 

DC arrays are monitored through a SCADA system, sometimes provided by the inverter 

manufacturer.

15.3 Off-Site Requirements

Unlike other power technologies discussed in this report, the essential off-site requirements for 

which provisions must be made on a PV Facility are water supply (generally in limited quantities

for purposes of module washing once or twice annually) and an electrical interconnection between 

the PV Facility switchyard and the local utility distribution system. With regard to water supply, 

we note that some PV facilities purchase water off-site for purposes of module washing.

15.4 Capital Cost Estimate

The base Cost Estimate for the PV Facility with a nominal capacity of 20 MW-AC Fixed is 

2,671/kW-AC, with a nominal capacity of 20 MW-AC Tracker is 2,644/kW-AC, and with a 

nominal capacity of 150 MW is $2,534/kW-AC. Table 15-1, Table 15-2, and Table 15-3 

summarize the Cost Estimate categories for the PV Facility.
15-3

TABLE 15-1 – BASE PLANT SITE CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE FOR PV

Technology: PV Fixed

Nominal Capacity (ISO): 20,000 kW/AC – 26,000 kW/DC

Nominal Heat Rate (ISO): N/A Btu/kWh-HHV

Capital Cost Category (000s) (January 1, 2016$)

Civil Structural Material and Installation 5,239

Mechanical Equipment Supply and 

Installation 23,987

Electrical / I&C Supply and Installation 8,994

Project Indirects (1) 2,244

EPC Cost before Contingency and Fee 40,464

Fee and Contingency 4,046

Total Project EPC 44,511

Owner Costs (excluding project finance) 8,902

Total Project Cost (excluding finance) 53,413

Total Project EPC / kW 2,226

Owner Costs 20% (excluding project finance) / kW 445

Total Project Cost (excluding project finance) / kW 2,671

(1) Includes engineering, distributable costs, scaffolding, construction management, and start-up.
15-4

TABLE 15-2 – BASE PLANT SITE CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE FOR PV

Technology: PV - Tracker

Nominal Capacity (ISO): 20,000 kW/AC – 24,000 kW/DC

Nominal Heat Rate (ISO): N/A Btu/kWh-HHV

Capital Cost Category (000s) (January 1, 2016$)

Civil Structural Material and Installation 4,837

Mechanical Equipment Supply and 

Installation 24,608

Electrical / I&C Supply and Installation 8,366

Project Indirects (1) 2,244

EPC Cost before Contingency and Fee 40,055

Fee and Contingency 4,005

Total Project EPC 44,060

Owner Costs (excluding project finance) 8,812

Total Project Cost (excluding finance) 52,872

Total Project EPC / kW 2,203

Owner Costs 12% (excluding project finance) / kW 441

Total Project Cost (excluding project finance) / kW 2,644

(1) Includes engineering, distributable costs, scaffolding, construction management, and start-up.
15-5

TABLE 15-3 – BASE PLANT SITE CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE FOR PV

Technology: PV - Tracker

Nominal Capacity (ISO): 150,000 kW/AC – 180,000 kW/DC

Nominal Heat Rate (ISO): N/A Btu/kWh-HHV

Capital Cost Category (000s) (January 1, 2016$)

Civil Structural Material and Installation 36,304

Mechanical Equipment Supply and 

Installation 193,336

Electrical / I&C Supply and Installation 53,818

Project Indirects (1) 13,991

EPC Cost before Contingency and Fee 297,449

Fee and Contingency 45,000

Total Project EPC 342,449

Owner Costs (excluding project finance) 37,669

Total Project Cost (excluding finance) 380,118

Total Project EPC / kW 2,283

Owner Costs 12% (excluding project finance) / kW 251

Total Project Cost (excluding project finance) / kW 2,534

(1) Includes engineering, distributable costs, scaffolding, construction management, and start-up.

For this type of technology and power plant configuration, our regional adjustments took into 

consideration the following: seismic design differences, remote location issues, labor wage and 

productivity differences, location adjustments, owner cost differences, and the increase in 

overheads associated with these five location adjustments.

Seismic design differences among the various locations were based on U.S. seismic map 

information that detailed the various seismic zones throughout the U.S. No cost increases were 

associated with seismic Zone 0 and cost step increases were considered for Zones 1, 2, 3 and 4.

Remote location issues are related to geographic areas that typically require installation of man 

camps, higher craft incentives, and higher per diems are generally required with respect to 

construction, due to the fact that such areas are long distances from urban areas, where labor is 

generally abundant. Remote location designations were also considered in locations where higher 

equipment freight costs are typically incurred, which for example are regions not near established 

rail or highway access. Remote locations related to the Photovoltaic Facility include Fairbanks, 
15-6

Alaska; Honolulu, Hawaii; Great Falls, Montana; Albuquerque, New Mexico; Cheyenne, 

Wyoming; and Cayey, Puerto Rico.

Labor wage and productivity differences were handled as discussed in Section 2.6.1, taking into 

consideration the amount of labor we estimated for the PV Facility. 

Location adjustments were made to locations where higher cost of living levels are incurred and/or 

where population density generally correlates to higher construction costs for power and other 

infrastructure projects. These locations include, but are not limited to, Alaska, California, 

Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Maine, Maryland, 

Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, New York, North Dakota, South Dakota, West Virginia, 

Wisconsin, and Wyoming.

Owner costs were reviewed based on the need for utility upgrades and/or infrastructure costs such 

as new facility transmission lines to tie to existing utility transmission substations or existing 

transmission lines. 

Tables 15-4, 15-5, and 15-6 in the Appendix present the PV Facility capital cost variations for 

alternative U.S. plant locations.

15.5 O&M Estimate

The significant O&M items for a PV Facility include periodic inverter maintenance and periodic 

panel water washing. In general, most PV facility operators do not treat O&M on a variable basis, 

and consequently, all O&M expenses are shown below on a fixed basis. Table 15-7, Table 15-8, 

and Table 15-9 present the O&M expenses for the PV Facility. The O&M cost variance listed in 

the below tables are primarily due to economies of scale and the higher O&M costs associated 

with the tracking facility. 

TABLE 15-7 – O&M EXPENSES FOR PV FIXED FACILITY (20 MW)

Technology: PV-Fixed

Fixed O&M Expense $23.40/kW-AC-year

Variable O&M Expense $0/MWh

TABLE 15-8 – O&M EXPENSES FOR PV-TRACKER FACILITY (20 MW)

Technology: PV - Tracker

Fixed O&M Expense $23.90/kW-AC-year

Variable O&M Expense $0/MWh

TABLE 15-9 – O&M EXPENSES FOR PV-TRACKING FACILITY (150 MW)

Technology: PV – Tracking 

Fixed O&M Expense $21.80/kW-AC-year

Variable O&M Expense $0/MWh
15-7

15.6 Environmental Compliance Information

Table 15-10 presents environmental emissions for the PV Facility.

TABLE 15-10 – ENVIRONMENTAL EMISSIONS FOR PV

Technology: Photovoltaic

NOX 0 lb/ MMBtu

SO2 0 lb/MMBtu

CO2 0 lb/MMBtu
16-1

16. Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engine (RICE)

16.1 Mechanical Equipment and Systems

The Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engine (“RICE”) Electric Generating Facility is based on 

five Wärtsilä Engines, each with a net rated output capacity of 17 MW. The total design capacity 

is 85 MW.

The RICE generating facility is comprised of the engine generating sets which are fired on natural 

gas; medium voltage generators coupled to each engine; the engine auxiliary systems; and the 

electrical and control system. The engine auxiliary systems include fuel gas, lubricating oil, 

compressed air, cooling water, air intake, and exhaust gas systems.

Each engine is a four-stroke, spark-ignited gas engine that operates on the Otto cycle. The engines 

are comprised of 18 cylinders in a “V” configuration with two inlet valves and two exhaust valves 

per cylinder. Each engine includes a turbocharger with an intercooler that uses the expansion of 

hot exhaust gases to drive a compressor that raises the pressure and density of the inlet air to each 

cylinder. The turbocharger is an axial turbine/compressor with the turbine and the centrifugal 

compressor mounted on the same shaft. Heat generated by compressing the inlet air is removed 

by a water cooled “intercooler”. Turbocharging increases the engine output due to the denser 

air/fuel mixture.

The engine block is nodular cast iron and is cast in one piece. The block includes water passages 

for engine cooling and oil passages for engine lubrication. The crankshaft is forged in one piece 

and is balanced by counter weights. The engine uses a lean burn gas injection system where the 

air-fuel mixture contains more air than required for combustion. In this process, ignition of the gas 

by a spark plug is initiated in a pre-chamber where a richer fuel mixture is used. The flame from 

the pre-chamber ignites the lean air/fuel mixture in the cylinder.

The engines are cooled using a water/glycol mixture that circulates through the engine block, 

cylinder heads and the charge air coolers. The cooling system is a closed-loop system and is 

divided into a high temperature and a low temperature circuit. The high temperature circuit cools 

the engine block, cylinder heads and the first stage of the charge air cooler. The low temperature 

cooler cools the second stage of the charge air cooler. Heat is rejected from the cooling water 

system by air cooled radiators. Figure 16-1 represents a simplified process flow diagram for a 

RICE facility.
16-2

FIGURE 16-1 – RICE SCHEMATIC CONFIGURATION

16.2 Electrical and Control Systems

The electrical generator is coupled to the engine flywheel using a flexible coupling. The generator 

is a medium voltage, synchronous AC generator with a brushless excitation system. The 

generators are air-cooled using a fan mounted on the generator shaft to provide ambient air for 

cooling. The generator uses current and voltage measurement transformers to monitor the 

generator for control and protection.

A generator step-up transformer (“GSU”) is used to raise the voltage from the generator to the 

transmission line voltage. Output from the GSU passes through the Facility switchyard, which 

provides breaker protection for the Facility and the transmission line as well as disconnect 

capability so that the Facility can be disconnected from the transmission system when needed. The 

switchyard also includes metering, a supervisory control and data acquisition system, and 

communication systems.

The RICE Facility uses a distributed control system that provides plant control, alarms, and safety 

functions. The control room is located on the Facility site, but the Facility can also be controlled 

and monitored remotely. The system can be operated in automatic or manual modes. The control 

system uses the “Wärtsilä Operator Interface System” (“WOIS”) for operating the Facility and the 

“Wärtsilä Information System Environment” (“WISE”) for recording and storing information.

16.3 Off-Site Requirements

Natural gas is delivered to the Facility through a gas lateral connected to the local natural gas trunk 

line. The natural gas line pressure is reduced at the Facility by a gas regulating system. Water for 

the limited processes that utilize water is obtained from the municipal water supply. The RICE 

Facility does not require water treatment for engine cooling unless the water supply contains high 

levels of solids or dissolved solids. Wastewater is treated using an oil-water separator and then is 

directed to a municipal wastewater system. The RICE Facility’s on-site switchyard is connected 

to the transmission system through an adjacent utility substation.
16-3

16.4 Capital Cost Estimate

The base Cost Estimate for the RICE Facility with a nominal capacity of 85 MW is $1,342/kW. 

Table 16-1 summarizes the Cost Estimate categories for the RICE Facility.

TABLE 16-1 – LOCATION-BASED COSTS FOR RICE

Technology: RICE

Nominal Capacity (ISO): 85,000 kW

Nominal Heat Rate (ISO): 8,500 Btu/kWh-HHV

Capital Cost Category (000s) (January 1, 2016$)

Civil Structural Material and Installation 9,473

Mechanical Equipment Supply and 

Installation 49,716

Electrical / I&C Supply and Installation 10,827

Project Indirects (1) 16,070

EPC Cost before Contingency and Fee 86,086

Fee and Contingency 9,000

Total Project EPC 95,086

Owner Costs (excluding project finance) 19,017

Total Project Cost (excluding finance) 114,103

Total Project EPC / kW 1,119

Owner Costs 20% (excluding project finance) / kW 224

Total Project Cost (excluding project finance) / kW 1,342

(1) Includes engineering, distributable costs, scaffolding, construction management, and start-up.

