Addendum: Capital Cost 

Estimates for Additional Utility 

Scale Electric Generating Plants

April 2017

Independent Statistics & Analysis

www.eia.gov

U.S. Department of Energy

Washington, DC 20585
April 2017

U.S. Energy Information Administration | Addendum: Capital Cost Estimates for Additional Utility Scale Electric Generating Plants i

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 U.S. Department of Energy 

or other federal agencies.
April 2017

U.S. Energy Information Administration | Addendum: Capital Cost Estimates for Additional Utility Scale Electric Generating Plants ii

Contents

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

Findings....................................................................................................................................................1

Summary..................................................................................................................................................3

Table 1. Updated estimates of power plant capital and operating costs................................................4

Appendix C – Full Report...............................................................................................................................5
April 2017

U.S. Energy Information Administration | Addendum: Capital Cost Estimates for Additional Utility Scale Electric Generating Plants 1

Introduction

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

capacity are a critical input 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 will serve future demand for electricity. 

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

response of the electric generators to the imposition of environmental controls on conventional 

pollutants or any limitations on greenhouse gas emissions.

Building on the cost and performance estimates that were developed for utility-scale electric generating 

plants in support of its Annual Energy Outlook 2016 (AEO2016), EIA commissioned the same consultant 

to develop estimates for five additional generating technology types, including:

 Ultra-supercritical coal with 90% carbon capture and storage;

 Integrated gasification combined cycle; 

 Advanced nuclear greenfield site;

 Onshore wind with Class I wind turbine generators (WTG); and

 Battery storage.

This addendum to the original report used a methodology consistent with the 2016 study and applied it 

to those five generating technologies. 

This paper summarizes the results of the findings of the addendum to the original report and discusses 

how EIA used the updated information for the Annual Energy Outlook 2017 (AEO2017) to analyze the 

development of new generating capacity for the electric power sector.

Findings

Table 1 summarizes updated cost estimates for generic utility-scale generating plants, including two 

powered by coal and one each by wind, 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 configurations in future analyses. 

The specific technologies represented in the NEMS model for AEO2017 that use the cost data from this 

report are identified in the last column of Table 1.

Additional technologies covered in the report addendum include:

 Ultra-supercritical coal with 90% carbon capture and storage (USC/CCS90): As a result of the new 

source performance standards (NSPS) specified under Section 111(b) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), EIA 

assumed that new coal plants cannot be built without CCS for AEO2017. A new highly-efficient USC 
April 2017

U.S. Energy Information Administration | Addendum: Capital Cost Estimates for Additional Utility Scale Electric Generating Plants 2

coal plant can currently achieve an emission rate of 1,700 lbs CO2/MWH, so with 30% carbon 

sequestration it is assumed to be compliant with the NSPS regulation (at 1,400 lbs CO2/MWH.) The 

plant configuration for the USC with 90% CCS Facility is similar to the 30% USC with CCS technology 

in the November 2016 Capital Cost Estimates for Utility Scale Electricity Generating Plants report,

with two exceptions: (1) an amine scrubbing system to capture CO2 from the flue gas, and (2) the 

scaling of the boiler to a larger size, approximately 130% the size of the boiler in the USC Facility. 

The assumed carbon capture was set at 90%, and is available in the model for scenario analyses that 

may require higher levels of carbon reduction. 

 Integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC): The IGCC Facility is a nominal 618 MW net coal-fired 

gasification-to-power facility. The power block for the IGCC Facility case is based on a two-on-one 

combined-cycle configuration using F-class combustion turbines (CTs), each with a nominal output 

of 232 MW. The combined cycle is similar to the conventional combined cycle unit in the November 

2016 Capital Cost Estimates for Utility Scale Electricity Generating Plants report, except the CTs are 

designed to combust natural gas and/or syngas, and the combustors are not configured for dry lowNOX combustion. The IGCC as represented here is not among the generating technologies modeled 

by EIA in AEO2017, and while it does not include any control devices for CO2, it contains a system for 

acid gas removal, so its configuration could be modified to capture CO2 at a later time.

 Advanced nuclear greenfield site (ANGF): the ANGF facility consists of two nominally rated 

1,117 MW Westinghouse AP1000 nuclear power units built at a greenfield site; that is, a site with no 

existing nuclear generators already installed. The Facility configuration for the ANGF is the same as 

in the November 2016 Capital Cost Estimates for Utility Scale Electricity Generating Plants report, 

with the exception that the Facility is to be built at a greenfield site instead of a brownfield site (a 

site that already has operating nuclear units in place).

 Onshore wind with Class I WTG (WNC1): the WNC1 Facility is based on 34 WTGs, each with a rated 

capacity of 3 MW a hub height of 80 meters, and a rotor diameter of 95 meters. The total design 

capacity is 100 MW. The Facility configuration for the WNC1 Facility is the same as in the November 

2016 Capital Cost Estimates for Utility Scale Electricity Generating Plants report, with the exception 

that the WNC1 Facility is to be built using International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) Class I 

wind turbine generators, instead of the IEC Class II/III wind turbine generators used that report. IEC 

Class 1 turbines are designed to withstand higher average and extreme wind speeds, and different 

turbine ratings may be used to access different resources areas.