For this type of technology and power plant configuration, our regional adjustments took into 

consideration the following: seismic design differences, remote location issues, labor wage and 

productivity differences, location adjustments, and owner cost differences and the increase in 

overheads associated with these five adjustments.

Seismic design differences among the various locations were based on U.S. seismic map 

information that detailed the various seismic zones throughout the U.S. No cost increases were 

associated with seismic Zone 0 and cost step increases were considered for Zones 1, 2, 3 and 4.
16-4

Remote location issues are related to geographic areas that typically require installation of man 

camps, higher craft incentives, and higher per diems are generally required with respect to 

construction, due to the fact that such areas are long distances from urban areas, where labor is 

generally abundant. Remote location designations were also considered in locations where higher 

equipment freight costs are typically incurred, which for example are regions not near established 

rail or highway access. Remote locations related to the RICE Facility include Fairbanks, Alaska; 

Honolulu, Hawaii; Great Falls, Montana; Albuquerque, New Mexico; Cheyenne, Wyoming; and 

Cayey, Puerto Rico.

Labor wage and productivity differences were handled as discussed in Section 2.6.1, taking into 

consideration the amount of labor we estimated for the RICE Facility. 

Location adjustments were made to locations where higher cost of living levels are incurred and/or 

where population density generally correlates to higher construction costs for power and other 

infrastructure projects. These locations include, but are not limited to, Alaska, California, 

Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, 

Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, New York, North Dakota, 

Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.

Owner costs were reviewed based on the need for utility upgrades and/or infrastructure costs such 

as new facility transmission lines to tie to existing utility transmission substations or existing 

transmission lines.

Table 16-2 in the Appendix presents the RICE Facility capital cost variations for alternative U.S. 

plant locations.

16.5 O&M Estimate

In addition to the general items discussed in the section of the report entitled O&M Estimate, the 

major areas for O&M for the RICE Facility include engine and generator minor and major 

maintenance which are based on hours of operation. The maintenance range is from 3,500 hours 

of operation for typical maintenance items, 12,000 hours of operation for a minor overhaul, and 

16,000 hours of operation for a major overhaul. Additionally O&M maintenance and repair 

includes balance of plant systems such as the compressed air system, fire water system, lube oil 

system, and the emission control system. Table 16-3 presents the O&M expenses for the RICE 

Facility, which is based on the RICE Facility operating as a peaking plant.

TABLE 16-3 – O&M EXPENSES FOR RICE

Technology: RICE

Fixed O&M Expense $6.90/kW-year

Variable O&M Expense $5.85/MWh

16.6 Environmental Compliance Information

Each RICE engine generator set utilizes an SCR and oxidation catalyst located in the exhaust 

system to control NOX and CO emission from the Facility. Sulfur oxide emissions from the RICE 

Facility are managed through the natural gas fuel quality, which in the U.S. is generally very low 

in sulfur. The RICE Facility does not include any control devices for CO2. Additionally water, 

wastewater, and solid waste compliance are achieved through traditional on-site and off-site 
16-5

methods, and the costs for such compliance are included in the O&M estimate for the Facility. 

Table 16-4 presents environmental emissions for the RICE Facility.

TABLE 16-4 – ENVIRONMENTAL EMISSIONS FOR RICE

Technology: RICE

NOX 0.07 g/bhp-hr

SO2 0.001 lb/MMBtu

CO2 117 lb/MMBtu
17-1

17. Battery Storage (BES)

17.1 Mechanical Equipment and Systems

The Battery Storage (“BES”) Facility is based on two energy storage modules in 8’ x 40’ 

containers, each with a rated capacity of 2.0 MW and 1.0 MWh. The total design capacity is 

4.0 MW and 2.0 MWh. 

The containers are delivered to the site fully assembled and placed on piers or a pad for their 

foundation. These are then anchored to their foundations.

Within each container, energy is stored in the battery modules, which are direct current (“DC”) 

elements. They are connected into series strings to form the input voltage for the bi-directional 

inverter which is called the Power Conversion System (“PCS”). Multiple strings of batteries are 

connected to the PCS DC input side in parallel to form the container’s energy storage capacity. 

The PCS maintains AC output power quality while the DC input varies with battery string’s state 

of charge and operating current. The output of the PCS is 480 VAC, three phase. Multiple 

containers are paralleled on the PCS AC output side to form the energy storage capacity of the 

BES. Each container incorporates the needed internal space conditioning, fans and HVAC; as 

well as battery modules and the PCS, which consists of multiple paralleled units.

The BES, including its step up transformer and BOP equipment, connect to the grid distribution 

system. Other facility components include access roads, an O&M building and electrical 

interconnection facilities. Figure 17-1 presents a picture of a typical BES Facility.

FIGURE 17-1 – BES DESIGN CONFIGURATION

17.2 Electrical and Control Systems

The BES Facility has two energy storage containers. Within each container are appropriate current 

limiters, sensors, and disconnect switches to isolate faults and facilitate servicing of modules while 

allowing for continued operation of unaffected elements. Each container’s output voltage of 

480 VAC is stepped up to 34.5 kV using a pad-mounted transformer located near the BES 
17-2

containers. The output of the 34.5 kV transformer is connected to the grid through appropriate 

switchgear, current limiters, disconnect switches, and meters.

Each BES container has multiple levels of internal controls. The individual battery modules are 

each monitored and controlled by a Battery Management Unit (“BMU”). Each battery string is 

controlled by a Battery String Management Unit (“BSMU”) and each container is controlled by a 

Battery Control Management Unit (“BCMU”). Additionally, each PCS has its own controller to 

support the many operational use cases of the smart inverters. Each container has its own fire 

detection and suppression system with its dedicated sensors, annunciators, and controller.

The BES Facility is controlled using a control system generally referred to as its supervisory 

control and data acquisition (“SCADA”) system. The SCADA system provides centralized control 

of the facility by integrating the control systems provided with each of the PCSs and BCMUs and 

the control of the BOP systems and equipment. The SCADA may also be connected to the grid’s 

control and dispatch center located remotely from the BES.

17.3 Off-Site Requirements

The most significant off-site requirements are the construction of and interconnection to roads and 

the electrical interconnection to the utility transmission & distribution system, as discussed in 

Section17.2. A BES requires a bi-directional power flow interface to the grid. During BES 

discharge, it acts as a generation source (or load reduction at its point of interconnection (“POI”)) 

and during charge, it acts as an increased load to the grid at its POI.

17.4 Capital Cost Estimate

The base Cost Estimate for the BES Facility with a nominal capacity of 4.0 MW 2.0 MWh is 

$2,813/kW. Table 17-1 summarizes the Cost Estimate categories for the BES Facility.
17-3

TABLE 17-1 – LOCATION-BASED COSTS FOR BES

Technology: BES

Nominal Capacity (ISO): 4,000 kW 2,000 kWh

Nominal Heat Rate (ISO): N/A Btu/kWh-HHV 

Capital Cost Category (000s) (January 1, 2016$)

Civil Structural Material and Installation 434

Mechanical Equipment Supply and 

Installation 5,857

Electrical / I&C Supply and Installation 1,251

Project Indirects (1) 1,718

EPC Cost before Contingency and Fee 9,260

Fee and Contingency 787

Total Project EPC 10,047

Owner Costs (excluding project finance) 1,206

Total Project Cost (excluding finance) 11,253

Total Project EPC / kW 2,512

Owner Costs 6% (excluding project finance) / kW 302

Total Project Cost (excluding project finance) / kW 2,813

(1) Includes engineering, distributable costs, scaffolding, construction management, and start-up.

For this type of technology and power plant configuration, our regional adjustments took into 

consideration the following: seismic design differences, remote location issues, labor wage and 

productivity differences, location adjustments, and owner cost differences and the increase in 

overheads associated with these five adjustments.

Seismic design differences among the various locations were based on U.S. seismic map 

information that detailed the various seismic zones throughout the U.S. No cost increases were 

associated with seismic Zone 0 and cost step increases were considered for Zones 1, 2, 3 and 4.

Remote location issues are related to geographic areas that typically require installation of man 

camps, higher craft incentives, and higher per diems are generally required with respect to 

construction, due to the fact that such areas are long distances from urban areas, where labor is 

generally abundant. Remote location designations were also considered in locations where higher 

equipment freight costs are typically incurred, which for example are regions not near established 

rail or highway access. Remote locations related to the BES Facility include Fairbanks, Alaska; 

Honolulu, Hawaii; Great Falls, Montana; and Cayey, Puerto Rico.
17-4

Labor wage and productivity differences were handled as discussed in Section 2.6.1, taking into 

consideration the amount of labor we estimated for the BES Facility. 

Location adjustments were made to locations where higher cost of living levels are incurred and/or 

where population density generally correlates to higher construction costs for power and other 

infrastructure projects. These locations include, but are not limited to, Alaska, California, 

Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Maine, Maryland, 

Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, New York, North Dakota, South Dakota, West Virginia, 

Wisconsin, and Wyoming.

Owner costs were reviewed based on the need for utility upgrades and/or infrastructure costs such 

as new facility transmission lines to tie to existing utility transmission substations or existing 

transmission lines.

Table 17-2 in the Appendix presents the BES Facility capital cost variations for alternative U.S. 

plant locations.

17.5 O&M Estimate

In addition to the general items discussed in the section of the report entitled O&M Estimate, the 

major areas for O&M for a BES include visual inspection, maintaining: torque values of 

connections, the PCS, the fire protection system, and the HVAC for the containers. These are all 

considered fixed O&M expenses. Battery modules themselves are maintained by the automated 

controls and require no additional maintenance unless there is a failure, which the controls will 

annunciate with an alarm. Variable O&M consists of augmentation of the energy storage elements 

(battery modules) as their capacity degrades with usage (combination of cyclic and calendar 

aging). This is necessary to make sure the BES can continue to support its rated output throughout 

the BES operational life. Table 17-3 presents the O&M expenses for the BES Facility.

TABLE 17-3 – O&M EXPENSES FOR BES

Technology: BES

Fixed O&M Expense $40.00/kW-year

Variable O&M Expense $8.00/MWh

17.6 Environmental Compliance Information

The BES Facility produces no emissions on discharge. However, during charge the ascribed 

emissions would be those of the charging generation source. The BES requires 1.18 kWh of 

recharge for each 1.0 kWh discharged.

TABLE 17-4 – ENVIRONMENTAL EMISSIONS FOR BES 

Technology: BES

NOX 0 lb/MMBtu

SO2 0 lb/MMBtu

CO2 0 lb/MMBtu
A-1

APPENDIX 1 – STATE INFORMATION

TABLE 3-2 – LOCATION-BASED COSTS FOR USC (650,000 KW)

(JANUARY 1, 2016 DOLLARS)

State City

Base Project 

Cost ($/kW)

Location 

Variation

Delta Cost 

Difference 

($/kW)

Total Location 

Project Cost 

($/kW)

Alaska Anchorage 3,636 30% 1,074 4,710

Alaska Fairbanks 3,636 31% 1,129 4,765

Alabama Huntsville 3,636 -11% (389) 3,247

Arizona Phoenix 3,636 -8% (284) 3,352

Arkansas Little Rock 3,636 -7% (268) 3,368

California Los Angeles 3,636 16% 585 4,221

California Redding 3,636 9% 329 3,965

California Bakersfield 3,636 9% 328 3,964

California Sacramento 3,636 9% 337 3,973

California San Francisco 3,636 31% 1,133 4,769

Colorado Denver 3,636 -9% (312) 3,324

Connecticut Hartford 3,636 23% 854 4,490

Delaw are Dover 3,636 20% 738 4,374

District of Columbia Washington 3,636 35% 1,277 4,913

Florida Tallahassee 3,636 -8% (308) 3,328

Florida Tampa 3,636 -7% (244) 3,392

Georgia Atlanta 3,636 -11% (387) 3,249

Haw aii Honolulu N/A N/A N/A N/A

Idaho Boise 3,636 -4% (162) 3,474

Illinois Chicago 3,636 14% 526 4,162

Indiana Indianapolis 3,636 0% (7) 3,629

Iow a Davenport 3,636 -1% (53) 3,583

Iow a Waterloo 3,636 -6% (217) 3,419

Kansas Wichita 3,636 -7% (269) 3,367

Kentucky Louisville 3,636 -7% (271) 3,365

Louisiana New Orleans 3,636 -13% (473) 3,163

Maine Portland 3,636 -5% (190) 3,446

Maryland Baltimore 3,636 1% 30 3,666

Massachusetts Boston 3,636 32% 1,147 4,783

Michigan Detroit 3,636 2% 78 3,714

Michigan Grand Rapids 3,636 -4% (133) 3,503

Minnesota Saint Paul 3,636 6% 212 3,848

Mississippi Jackson 3,636 -7% (270) 3,366
A-2

State City

Base Project 

Cost ($/kW)

Location 

Variation

Delta Cost 

Difference 

($/kW)

Total Location 

Project Cost 

($/kW)

Missouri St. Louis 3,636 2% 76 3,712

Missouri Kansas City 3,636 0% (15) 3,621

Montana Great Falls 3,636 -4% (132) 3,504

Nebraska Omaha 3,636 -4% (159) 3,477

New Hampshire Concord 3,636 -1% (30) 3,606

New Jersey New ark 3,636 11% 406 4,042

New Mexico Albuquerque 3,636 -6% (200) 3,436

New York New York 3,636 36% 1,307 4,943

New York Syracuse 3,636 -3% (93) 3,543

Nevada Las Vegas 3,636 4% 144 3,780

North Carolina Charlotte 3,636 -12% (430) 3,206

North Dakota Bismarck 3,636 -7% (248) 3,388

Ohio Cincinnati 3,636 -4% (133) 3,503

Oregon Portland 3,636 4% 153 3,789

Pennsylvania Philadelphia 3,636 15% 537 4,173

Pennsylvania Wilkes-Barre 3,636 -5% (164) 3,472

Rhode Island Providence 3,636 4% 159 3,795

South Carolina Spartanburg 3,636 -14% (519) 3,117

South Dakota Rapid City 3,636 -9% (333) 3,303

Tennessee Knoxville 3,636 -10% (381) 3,255

Texas Houston 3,636 -12% (419) 3,217

Utah Salt Lake City 3,636 -5% (186) 3,450

Vermont Burlington 3,636 -3% (124) 3,512

Virginia Alexandria 3,636 9% 313 3,949

Virginia Lynchburg 3,636 -4% (139) 3,497

Washington Seattle 3,636 7% 247 3,883

Washington Spokane 3,636 -3% (123) 3,513

West Virginia Charleston 3,636 0% (11) 3,625

Wisconsin Green Bay 3,636 -1% (19) 3,617

Wyoming Cheyenne 3,636 2% 72 3,708

Puerto Rico Cayey N/A N/A N/A N/A
A-3

TABLE 4-2 – LOCATION-BASED COSTS FOR USC/CCS FACILITY (650,000 KW)

(JANUARY 1, 2016 DOLLARS)

State City

Base Project 

Cost ($/kW)

Location 

Variation

Delta Cost 

Difference 

($/kW)

Total Location 

Project Cost 

($/kW)

Alaska Anchorage 5,084 22% 1,124 6,208

Alaska Fairbanks 5,084 23% 1,190 6,274

Alabama Huntsville 5,084 -10% (489) 4,595

Arizona Phoenix 5,084 -7% (359) 4,725

Arkansas Little Rock 5,084 -7% (364) 4,720

California Los Angeles 5,084 12% 609 5,693

California Redding 5,084 7% 332 5,416

California Bakersfield 5,084 7% 333 5,417

California Sacramento 5,084 7% 378 5,462

California San Francisco 5,084 24% 1,233 6,317

Colorado Denver 5,084 -8% (397) 4,687

Connecticut Hartford 5,084 17% 866 5,950

Delaw are Dover 5,084 15% 743 5,827

District of Columbia Washington 5,084 24% 1,235 6,319

Florida Tallahassee 5,084 -9% (444) 4,640

Florida Tampa 5,084 -4% (206) 4,878

Georgia Atlanta 5,084 -10% (487) 4,597

Haw aii Honolulu N/A N/A N/A N/A

Idaho Boise 5,084 -5% (267) 4,817

Illinois Chicago 5,084 12% 630 5,714

Indiana Indianapolis 5,084 -1% (45) 5,039

Iow a Davenport 5,084 -2% (100) 4,984

Iow a Waterloo 5,084 -6% (290) 4,794

Kansas Wichita 5,084 -7% (364) 4,720

Kentucky Louisville 5,084 -7% (345) 4,739

Louisiana New Orleans 5,084 -12% (592) 4,492

Maine Portland 5,084 -5% (279) 4,805

Maryland Baltimore 5,084 -1% (33) 5,051

Massachusetts Boston 5,084 24% 1,238 6,322

Michigan Detroit 5,084 2% 116 5,200

Michigan Grand Rapids 5,084 -3% (177) 4,907

Minnesota Saint Paul 5,084 5% 263 5,347

Mississippi Jackson 5,084 -7% (380) 4,704
A-4

State City

Base Project 

Cost ($/kW)

Location 

Variation

Delta Cost 

Difference 

($/kW)

Total Location 

Project Cost 

($/kW)

Missouri St. Louis 5,084 2% 83 5,167

Missouri Kansas City 5,084 0% (25) 5,059

Montana Great Falls 5,084 -4% (198) 4,886

Nebraska Omaha 5,084 -4% (206) 4,878

New Hampshire Concord 5,084 -3% (163) 4,921

New Jersey New ark 5,084 10% 510 5,594

New Mexico Albuquerque 5,084 -5% (245) 4,839

New York New York 5,084 30% 1,543 6,627

New York Syracuse 5,084 -2% (120) 4,964

Nevada Las Vegas 5,084 3% 159 5,243

North Carolina Charlotte 5,084 -11% (548) 4,536

North Dakota Bismarck 5,084 -7% (371) 4,713

Ohio Cincinnati 5,084 -4% (205) 4,879

Oregon Portland 5,084 3% 146 5,230

Pennsylvania Philadelphia 5,084 12% 604 5,688

Pennsylvania Wilkes-Barre 5,084 -4% (213) 4,871

Rhode Island Providence 5,084 3% 137 5,221

South Carolina Spartanburg 5,084 -13% (656) 4,428

South Dakota Rapid City 5,084 -9% (473) 4,611

Tennessee Knoxville 5,084 -10% (484) 4,600

Texas Houston 5,084 -10% (529) 4,555

Utah Salt Lake City 5,084 -5% (277) 4,807

Vermont Burlington 5,084 -7% (340) 4,744

Virginia Alexandria 5,084 5% 254 5,338

Virginia Lynchburg 5,084 -5% (239) 4,845

Washington Seattle 5,084 5% 264 5,348

Washington Spokane 5,084 -3% (160) 4,924

West Virginia Charleston 5,084 -2% (99) 4,985

Wisconsin Green Bay 5,084 -1% (58) 5,026

Wyoming Cheyenne 5,084 -1% (29) 5,055

Puerto Rico Cayey N/A N/A N/A N/A
A-5

TABLE 5-2 – LOCATION-BASED COSTS FOR CTNG FACILITY (300,000 KW)

(JANUARY 1, 2016 DOLLARS)

State City

Base Project 

Cost ($/kW)

Location 

Variation

Delta Cost 

Difference 

($/kW)

Total Location 

Project Cost 

($/kW)

Alaska Anchorage 226 117% 264 490

Alaska Fairbanks 226 136% 307 533

Alabama Huntsville 226 -13% (30) 196

Arizona Phoenix 226 -7% (16) 210

Arkansas Little Rock 226 -6% (14) 212

California Los Angeles 226 73% 164 390

California Redding 226 17% 39 265

California Bakersfield 226 27% 61 287

California Sacramento 226 29% 66 292

California San Francisco 226 119% 269 495

Colorado Denver 226 7% 15 241

Connecticut Hartford 226 69% 157 383

Delaw are Dover 226 69% 155 381

District of Columbia Washington 226 110% 249 475

Florida Tallahassee 226 -12% (26) 200

Florida Tampa 226 -9% (21) 205

Georgia Atlanta 226 -1% (3) 223

Haw aii Honolulu N/A N/A N/A N/A

Idaho Boise 226 -3% (6) 220

Illinois Chicago 226 25% 56 282

Indiana Indianapolis 226 5% 11 237

Iow a Davenport 226 7% 15 241

Iow a Waterloo 226 0% - 226

Kansas Wichita 226 0% (1) 225

Kentucky Louisville 226 -9% (21) 205

Louisiana New Orleans 226 11% 24 250

Maine Portland 226 0% (1) 225

Maryland Baltimore 226 56% 126 352

Massachusetts Boston 226 93% 211 437

Michigan Detroit 226 14% 31 257

Michigan Grand Rapids 226 3% 7 233

Minnesota Saint Paul 226 15% 35 261

Mississippi Jackson 226 -8% (19) 207
A-6

State City

Base Project 

Cost ($/kW)

Location 

Variation

Delta Cost 

Difference 

($/kW)

Total Location 

Project Cost 

($/kW)

Missouri St. Louis 226 12% 28 254

Missouri Kansas City 226 3% 7 233

Montana Great Falls 226 23% 51 277

Nebraska Omaha 226 4% 9 235

New Hampshire Concord 226 3% 6 232

New Jersey New ark 226 53% 119 345

New Mexico Albuquerque 226 10% 23 249

New York New York 226 167% 378 604

New York Syracuse 226 35% 80 306

Nevada Las Vegas 226 7% 16 242

North Carolina Charlotte 226 -14% (31) 195

North Dakota Bismarck 226 -1% (3) 223

Ohio Cincinnati 226 0% - 226

Oregon Portland 226 10% 23 249

Pennsylvania Philadelphia 226 41% 92 318

Pennsylvania Wilkes-Barre 226 6% 13 239

Rhode Island Providence 226 50% 114 340

South Carolina Spartanburg 226 -16% (37) 189

South Dakota Rapid City 226 -5% (11) 215

Tennessee Knoxville 226 -14% (31) 195

Texas Houston 226 -17% (38) 188

Utah Salt Lake City 226 2% 4 230

Vermont Burlington 226 22% 49 275

Virginia Alexandria 226 39% 88 314

Virginia Lynchburg 226 -9% (20) 206

Washington Seattle 226 14% 32 258

Washington Spokane 226 -1% (3) 223

West Virginia Charleston 226 10% 23 249

Wisconsin Green Bay 226 3% 6 232

Wyoming Cheyenne 226 17% 38 264

Puerto Rico Cayey 226 29% 66 292
A-7

TABLE 6-2 – LOCATION-BASED COSTS FOR GCBC FACILITY (300,000 KW)

(JANUARY 1, 2016 DOLLARS)

State City

Base Project 

Cost ($/kW)

Location 

Variation

Delta Cost 

Difference 

($/kW)

Total Location 

Project Cost 

($/kW)

Alaska Anchorage 4,620 25% 1,138 5,758

Alaska Fairbanks 4,620 27% 1,246 5,866

Alabama Huntsville 4,620 -13% (608) 4,012

Arizona Phoenix 4,620 -10% (450) 4,170

Arkansas Little Rock 4,620 -9% (424) 4,196

California Los Angeles 4,620 16% 719 5,339

California Redding 4,620 9% 393 5,013

California Bakersfield 4,620 7% 334 4,954

California Sacramento 4,620 9% 406 5,026

California San Francisco 4,620 31% 1,445 6,065

Colorado Denver 4,620 -11% (515) 4,105

Connecticut Hartford 4,620 21% 956 5,576

Delaw are Dover 4,620 17% 780 5,400

District of Columbia Washington 4,620 21% 991 5,611

Florida Tallahassee 4,620 -10% (466) 4,154

Florida Tampa 4,620 -8% (362) 4,258

Georgia Atlanta 4,620 -13% (605) 4,015

Haw aii Honolulu N/A N/A N/A N/A

Idaho Boise 4,620 -6% (285) 4,335

Illinois Chicago 4,620 17% 769 5,389

Indiana Indianapolis 4,620 -5% (232) 4,388

Iow a Davenport 4,620 -2% (85) 4,535

Iow a Waterloo 4,620 -8% (350) 4,270

Kansas Wichita 4,620 -10% (447) 4,173

Kentucky Louisville 4,620 -10% (449) 4,171

Louisiana New Orleans 4,620 -16% (732) 3,888

Maine Portland 4,620 -9% (409) 4,211

Maryland Baltimore 4,620 -3% (123) 4,497

Massachusetts Boston 4,620 26% 1,219 5,839

Michigan Detroit 4,620 2% 114 4,734

Michigan Grand Rapids 4,620 -5% (215) 4,405

Minnesota Saint Paul 4,620 7% 317 4,937

Mississippi Jackson 4,620 -9% (416) 4,204
A-8

State City

Base Project 

Cost ($/kW)

Location 

Variation

Delta Cost 

Difference 

($/kW)

Total Location 

Project Cost 

($/kW)

Missouri St. Louis 4,620 1% 65 4,685

Missouri Kansas City 4,620 -1% (48) 4,572

Montana Great Falls 4,620 -6% (260) 4,360

Nebraska Omaha 4,620 -6% (268) 4,352

New Hampshire Concord 4,620 -2% (72) 4,548

New Jersey New ark 4,620 17% 774 5,394

New Mexico Albuquerque 4,620 -8% (367) 4,253

New York New York 4,620 34% 1,588 6,208

New York Syracuse 4,620 -1% (32) 4,588

Nevada Las Vegas 4,620 2% 104 4,724

North Carolina Charlotte 4,620 -16% (717) 3,903

North Dakota Bismarck 4,620 -9% (400) 4,220

Ohio Cincinnati 4,620 -7% (306) 4,314

Oregon Portland 4,620 2% 110 4,730

Pennsylvania Philadelphia 4,620 9% 424 5,044

Pennsylvania Wilkes-Barre 4,620 -6% (288) 4,332

Rhode Island Providence 4,620 11% 494 5,114

South Carolina Spartanburg 4,620 -18% (829) 3,791

South Dakota Rapid City 4,620 -12% (538) 4,082

Tennessee Knoxville 4,620 -14% (627) 3,993

Texas Houston 4,620 -15% (676) 3,944

Utah Salt Lake City 4,620 -8% (358) 4,262

Vermont Burlington 4,620 -5% (223) 4,397

Virginia Alexandria 4,620 5% 254 4,874

Virginia Lynchburg 4,620 -7% (315) 4,305

Washington Seattle 4,620 6% 260 4,880

Washington Spokane 4,620 -5% (221) 4,399

West Virginia Charleston 4,620 -1% (29) 4,591

Wisconsin Green Bay 4,620 -2% (111) 4,509

Wyoming Cheyenne 4,620 -10% (441) 4,179

Puerto Rico Cayey 4,620 -8% (348) 4,272
A-9

TABLE 7-2 – LOCATION-BASED COSTS FOR CTCB FACILITY (300,000 KW)

(JANUARY 1, 2016 DOLLARS)

State City

Base Project 

Cost ($/kW)

Location 

Variation

Delta Cost 

Difference 

($/kW)

Total Location 

Project Cost 

($/kW)

Alaska Anchorage 537 66% 352 889

Alaska Fairbanks 537 74% 400 937

Alabama Huntsville 537 -14% (74) 463

Arizona Phoenix 537 -9% (49) 488

Arkansas Little Rock 537 -9% (46) 491

California Los Angeles 537 62% 331 868

California Redding 537 35% 187 724

California Bakersfield 537 38% 202 739

California Sacramento 537 35% 188 725

California San Francisco 537 97% 521 1,058

Colorado Denver 537 -12% (62) 475

Connecticut Hartford 537 58% 309 846

Delaw are Dover 537 52% 281 818

District of Columbia Washington 537 72% 388 925

Florida Tallahassee 537 -11% (60) 477

Florida Tampa 537 -9% (47) 490

Georgia Atlanta 537 -14% (74) 463

Haw aii Honolulu N/A N/A N/A N/A

Idaho Boise 537 -5% (28) 509

Illinois Chicago 537 40% 213 750

Indiana Indianapolis 537 -5% (26) 511

Iow a Davenport 537 -2% (11) 526

Iow a Waterloo 537 -8% (45) 492

Kansas Wichita 537 -10% (53) 484

Kentucky Louisville 537 -10% (54) 483

Louisiana New Orleans 537 -18% (95) 442

Maine Portland 537 1% 4 541

Maryland Baltimore 537 16% 85 622

Massachusetts Boston 537 88% 473 1,010

Michigan Detroit 537 4% 19 556

Michigan Grand Rapids 537 -5% (28) 509

Minnesota Saint Paul 537 14% 75 612

Mississippi Jackson 537 -9% (49) 488
A-10

State City

Base Project 

Cost ($/kW)

Location 

Variation

Delta Cost 

Difference 

($/kW)

Total Location 

Project Cost 

($/kW)

Missouri St. Louis 537 6% 31 568

Missouri Kansas City 537 1% 3 540

Montana Great Falls 537 2% 9 546

Nebraska Omaha 537 -6% (30) 507

New Hampshire Concord 537 0% - 537

New Jersey New ark 537 16% 88 625

New Mexico Albuquerque 537 -8% (43) 494

New York New York 537 37% 198 735

New York Syracuse 537 -3% (16) 521

Nevada Las Vegas 537 4% 23 560

North Carolina Charlotte 537 -16% (84) 453

North Dakota Bismarck 537 -10% (52) 485

Ohio Cincinnati 537 -10% (52) 485

Oregon Portland 537 28% 150 687

Pennsylvania Philadelphia 537 12% 64 601

Pennsylvania Wilkes-Barre 537 -5% (28) 509

Rhode Island Providence 537 7% 39 576

South Carolina Spartanburg 537 -18% (98) 439

South Dakota Rapid City 537 -13% (70) 467

Tennessee Knoxville 537 -14% (77) 460

Texas Houston 537 -16% (88) 449

Utah Salt Lake City 537 -4% (24) 513

Vermont Burlington 537 -4% (20) 517

Virginia Alexandria 537 46% 247 784

Virginia Lynchburg 537 -10% (53) 484

Washington Seattle 537 20% 105 642

Washington Spokane 537 -4% (20) 517

West Virginia Charleston 537 0% 1 538

Wisconsin Green Bay 537 -6% (31) 506

Wyoming Cheyenne 537 -10% (53) 484

Puerto Rico Cayey 537 6% 34 571
A-11

TABLE 8-2 – LOCATION-BASED COSTS FOR NGCC FACILITY (702,000 KW)

(JANUARY 1, 2016 DOLLARS)

State City

Base Project 

Cost ($/kW)

Location 

Variation

Delta Cost 

Difference 

($/kW)

Total Location 

Project Cost 

($/kW)

Alaska Anchorage 978 30% 296 1,274

Alaska Fairbanks 978 35% 346 1,324

Alabama Huntsville 978 -11% (112) 866

Arizona Phoenix 978 1% 8 986

Arkansas Little Rock 978 -9% (84) 894

California Los Angeles 978 28% 270 1,248

California Redding 978 15% 148 1,126

California Bakersfield 978 17% 163 1,141

California Sacramento 978 19% 183 1,161

California San Francisco 978 43% 423 1,401

Colorado Denver 978 1% 10 988

Connecticut Hartford 978 28% 271 1,249

Delaw are Dover 978 26% 256 1,234

District of Columbia Washington 978 34% 328 1,306

Florida Tallahassee 978 -11% (106) 872

Florida Tampa 978 -6% (58) 920

Georgia Atlanta 978 -9% (86) 892

Haw aii Honolulu N/A N/A N/A N/A

Idaho Boise 978 -5% (48) 930

Illinois Chicago 978 12% 122 1,100

Indiana Indianapolis 978 -1% (13) 965

Iow a Davenport 978 0% (1) 977

Iow a Waterloo 978 -4% (40) 938

Kansas Wichita 978 -5% (52) 926

Kentucky Louisville 978 -7% (67) 911

Louisiana New Orleans 978 -14% (137) 841

Maine Portland 978 -6% (58) 920

Maryland Baltimore 978 18% 177 1,155

Massachusetts Boston 978 37% 360 1,338

Michigan Detroit 978 5% 46 1,024

Michigan Grand Rapids 978 -2% (17) 961

Minnesota Saint Paul 978 7% 65 1,043

Mississippi Jackson 978 -9% (90) 888
A-12

State City

Base Project 

Cost ($/kW)

Location 

Variation

Delta Cost 

Difference 

($/kW)

Total Location 

Project Cost 

($/kW)

Missouri St. Louis 978 3% 32 1,010

Missouri Kansas City 978 0% 1 979

Montana Great Falls 978 2% 16 994

Nebraska Omaha 978 -2% (20) 958

New Hampshire Concord 978 7% 64 1,042

New Jersey New ark 978 19% 185 1,163

New Mexico Albuquerque 978 -3% (32) 946

New York New York 978 63% 619 1,597

New York Syracuse 978 16% 154 1,132

Nevada Las Vegas 978 3% 25 1,003

North Carolina Charlotte 978 -11% (106) 872

North Dakota Bismarck 978 -6% (56) 922

Ohio Cincinnati 978 -5% (46) 932

Oregon Portland 978 11% 110 1,088

Pennsylvania Philadelphia 978 23% 226 1,204

Pennsylvania Wilkes-Barre 978 -2% (18) 960

Rhode Island Providence 978 22% 216 1,194

South Carolina Spartanburg 978 -15% (143) 835

South Dakota Rapid City 978 -8% (77) 901

Tennessee Knoxville 978 -10% (96) 882

Texas Houston 978 -11% (108) 870

Utah Salt Lake City 978 -4% (41) 937

Vermont Burlington 978 -1% (11) 967

Virginia Alexandria 978 16% 157 1,135

Virginia Lynchburg 978 -7% (72) 906

Washington Seattle 978 4% 43 1,021

Washington Spokane 978 -3% (26) 952

West Virginia Charleston 978 0% 2 980

Wisconsin Green Bay 978 -2% (19) 959

Wyoming Cheyenne 978 5% 52 1,030

Puerto Rico Cayey 978 9% 92 1,070
A-13

TABLE 9-2 – LOCATION-BASED COSTS FOR AG-NGCC FACILITY (429,000 KW)

(JANUARY 1, 2016 DOLLARS)

State City

Base Project 

Cost ($/kW)

Location 

Variation

Delta Cost 

Difference 

($/kW)

Total Location 

Project Cost 

($/kW)

Alaska Anchorage 1,104 28% 314 1,418

Alaska Fairbanks 1,104 32% 349 1,453

Alabama Huntsville 1,104 -8% (93) 1,011

Arizona Phoenix 1,104 5% 52 1,156

Arkansas Little Rock 1,104 -6% (61) 1,043

California Los Angeles 1,104 29% 318 1,422

California Redding 1,104 17% 187 1,291

California Bakersfield 1,104 19% 215 1,319

California Sacramento 1,104 19% 215 1,319

California San Francisco 1,104 41% 458 1,562

Colorado Denver 1,104 2% 17 1,121

Connecticut Hartford 1,104 27% 302 1,406

Delaw are Dover 1,104 26% 284 1,388

District of Columbia Washington 1,104 33% 365 1,469

Florida Tallahassee 1,104 -7% (81) 1,023

Florida Tampa 1,104 -6% (67) 1,037

Georgia Atlanta 1,104 -6% (67) 1,037

Haw aii Honolulu 1,104 44% 486 1,590

Idaho Boise 1,104 -2% (24) 1,080

Illinois Chicago 1,104 9% 104 1,208

Indiana Indianapolis 1,104 0% (4) 1,100

Iow a Davenport 1,104 1% 8 1,112

Iow a Waterloo 1,104 -2% (27) 1,077

Kansas Wichita 1,104 -3% (32) 1,072

Kentucky Louisville 1,104 2% 26 1,130

Louisiana New Orleans 1,104 -11% (116) 988

Maine Portland 1,104 -3% (38) 1,066

Maryland Baltimore 1,104 20% 216 1,320

Massachusetts Boston 1,104 34% 376 1,480

Michigan Detroit 1,104 4% 42 1,146

Michigan Grand Rapids 1,104 -1% (9) 1,095

Minnesota Saint Paul 1,104 5% 56 1,160

Mississippi Jackson 1,104 -6% (67) 1,037
A-14

State City

Base Project 

Cost ($/kW)

Location 

Variation

Delta Cost 

Difference 

($/kW)

Total Location 

Project Cost 

($/kW)

Missouri St. Louis 1,104 4% 44 1,148

Missouri Kansas City 1,104 1% 8 1,112

Montana Great Falls 1,104 10% 111 1,215

Nebraska Omaha 1,104 -1% (9) 1,095

New Hampshire Concord 1,104 11% 122 1,226

New Jersey New ark 1,104 15% 170 1,274

New Mexico Albuquerque 1,104 -2% (22) 1,082

New York New York 1,104 55% 610 1,714

New York Syracuse 1,104 17% 187 1,291

Nevada Las Vegas 1,104 8% 93 1,197

North Carolina Charlotte 1,104 -7% (81) 1,023

North Dakota Bismarck 1,104 -3% (33) 1,071

Ohio Cincinnati 1,104 -3% (31) 1,073

Oregon Portland 1,104 14% 150 1,254

Pennsylvania Philadelphia 1,104 22% 246 1,350

Pennsylvania Wilkes-Barre 1,104 0% (4) 1,100

Rhode Island Providence 1,104 23% 253 1,357

South Carolina Spartanburg 1,104 -10% (115) 989

South Dakota Rapid City 1,104 -5% (52) 1,052

Tennessee Knoxville 1,104 -7% (76) 1,028

Texas Houston 1,104 -8% (89) 1,015

Utah Salt Lake City 1,104 -1% (12) 1,092

Vermont Burlington 1,104 3% 37 1,141

Virginia Alexandria 1,104 18% 197 1,301

Virginia Lynchburg 1,104 -5% (52) 1,052

Washington Seattle 1,104 5% 53 1,157

Washington Spokane 1,104 -1% (15) 1,089

West Virginia Charleston 1,104 2% 23 1,127

Wisconsin Green Bay 1,104 -1% (12) 1,092

Wyoming Cheyenne 1,104 7% 72 1,176

Puerto Rico Cayey 1,104 13% 143 1,247
A-15

TABLE 10-2 – LOCATION-BASED COSTS FOR CT FACILITY (100,000 KW)

(JANUARY 1, 2016 DOLLARS)

State City

Base Project 

Cost ($/kW)

Location 

Variation

Delta Cost 

Difference 

($/kW)

Total Location 

Project Cost 

($/kW)

Alaska Anchorage 1,101 26% 286 1,387

Alaska Fairbanks 1,101 30% 334 1,435

Alabama Huntsville 1,101 -7% (73) 1,028

Arizona Phoenix 1,101 -4% (48) 1,053

Arkansas Little Rock 1,101 -4% (45) 1,056

California Los Angeles 1,101 16% 175 1,276

California Redding 1,101 5% 56 1,157

California Bakersfield 1,101 6% 71 1,172

California Sacramento 1,101 8% 84 1,185

California San Francisco 1,101 28% 312 1,413

Colorado Denver 1,101 -2% (22) 1,079

Connecticut Hartford 1,101 16% 178 1,279

Delaw are Dover 1,101 15% 164 1,265

District of Columbia Washington 1,101 22% 245 1,346

Florida Tallahassee 1,101 -5% (60) 1,041

Florida Tampa 1,101 -4% (46) 1,055

Georgia Atlanta 1,101 -4% (47) 1,054

Haw aii Honolulu 1,101 45% 499 1,600

Idaho Boise 1,101 -2% (27) 1,074

Illinois Chicago 1,101 9% 101 1,202

Indiana Indianapolis 1,101 -1% (6) 1,095

Iow a Davenport 1,101 1% 9 1,110

Iow a Waterloo 1,101 -2% (25) 1,076

Kansas Wichita 1,101 -3% (33) 1,068

Kentucky Louisville 1,101 -5% (53) 1,048

Louisiana New Orleans 1,101 -8% (93) 1,008

Maine Portland 1,101 -4% (40) 1,061

Maryland Baltimore 1,101 9% 99 1,200

Massachusetts Boston 1,101 23% 251 1,352

Michigan Detroit 1,101 4% 39 1,140

Michigan Grand Rapids 1,101 -1% (8) 1,093

Minnesota Saint Paul 1,101 5% 55 1,156

Mississippi Jackson 1,101 -4% (49) 1,052
A-16

State City

Base Project 

Cost ($/kW)

Location 

Variation

Delta Cost 

Difference 

($/kW)

Total Location 

Project Cost 

($/kW)

Missouri St. Louis 1,101 3% 31 1,132

Missouri Kansas City 1,101 0% 3 1,104

Montana Great Falls 1,101 1% 16 1,117

Nebraska Omaha 1,101 -1% (10) 1,091

New Hampshire Concord 1,101 0% - 1,101

New Jersey New ark 1,101 15% 165 1,266

New Mexico Albuquerque 1,101 0% (3) 1,098

New York New York 1,101 44% 481 1,582

New York Syracuse 1,101 6% 68 1,169

Nevada Las Vegas 1,101 8% 87 1,188

North Carolina Charlotte 1,101 -7% (82) 1,019

North Dakota Bismarck 1,101 -3% (32) 1,069

Ohio Cincinnati 1,101 -3% (32) 1,069

Oregon Portland 1,101 2% 20 1,121

Pennsylvania Philadelphia 1,101 11% 122 1,223

Pennsylvania Wilkes-Barre 1,101 -1% (8) 1,093

Rhode Island Providence 1,101 12% 130 1,231

South Carolina Spartanburg 1,101 -9% (97) 1,004

South Dakota Rapid City 1,101 -4% (49) 1,052

Tennessee Knoxville 1,101 -7% (75) 1,026

Texas Houston 1,101 -8% (86) 1,015

Utah Salt Lake City 1,101 -2% (23) 1,078

Vermont Burlington 1,101 3% 33 1,134

Virginia Alexandria 1,101 7% 78 1,179

Virginia Lynchburg 1,101 -5% (52) 1,049

Washington Seattle 1,101 4% 39 1,140

Washington Spokane 1,101 -2% (19) 1,082

West Virginia Charleston 1,101 2% 20 1,121

Wisconsin Green Bay 1,101 -1% (11) 1,090

Wyoming Cheyenne 1,101 7% 72 1,173

Puerto Rico Cayey 1,101 3% 35 1,136
A-17

TABLE 11-2 – LOCATION-BASED COSTS FOR ACT FACILITY (237,000 KW)

(JANUARY 1, 2016 DOLLARS)

State City

Base Project 

Cost ($/kW)

Location 

Variation

Delta Cost 

Difference 

($/kW)

Total Location 

Project Cost 

($/kW)

Alaska Anchorage 678 40% 268 946

Alaska Fairbanks 678 46% 311 989

Alabama Huntsville 678 -5% (36) 642

Arizona Phoenix 678 -3% (21) 657

Arkansas Little Rock 678 -3% (19) 659

California Los Angeles 678 24% 166 844

California Redding 678 6% 42 720

California Bakersfield 678 9% 62 740

California Sacramento 678 10% 69 747

California San Francisco 678 41% 275 953

Colorado Denver 678 1% 9 687

Connecticut Hartford 678 24% 160 838

Delaw are Dover 678 23% 157 835

District of Columbia Washington 678 37% 248 926

Florida Tallahassee 678 -5% (32) 646

Florida Tampa 678 -4% (25) 653

Georgia Atlanta 678 -1% (10) 668

Haw aii Honolulu 678 71% 483 1,161

Idaho Boise 678 -1% (10) 668

Illinois Chicago 678 9% 63 741

Indiana Indianapolis 678 1% 9 687

Iow a Davenport 678 2% 14 692

Iow a Waterloo 678 -1% (4) 674

Kansas Wichita 678 -1% (6) 672

Kentucky Louisville 678 -4% (26) 652

Louisiana New Orleans 678 -7% (50) 628

Maine Portland 678 -1% (7) 671

Maryland Baltimore 678 18% 122 800

Massachusetts Boston 678 32% 217 895

Michigan Detroit 678 5% 32 710

Michigan Grand Rapids 678 1% 5 683

Minnesota Saint Paul 678 6% 38 716

Mississippi Jackson 678 -3% (23) 655
A-18

State City

Base Project 

Cost ($/kW)

Location 

Variation

Delta Cost 

Difference 

($/kW)

Total Location 

Project Cost 

($/kW)

Missouri St. Louis 678 4% 29 707

Missouri Kansas City 678 1% 6 684

Montana Great Falls 678 7% 48 726

Nebraska Omaha 678 1% 6 684

New Hampshire Concord 678 1% 5 683

New Jersey New ark 678 19% 126 804

New Mexico Albuquerque 678 3% 19 697

New York New York 678 58% 394 1,072

New York Syracuse 678 12% 78 756

Nevada Las Vegas 678 12% 82 760

North Carolina Charlotte 678 -6% (39) 639

North Dakota Bismarck 678 -1% (8) 670

Ohio Cincinnati 678 -1% (5) 673

Oregon Portland 678 3% 23 701

Pennsylvania Philadelphia 678 14% 97 775

Pennsylvania Wilkes-Barre 678 1% 10 688

Rhode Island Providence 678 17% 117 795

South Carolina Spartanburg 678 -7% (46) 632

South Dakota Rapid City 678 -3% (17) 661

Tennessee Knoxville 678 -6% (38) 640

Texas Houston 678 -7% (46) 632

Utah Salt Lake City 678 0% - 678

Vermont Burlington 678 7% 47 725

Virginia Alexandria 678 13% 87 765

Virginia Lynchburg 678 -4% (25) 653

Washington Seattle 678 5% 33 711

Washington Spokane 678 -1% (5) 673

West Virginia Charleston 678 3% 22 700

Wisconsin Green Bay 678 0% 3 681

Wyoming Cheyenne 678 43% 293 971

Puerto Rico Cayey 678 9% 61 739
A-19

TABLE 12-2 – LOCATION-BASED COSTS FOR AN FACILITY (2,234,000 KW)

(JANUARY 1, 2016 DOLLARS)

State City

Base Project 

Cost ($/kW)

Location 

Variation

Delta Cost 

Difference 

($/kW)

Total Location 

Project Cost 

($/kW)

Alaska Anchorage 5,945 13% 787 6,732

Alaska Fairbanks 5,945 13% 799 6,744

Alabama Huntsville 5,945 -4% (227) 5,718

Arizona Phoenix 5,945 -3% (156) 5,789

Arkansas Little Rock 5,945 -3% (158) 5,787

California Los Angeles 5,945 8% 470 6,415

California Redding 5,945 5% 278 6,223

California Bakersfield 5,945 6% 332 6,277

California Sacramento 5,945 5% 299 6,244

California San Francisco 5,945 17% 1,029 6,974

Colorado Denver 5,945 -3% (173) 5,772

Connecticut Hartford 5,945 13% 772 6,717

Delaw are Dover 5,945 12% 704 6,649

District of Columbia Washington 5,945 22% 1,281 7,226

Florida Tallahassee 5,945 -4% (216) 5,729

Florida Tampa 5,945 -2% (106) 5,839

Georgia Atlanta 5,945 -4% (226) 5,719

Haw aii Honolulu N/A N/A N/A N/A

Idaho Boise 5,945 -2% (102) 5,843

Illinois Chicago 5,945 6% 362 6,307

Indiana Indianapolis 5,945 1% 59 6,004

Iow a Davenport 5,945 -1% (46) 5,899

Iow a Waterloo 5,945 -2% (134) 5,811

Kansas Wichita 5,945 -3% (158) 5,787

Kentucky Louisville 5,945 -3% (149) 5,796

Louisiana New Orleans 5,945 -5% (285) 5,660

Maine Portland 5,945 -1% (38) 5,907

Maryland Baltimore 5,945 2% 135 6,080

Massachusetts Boston 5,945 15% 884 6,829

Michigan Detroit 5,945 1% 65 6,010

Michigan Grand Rapids 5,945 -1% (82) 5,863

Minnesota Saint Paul 5,945 2% 143 6,088

Mississippi Jackson 5,945 -3% (176) 5,769
A-20

State City

Base Project 

Cost ($/kW)

Location 

Variation

Delta Cost 

Difference 

($/kW)

Total Location 

Project Cost 

($/kW)

Missouri St. Louis 5,945 2% 92 6,037

Missouri Kansas City 5,945 0% 10 5,955

Montana Great Falls 5,945 -1% (88) 5,857

Nebraska Omaha 5,945 -1% (85) 5,860

New Hampshire Concord 5,945 -1% (54) 5,891

New Jersey New ark 5,945 4% 248 6,193

New Mexico Albuquerque 5,945 -2% (93) 5,852

New York New York 5,945 9% 557 6,502

New York Syracuse 5,945 6% 345 6,290

Nevada Las Vegas 5,945 2% 130 6,075

North Carolina Charlotte 5,945 -4% (233) 5,712

North Dakota Bismarck 5,945 -3% (172) 5,773

Ohio Cincinnati 5,945 0% (15) 5,930

Oregon Portland 5,945 3% 191 6,136

Pennsylvania Philadelphia 5,945 3% 182 6,127

Pennsylvania Wilkes-Barre 5,945 -1% (77) 5,868

Rhode Island Providence 5,945 1% 85 6,030

South Carolina Spartanburg 5,945 -5% (293) 5,652

South Dakota Rapid City 5,945 -4% (220) 5,725

Tennessee Knoxville 5,945 -4% (214) 5,731

Texas Houston 5,945 -4% (245) 5,700

Utah Salt Lake City 5,945 -1% (75) 5,870

Vermont Burlington 5,945 -2% (136) 5,809

Virginia Alexandria 5,945 6% 338 6,283

Virginia Lynchburg 5,945 -1% (31) 5,914

Washington Seattle 5,945 4% 246 6,191

Washington Spokane 5,945 -1% (52) 5,893

West Virginia Charleston 5,945 -1% (35) 5,910

Wisconsin Green Bay 5,945 1% 43 5,988

Wyoming Cheyenne 5,945 3% 178 6,123

Puerto Rico Cayey N/A N/A N/A N/A
A-21

TABLE 13-2– LOCATION-BASED COSTS FOR BBFB FACILITY (50,000 KW)

(JANUARY 1, 2016 DOLLARS)

State City

Base Project 

Cost ($/kW)

Location 

Variation

Delta Cost 

Difference 

($/kW)

Total Location 

Project Cost 

($/kW)

Alaska Anchorage 4,985 19% 956 5,941

Alaska Fairbanks 4,985 22% 1,101 6,086

Alabama Huntsville 4,985 -15% (729) 4,256

Arizona Phoenix 4,985 -10% (523) 4,462

Arkansas Little Rock 4,985 -10% (512) 4,473

California Los Angeles 4,985 10% 510 5,495

California Redding 4,985 9% 447 5,432

California Bakersfield 4,985 8% 386 5,371

California Sacramento 4,985 9% 461 5,446

California San Francisco 4,985 29% 1,445 6,430

Colorado Denver 4,985 -12% (601) 4,384

Connecticut Hartford 4,985 20% 1,012 5,997

Delaw are Dover 4,985 16% 804 5,789

District of Columbia Washington 4,985 25% 1,244 6,229

Florida Tallahassee 4,985 -11% (565) 4,420

Florida Tampa 4,985 -9% (444) 4,541

Georgia Atlanta 4,985 -15% (726) 4,259

Haw aii Honolulu 4,985 46% 2,318 7,303

Idaho Boise 4,985 -7% (331) 4,654

Illinois Chicago 4,985 18% 877 5,862

Indiana Indianapolis 4,985 -3% (140) 4,845

Iow a Davenport 4,985 -2% (100) 4,885

Iow a Waterloo 4,985 -8% (410) 4,575

Kansas Wichita 4,985 -10% (521) 4,464

Kentucky Louisville 4,985 -10% (523) 4,462

Louisiana New Orleans 4,985 -18% (876) 4,109

Maine Portland 4,985 -10% (497) 4,488

Maryland Baltimore 4,985 -4% (186) 4,799

Massachusetts Boston 4,985 26% 1,319 6,304

Michigan Detroit 4,985 3% 136 5,121

Michigan Grand Rapids 4,985 -5% (251) 4,734

Minnesota Saint Paul 4,985 7% 365 5,350

Mississippi Jackson 4,985 -10% (504) 4,481
A-22

State City

Base Project 

Cost ($/kW)

Location 

Variation

Delta Cost 

Difference 

($/kW)

Total Location 

Project Cost 

($/kW)

Missouri St. Louis 4,985 2% 85 5,070

Missouri Kansas City 4,985 -1% (53) 4,932

Montana Great Falls 4,985 -6% (307) 4,678

Nebraska Omaha 4,985 -6% (312) 4,673

New Hampshire Concord 4,985 -2% (81) 4,904

New Jersey New ark 4,985 15% 755 5,740

New Mexico Albuquerque 4,985 -9% (427) 4,558

New York New York 4,985 42% 2,099 7,084

New York Syracuse 4,985 -4% (187) 4,798

Nevada Las Vegas 4,985 3% 125 5,110

North Carolina Charlotte 4,985 -17% (836) 4,149

North Dakota Bismarck 4,985 -9% (468) 4,517

Ohio Cincinnati 4,985 -8% (379) 4,606

Oregon Portland 4,985 2% 115 5,100

Pennsylvania Philadelphia 4,985 10% 500 5,485

Pennsylvania Wilkes-Barre 4,985 -7% (333) 4,652

Rhode Island Providence 4,985 6% 278 5,263

South Carolina Spartanburg 4,985 -20% (986) 3,999

South Dakota Rapid City 4,985 -13% (630) 4,355

Tennessee Knoxville 4,985 -15% (732) 4,253

Texas Houston 4,985 -16% (791) 4,194

Utah Salt Lake City 4,985 -8% (410) 4,575

Vermont Burlington 4,985 -5% (257) 4,728

Virginia Alexandria 4,985 5% 233 5,218

Virginia Lynchburg 4,985 -8% (389) 4,596

Washington Seattle 4,985 6% 291 5,276

Washington Spokane 4,985 -5% (256) 4,729

West Virginia Charleston 4,985 -1% (33) 4,952

Wisconsin Green Bay 4,985 -3% (152) 4,833

Wyoming Cheyenne 4,985 -10% (515) 4,470

Puerto Rico Cayey 4,985 -3% (169) 4,816
A-23

TABLE 14-2 – LOCATION-BASED COSTS FOR WN FACILITY (100,000 KW)

(JANUARY 1, 2016 DOLLARS)

State City

Base Project 

Cost ($/kW)

Location 

Variation

Delta Cost 

Difference 

($/kW)

Total Location 

Project Cost 

($/kW)

Alaska Anchorage 1,877 30% 559 2,436

Alaska Fairbanks 1,877 56% 1,042 2,919

Alabama Huntsville 1,877 -5% (95) 1,782

Arizona Phoenix 1,877 -3% (59) 1,818

Arkansas Little Rock 1,877 -3% (55) 1,822

California Los Angeles 1,877 15% 279 2,156

California Redding 1,877 12% 219 2,096

California Bakersfield 1,877 13% 253 2,130

California Sacramento 1,877 12% 222 2,099

California San Francisco 1,877 20% 384 2,261

Colorado Denver 1,877 3% 51 1,928

Connecticut Hartford 1,877 8% 155 2,032

Delaw are Dover 1,877 6% 109 1,986

District of Columbia Washington 1,877 10% 195 2,072

Florida Tallahassee 1,877 -4% (80) 1,797

Florida Tampa 1,877 -3% (62) 1,815

Georgia Atlanta 1,877 -5% (95) 1,782

Haw aii Honolulu 1,877 35% 649 2,526

Idaho Boise 1,877 5% 99 1,976

Illinois Chicago 1,877 14% 259 2,136

Indiana Indianapolis 1,877 -1% (11) 1,866

Iow a Davenport 1,877 6% 115 1,992

Iow a Waterloo 1,877 4% 70 1,947

Kansas Wichita 1,877 3% 62 1,939

Kentucky Louisville 1,877 -4% (68) 1,809

Louisiana New Orleans 1,877 -7% (125) 1,752

Maine Portland 1,877 7% 140 2,017

Maryland Baltimore 1,877 1% 28 1,905

Massachusetts Boston 1,877 11% 200 2,077

Michigan Detroit 1,877 3% 48 1,925

Michigan Grand Rapids 1,877 -1% (17) 1,860

Minnesota Saint Paul 1,877 10% 197 2,074

Mississippi Jackson 1,877 -3% (62) 1,815
A-24

State City

Base Project 

Cost ($/kW)

Location 

Variation

Delta Cost 

Difference 

($/kW)

Total Location 

Project Cost 

($/kW)

Missouri St. Louis 1,877 3% 55 1,932

Missouri Kansas City 1,877 0% 9 1,886

Montana Great Falls 1,877 8% 155 2,032

Nebraska Omaha 1,877 5% 93 1,970

New Hampshire Concord 1,877 8% 155 2,032

New Jersey New ark 1,877 10% 184 2,061

New Mexico Albuquerque 1,877 4% 76 1,953

New York New York 1,877 25% 462 2,339

New York Syracuse 1,877 0% 1 1,878

Nevada Las Vegas 1,877 9% 165 2,042

North Carolina Charlotte 1,877 -6% (105) 1,772

North Dakota Bismarck 1,877 4% 81 1,958

Ohio Cincinnati 1,877 -4% (66) 1,811

Oregon Portland 1,877 9% 171 2,048

Pennsylvania Philadelphia 1,877 5% 90 1,967

Pennsylvania Wilkes-Barre 1,877 -2% (32) 1,845

Rhode Island Providence 1,877 3% 58 1,935

South Carolina Spartanburg 1,877 -7% (124) 1,753

South Dakota Rapid City 1,877 2% 38 1,915

Tennessee Knoxville 1,877 -5% (98) 1,779

Texas Houston 1,877 -6% (116) 1,761

Utah Salt Lake City 1,877 6% 113 1,990

Vermont Burlington 1,877 6% 110 1,987

Virginia Alexandria 1,877 3% 64 1,941

Virginia Lynchburg 1,877 -4% (67) 1,810

Washington Seattle 1,877 4% 67 1,944

Washington Spokane 1,877 6% 110 1,987

West Virginia Charleston 1,877 0% 4 1,881

Wisconsin Green Bay 1,877 -2% (41) 1,836

Wyoming Cheyenne 1,877 3% 63 1,940

Puerto Rico Cayey 1,877 9% 169 2,046
A-25

TABLE 15-4 – LOCATION-BASED COSTS FOR PV FIXED FACILITY (20,000 KW)

(JANUARY 1, 2016 DOLLARS)

State City

Base Project 

Cost ($/kW)

Location 

Variation

Delta Cost 

Difference 

($/kW)

Total Location 

Project Cost 

($/kW)

Alaska Anchorage 2,671 22% 593 3,264

Alaska Fairbanks 2,671 43% 1,154 3,825

Alabama Huntsville 2,671 -14% (368) 2,303

Arizona Phoenix 2,671 -10% (276) 2,395

Arkansas Little Rock 2,671 -10% (261) 2,410

California Los Angeles 2,671 9% 244 2,915

California Redding 2,671 10% 272 2,943

California Bakersfield 2,671 8% 221 2,892

California Sacramento 2,671 10% 280 2,951

California San Francisco 2,671 21% 549 3,220

Colorado Denver 2,671 -7% (182) 2,489

Connecticut Hartford 2,671 10% 262 2,933

Delaw are Dover 2,671 6% 153 2,824

District of Columbia Washington 2,671 6% 162 2,833

Florida Tallahassee 2,671 -10% (280) 2,391

Florida Tampa 2,671 -8% (217) 2,454

Georgia Atlanta 2,671 -14% (366) 2,305

Haw aii Honolulu 2,671 62% 1,652 4,323

Idaho Boise 2,671 -7% (177) 2,494

Illinois Chicago 2,671 20% 533 3,204

Indiana Indianapolis 2,671 -5% (123) 2,548

Iow a Davenport 2,671 -2% (51) 2,620

Iow a Waterloo 2,671 -8% (210) 2,461

Kansas Wichita 2,671 -10% (271) 2,400

Kentucky Louisville 2,671 -10% (272) 2,399

Louisiana New Orleans 2,671 -16% (439) 2,232

Maine Portland 2,671 -7% (180) 2,491

Maryland Baltimore 2,671 -6% (148) 2,523

Massachusetts Boston 2,671 16% 419 3,090

Michigan Detroit 2,671 2% 66 2,737

Michigan Grand Rapids 2,671 -5% (129) 2,542

Minnesota Saint Paul 2,671 7% 187 2,858

Mississippi Jackson 2,671 -9% (253) 2,418
A-26

State City

Base Project 

Cost ($/kW)

Location 

Variation

Delta Cost 

Difference 

($/kW)

Total Location 

Project Cost 

($/kW)

Missouri St. Louis 2,671 1% 24 2,695

Missouri Kansas City 2,671 -1% (35) 2,636

Montana Great Falls 2,671 -5% (127) 2,544

Nebraska Omaha 2,671 -6% (164) 2,507

New Hampshire Concord 2,671 3% 80 2,751

New Jersey New ark 2,671 14% 383 3,054

New Mexico Albuquerque 2,671 -3% (74) 2,597

New York New York 2,671 42% 1,128 3,799

New York Syracuse 2,671 -2% (61) 2,610

Nevada Las Vegas 2,671 2% 56 2,727

North Carolina Charlotte 2,671 -16% (436) 2,235

North Dakota Bismarck 2,671 -8% (220) 2,451

Ohio Cincinnati 2,671 -10% (265) 2,406

Oregon Portland 2,671 -1% (28) 2,643

Pennsylvania Philadelphia 2,671 9% 248 2,919

Pennsylvania Wilkes-Barre 2,671 -7% (179) 2,492

Rhode Island Providence 2,671 5% 134 2,805

South Carolina Spartanburg 2,671 -19% (504) 2,167

South Dakota Rapid City 2,671 -11% (303) 2,368

Tennessee Knoxville 2,671 -14% (379) 2,292

Texas Houston 2,671 -15% (405) 2,266

Utah Salt Lake City 2,671 -9% (230) 2,441

Vermont Burlington 2,671 -5% (140) 2,531

Virginia Alexandria 2,671 -3% (85) 2,586

Virginia Lynchburg 2,671 -10% (270) 2,401

Washington Seattle 2,671 2% 63 2,734

Washington Spokane 2,671 -5% (139) 2,532

West Virginia Charleston 2,671 0% (1) 2,670

Wisconsin Green Bay 2,671 -5% (125) 2,546

Wyoming Cheyenne 2,671 -8% (209) 2,462

Puerto Rico Cayey 2,671 -3% (68) 2,603
A-27

TABLE 15-5 – LOCATION-BASED COSTS FOR PV TRACKER FACILITY 

(20,000 KW)

(JANUARY 1, 2016 DOLLARS)

State City

Base Project 

Cost ($/kW)

Location 

Variation

Delta Cost 

Difference 

($/kW)

Total Location 

Project Cost 

($/kW)

Alaska Anchorage 2,644 23% 599 3,243

Alaska Fairbanks 2,644 44% 1,161 3,805

Alabama Huntsville 2,644 -14% (378) 2,266

Arizona Phoenix 2,644 -11% (284) 2,360

Arkansas Little Rock 2,644 -10% (268) 2,376

California Los Angeles 2,644 9% 247 2,891

California Redding 2,644 10% 276 2,920

California Bakersfield 2,644 8% 224 2,868

California Sacramento 2,644 11% 284 2,928

California San Francisco 2,644 21% 560 3,204

Colorado Denver 2,644 -7% (191) 2,453

Connecticut Hartford 2,644 10% 267 2,911

Delaw are Dover 2,644 6% 155 2,799

District of Columbia Washington 2,644 6% 161 2,805

Florida Tallahassee 2,644 -11% (288) 2,356

Florida Tampa 2,644 -8% (224) 2,420

Georgia Atlanta 2,644 -14% (377) 2,267

Haw aii Honolulu 2,644 63% 1,657 4,301

Idaho Boise 2,644 -7% (183) 2,461

Illinois Chicago 2,644 21% 544 3,188

Indiana Indianapolis 2,644 -5% (127) 2,517

Iow a Davenport 2,644 -2% (53) 2,591

Iow a Waterloo 2,644 -8% (216) 2,428

Kansas Wichita 2,644 -11% (279) 2,365

Kentucky Louisville 2,644 -11% (280) 2,364

Louisiana New Orleans 2,644 -17% (452) 2,192

Maine Portland 2,644 -7% (190) 2,454

Maryland Baltimore 2,644 -6% (155) 2,489

Massachusetts Boston 2,644 16% 429 3,073

Michigan Detroit 2,644 3% 67 2,711

Michigan Grand Rapids 2,644 -5% (132) 2,512

Minnesota Saint Paul 2,644 7% 191 2,835

Mississippi Jackson 2,644 -10% (260) 2,384
A-28

State City

Base Project 

Cost ($/kW)

Location 

Variation

Delta Cost 

Difference 

($/kW)

Total Location 

Project Cost 

($/kW)

Missouri St. Louis 2,644 1% 24 2,668

Missouri Kansas City 2,644 -1% (36) 2,608

Montana Great Falls 2,644 -5% (132) 2,512

Nebraska Omaha 2,644 -6% (169) 2,475

New Hampshire Concord 2,644 3% 79 2,723

New Jersey New ark 2,644 15% 394 3,038

New Mexico Albuquerque 2,644 -3% (80) 2,564

New York New York 2,644 44% 1,153 3,797

New York Syracuse 2,644 -2% (64) 2,580

Nevada Las Vegas 2,644 2% 58 2,702

North Carolina Charlotte 2,644 -17% (449) 2,195

North Dakota Bismarck 2,644 -9% (227) 2,417

Ohio Cincinnati 2,644 -10% (273) 2,371

Oregon Portland 2,644 4% 102 2,746

Pennsylvania Philadelphia 2,644 10% 255 2,899

Pennsylvania Wilkes-Barre 2,644 -7% (184) 2,460

Rhode Island Providence 2,644 5% 138 2,782

South Carolina Spartanburg 2,644 -20% (518) 2,126

South Dakota Rapid City 2,644 -12% (313) 2,331

Tennessee Knoxville 2,644 -15% (390) 2,254

Texas Houston 2,644 -16% (417) 2,227

Utah Salt Lake City 2,644 -4% (107) 2,537

Vermont Burlington 2,644 -1% (14) 2,630

Virginia Alexandria 2,644 -3% (87) 2,557

Virginia Lynchburg 2,644 -11% (278) 2,366

Washington Seattle 2,644 2% 64 2,708

Washington Spokane 2,644 -5% (143) 2,501

West Virginia Charleston 2,644 0% (2) 2,642

Wisconsin Green Bay 2,644 -5% (129) 2,515

Wyoming Cheyenne 2,644 -8% (217) 2,427

Puerto Rico Cayey 2,644 -3% (76) 2,568
A-29

TABLE 15-6 – LOCATION-BASED COSTS FOR PV TRACKER FACILITY 

(150,000 KW)

(JANUARY 1, 2016 DOLLARS)

State City

Base Project 

Cost ($/kW)

Location 

Variation

Delta Cost 

Difference 

($/kW)

Total Location 

Project Cost 

($/kW)

Alaska Anchorage 2,534 22% 569 3,103

Alaska Fairbanks 2,534 44% 1,124 3,658

Alabama Huntsville 2,534 -13% (319) 2,215

Arizona Phoenix 2,534 -9% (239) 2,295

Arkansas Little Rock 2,534 -9% (226) 2,308

California Los Angeles 2,534 9% 232 2,766

California Redding 2,534 10% 253 2,787

California Bakersfield 2,534 8% 209 2,743

California Sacramento 2,534 10% 260 2,794

California San Francisco 2,534 20% 500 3,034

Colorado Denver 2,534 -8% (206) 2,328

Connecticut Hartford 2,534 9% 238 2,772

Delaw are Dover 2,534 6% 143 2,677

District of Columbia Washington 2,534 7% 167 2,701

Florida Tallahassee 2,534 -10% (242) 2,292

Florida Tampa 2,534 -7% (188) 2,346

Georgia Atlanta 2,534 -13% (317) 2,217

Haw aii Honolulu 2,534 64% 1,631 4,165

Idaho Boise 2,534 -4% (89) 2,445

Illinois Chicago 2,534 16% 417 2,951

Indiana Indianapolis 2,534 -4% (104) 2,430

Iow a Davenport 2,534 1% 21 2,555

Iow a Waterloo 2,534 -5% (117) 2,417

Kansas Wichita 2,534 -7% (170) 2,364

Kentucky Louisville 2,534 -9% (236) 2,298

Louisiana New Orleans 2,534 -15% (380) 2,154

Maine Portland 2,534 -8% (201) 2,333

Maryland Baltimore 2,534 -5% (117) 2,417

Massachusetts Boston 2,534 15% 375 2,909

Michigan Detroit 2,534 2% 57 2,591

Michigan Grand Rapids 2,534 -4% (112) 2,422

Minnesota Saint Paul 2,534 9% 229 2,763

Mississippi Jackson 2,534 -9% (219) 2,315
A-30

State City

Base Project 

Cost ($/kW)

Location 

Variation

Delta Cost 

Difference 

($/kW)

Total Location 

Project Cost 

($/kW)

Missouri St. Louis 2,534 1% 20 2,554

Missouri Kansas City 2,534 -1% (30) 2,504

Montana Great Falls 2,534 -1% (37) 2,497

Nebraska Omaha 2,534 -3% (77) 2,457

New Hampshire Concord 2,534 1% 22 2,556

New Jersey New ark 2,534 13% 332 2,866

New Mexico Albuquerque 2,534 -4% (109) 2,425

New York New York 2,534 40% 1,012 3,546

New York Syracuse 2,534 -2% (48) 2,486

Nevada Las Vegas 2,534 4% 114 2,648

North Carolina Charlotte 2,534 -15% (378) 2,156

North Dakota Bismarck 2,534 -5% (123) 2,411

Ohio Cincinnati 2,534 -9% (229) 2,305

Oregon Portland 2,534 2% 41 2,575

Pennsylvania Philadelphia 2,534 8% 215 2,749

Pennsylvania Wilkes-Barre 2,534 -6% (155) 2,379

Rhode Island Providence 2,534 5% 116 2,650

South Carolina Spartanburg 2,534 -17% (436) 2,098

South Dakota Rapid City 2,534 -8% (195) 2,339

Tennessee Knoxville 2,534 -13% (329) 2,205

Texas Houston 2,534 -14% (351) 2,183

Utah Salt Lake City 2,534 -5% (135) 2,399

Vermont Burlington 2,534 -2% (56) 2,478

Virginia Alexandria 2,534 -3% (73) 2,461

Virginia Lynchburg 2,534 -9% (234) 2,300

Washington Seattle 2,534 2% 54 2,588

Washington Spokane 2,534 -2% (56) 2,478

West Virginia Charleston 2,534 0% 1 2,535

Wisconsin Green Bay 2,534 -4% (106) 2,428

Wyoming Cheyenne 2,534 -4% (109) 2,425

Puerto Rico Cayey 2,534 -1% (33) 2,501
A-31

TABLE 16-2 – LOCATION-BASED COSTS FOR RICE FACILITY (85,000 KW)

(JANUARY 1, 2016 DOLLARS)

State City

Base Project 

Cost ($/kW)

Location 

Variation

Delta Cost 

Difference 

($/kW)

Total Location 

Project Cost 

($/kW)

Alaska Anchorage 1,342 23% 308 1,650

Alaska Fairbanks 1,342 27% 361 1,703

Alabama Huntsville 1,342 -10% (136) 1,206

Arizona Phoenix 1,342 -8% (101) 1,241

Arkansas Little Rock 1,342 -7% (96) 1,246

California Los Angeles 1,342 14% 185 1,527

California Redding 1,342 5% 73 1,415

California Bakersfield 1,342 6% 82 1,424

California Sacramento 1,342 8% 102 1,444

California San Francisco 1,342 27% 356 1,698

Colorado Denver 1,342 -4% (60) 1,282

Connecticut Hartford 1,342 15% 199 1,541

Delaw are Dover 1,342 13% 173 1,515

District of Columbia Washington 1,342 18% 241 1,583

Florida Tallahassee 1,342 -8% (112) 1,230

Florida Tampa 1,342 -7% (92) 1,250

Georgia Atlanta 1,342 -8% (110) 1,232

Haw aii Honolulu 1,342 37% 498 1,840

Idaho Boise 1,342 -4% (49) 1,293

Illinois Chicago 1,342 11% 147 1,489

Indiana Indianapolis 1,342 -2% (23) 1,319

Iow a Davenport 1,342 0% 3 1,345

Iow a Waterloo 1,342 -4% (50) 1,292

Kansas Wichita 1,342 -5% (65) 1,277

Kentucky Louisville 1,342 -6% (85) 1,257

Louisiana New Orleans 1,342 -7% (100) 1,242

Maine Portland 1,342 -6% (80) 1,262

Maryland Baltimore 1,342 5% 71 1,413

Massachusetts Boston 1,342 22% 291 1,633

Michigan Detroit 1,342 3% 46 1,388

Michigan Grand Rapids 1,342 -2% (23) 1,319

Minnesota Saint Paul 1,342 6% 75 1,417

Mississippi Jackson 1,342 -7% (98) 1,244
A-32

State City

Base Project 

Cost ($/kW)

Location 

Variation

Delta Cost 

Difference 

($/kW)

Total Location 

Project Cost 

($/kW)

Missouri St. Louis 1,342 3% 34 1,376

Missouri Kansas City 1,342 0% (1) 1,341

Montana Great Falls 1,342 1% 7 1,349

Nebraska Omaha 1,342 -2% (30) 1,312

New Hampshire Concord 1,342 0% (6) 1,336

New Jersey New ark 1,342 16% 211 1,553

New Mexico Albuquerque 1,342 -4% (49) 1,293

New York New York 1,342 44% 585 1,927

New York Syracuse 1,342 4% 56 1,398

Nevada Las Vegas 1,342 2% 29 1,371

North Carolina Charlotte 1,342 -10% (135) 1,207

North Dakota Bismarck 1,342 -4% (60) 1,282

Ohio Cincinnati 1,342 -5% (63) 1,279

Oregon Portland 1,342 1% 17 1,359

Pennsylvania Philadelphia 1,342 11% 151 1,493

Pennsylvania Wilkes-Barre 1,342 -2% (30) 1,312

Rhode Island Providence 1,342 11% 146 1,488

South Carolina Spartanburg 1,342 -13% (176) 1,166

South Dakota Rapid City 1,342 -7% (88) 1,254

Tennessee Knoxville 1,342 -9% (121) 1,221

Texas Houston 1,342 -10% (135) 1,207

Utah Salt Lake City 1,342 -4% (50) 1,292

Vermont Burlington 1,342 1% 16 1,358

Virginia Alexandria 1,342 5% 68 1,410

Virginia Lynchburg 1,342 -6% (85) 1,257

Washington Seattle 1,342 4% 47 1,389

Washington Spokane 1,342 -3% (36) 1,306

West Virginia Charleston 1,342 1% 18 1,360

Wisconsin Green Bay 1,342 -2% (28) 1,314

Wyoming Cheyenne 1,342 -2% (25) 1,317

Puerto Rico Cayey 1,342 -1% (16) 1,326
A-33

TABLE 17-2 – LOCATION-BASED COSTS FOR BES FACILITY (4,000 KW)

(JANUARY 1, 2016 DOLLARS)

12

State City

Base Project 

Cost ($/kW)

Location 

Variation

Delta Cost 

Difference 

($/kW)

Total Location 

Project Cost 

($/kW)

Alaska Anchorage 2,813 19% 525 3,338

Alaska Fairbanks 2,813 32% 903 3,716

Alabama Huntsville 2,813 -4% (122) 2,691

Arizona Phoenix 2,813 -3% (85) 2,728

Arkansas Little Rock 2,813 -3% (79) 2,734

California Los Angeles 2,813 8% 212 3,025

California Redding 2,813 3% 75 2,888

California Bakersfield 2,813 3% 83 2,896

California Sacramento 2,813 3% 78 2,891

California San Francisco 2,813 11% 309 3,122

Colorado Denver 2,813 -4% (102) 2,711

Connecticut Hartford 2,813 6% 156 2,969

Delaw are Dover 2,813 4% 109 2,922

District of Columbia Washington 2,813 7% 189 3,002

Florida Tallahassee 2,813 -3% (96) 2,717

Florida Tampa 2,813 -3% (75) 2,738

Georgia Atlanta 2,813 -4% (121) 2,692

Haw aii Honolulu 2,813 32% 910 3,723

Idaho Boise 2,813 -2% (51) 2,762

Illinois Chicago 2,813 5% 152 2,965

Indiana Indianapolis 2,813 -1% (24) 2,789

Iow a Davenport 2,813 -1% (18) 2,795

Iow a Waterloo 2,813 -3% (72) 2,741

Kansas Wichita 2,813 -3% (88) 2,725

Kentucky Louisville 2,813 -3% (89) 2,724

Louisiana New Orleans 2,813 -5% (151) 2,662

Maine Portland 2,813 -3% (84) 2,729

Maryland Baltimore 2,813 0% 9 2,822

Massachusetts Boston 2,813 7% 210 3,023

Michigan Detroit 2,813 1% 28 2,841

Michigan Grand Rapids 2,813 -2% (44) 2,769

Minnesota Saint Paul 2,813 3% 77 2,890

Mississippi Jackson 2,813 -3% (82) 2,731
A-34

State City

Base Project 

Cost ($/kW)

Location 

Variation

Delta Cost 

Difference 

($/kW)

Total Location 

Project Cost 

($/kW)

Missouri St. Louis 2,813 1% 34 2,847

Missouri Kansas City 2,813 0% (2) 2,811

Montana Great Falls 2,813 0% 5 2,818

Nebraska Omaha 2,813 -2% (51) 2,762

New Hampshire Concord 2,813 0% (7) 2,806

New Jersey New ark 2,813 5% 137 2,950

New Mexico Albuquerque 2,813 -3% (72) 2,741

New York New York 2,813 25% 700 3,513

New York Syracuse 2,813 -1% (29) 2,784

Nevada Las Vegas 2,813 1% 30 2,843

North Carolina Charlotte 2,813 -5% (140) 2,673

North Dakota Bismarck 2,813 -2% (63) 2,750

Ohio Cincinnati 2,813 -3% (86) 2,727

Oregon Portland 2,813 1% 16 2,829

Pennsylvania Philadelphia 2,813 3% 96 2,909

Pennsylvania Wilkes-Barre 2,813 -2% (51) 2,762

Rhode Island Providence 2,813 2% 57 2,870

South Carolina Spartanburg 2,813 -6% (163) 2,650

South Dakota Rapid City 2,813 -3% (92) 2,721

Tennessee Knoxville 2,813 -4% (126) 2,687

Texas Houston 2,813 -5% (140) 2,673

Utah Salt Lake City 2,813 -2% (53) 2,760

Vermont Burlington 2,813 -1% (38) 2,775

Virginia Alexandria 2,813 -1% (24) 2,789

Virginia Lynchburg 2,813 -3% (88) 2,725

Washington Seattle 2,813 2% 48 2,861

Washington Spokane 2,813 -1% (38) 2,775

West Virginia Charleston 2,813 1% 18 2,831

Wisconsin Green Bay 2,813 -1% (30) 2,783

Wyoming Cheyenne 2,813 -2% (68) 2,745

Puerto Rico Cayey 2,813 5% 130 2,943