 Battery storage (BES-2): the BES-2 Facility is rated at 50.0 MW and 400 MWh. The Facility 

configuration for the BES-2 is the same as in the November 2016 Capital Cost Estimates for Utility 

Scale Electricity Generating Plants report , with the exception that the duration of discharge is rated 

for eight hours of operation instead of two hours. Energy storage devices may have somewhat 

different market applications, depending on their discharge duration capability.
April 2017

U.S. Energy Information Administration | Addendum: Capital Cost Estimates for Additional Utility Scale Electric Generating Plants 3

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.

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 AEO2017 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 control requirements, and future electricity demand.

Users interested in further details regarding these additional cost estimates should review the 

consultant study prepared by Leidos Engineering, LLC in Appendix C.
April 2017

U.S. Energy Information Administration | Addendum: Capital Cost Estimates for Additional Utility Scale Electric Generating Plants 4

Table 1. Updated estimates of power plant capital and operating costs1

Plant Characteristics Plant Costs (2016$)

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 with 90% CCS 

(USC/CCS90)2 650 11,650 5,569 80.53 9.51 Y

Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) 618 8,600 4,908 65.4 5 N

Uranium

Advanced Nuclear Greenfield Site (ANGF) 2,234 N/A 6,384 100.28 2.3 N

Wind

Onshore Wind with Class I WTG (WNCI) 100 N/A 1,867 38 0 NY

Storage

Battery Storage (BES-2) 50 N/A 3,122 40 8 N

[1] Leidos Engineering, LLC: “Review of Powerplant Performance and Cost Assumptions for NEMS: Technology Documentation ReportAddendum” January, 2017 (see attachment Appendix C).
April 2017

U.S. Energy Information Administration | Addendum: Capital Cost Estimates for Additional Utility Scale Electric Generating Plants 5

Appendix C – Full Report
April 2017

U.S. Energy Information Administration | Addendum: Capital Cost Estimates for Additional Utility Scale Electric Generating Plants 5

Appendix C – 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

ADDENDUM

Prepared by: 

LEIDOS ENGINEERING, LLC

Prepared For:

Energy Information Administration

Office of Electricity, Coal, Nuclear, and Renewables Analysis

Chris Namovicz

Jim Diefenderfer

January 2017
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

1.1 Technologies Assessed.......................................................................................... 1-1

2. GENERAL BASIS FOR TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION BASIS...................... 2-1

2.1 Leidos Engineering, LLC Background ................................................................. 2-1

2.2 Base Fuel Characteristics ...................................................................................... 2-1

3. ULTRA SUPERCRITICAL COAL WITH 90 PERCENT CCS 

(USC/CCS90)............................................................................................................... 3-1

3.1 Mechanical Equipment and Systems..................................................................... 3-1

3.2 Electrical and Control Systems ............................................................................. 3-2

3.3 Off-Site Requirements........................................................................................... 3-2

3.4 Capital Cost Estimate ............................................................................................ 3-2

3.5 O&M Estimate ...................................................................................................... 3-3

3.6 Environmental Compliance Information............................................................... 3-4

4. INTEGRATED GASIFICATION COMBINED CYCLE (IGCC) ........................ 4-1

4.1 Mechanical Equipment and Systems..................................................................... 4-1

4.2 Electrical and Control Systems ............................................................................. 4-3

4.3 Off-Site Requirements........................................................................................... 4-3

4.4 Capital Cost Estimate ............................................................................................ 4-4

4.5 O&M Estimate ...................................................................................................... 4-5

4.6 Environmental Compliance Information............................................................... 4-6

5. ADVANCED NUCLEAR GREENFIELD SITE (ANGF) ...................................... 5-1

5.1 Mechanical Equipment and Systems..................................................................... 5-1

5.2 Electrical and Control Systems ............................................................................. 5-1

5.3 Off-Site Requirements........................................................................................... 5-1

5.4 Capital Cost Estimate ............................................................................................ 5-1

5.5 O&M Estimate ...................................................................................................... 5-3

5.6 Environmental Compliance Information............................................................... 5-3

6. ONSHORE WIND WITH CLASS I WTG (WNCI)................................................ 6-1

6.1 Mechanical Equipment and Systems..................................................................... 6-1
ii

6.2 Electrical and Control Systems ............................................................................. 6-1

6.3 Off-Site Requirements........................................................................................... 6-1

6.4 Capital Cost Estimate ............................................................................................ 6-2

6.5 O&M Estimate ...................................................................................................... 6-2

6.6 Environmental Compliance Information............................................................... 6-3

7. BATTERY STORAGE 50 MW (BES-2) .................................................................. 7-1

7.1 Mechanical Equipment and Systems..................................................................... 7-1

7.2 Electrical and Control Systems ............................................................................. 7-1

7.3 Off-Site Requirements........................................................................................... 7-1

7.4 Capital Cost Estimate ............................................................................................ 7-1

7.5 O&M Estimate ...................................................................................................... 7-2

7.6 Environmental Compliance Information............................................................... 7-3
iii

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE 3-1 – USC FACILITY DIAGRAM.......................................................................... 3-1

FIGURE 3-2 – USC/CCS FACILITY DIAGRAM................................................................. 3-2

FIGURE 4-1 – IGCC DESIGN CONFIGURATION............................................................. 4-3

FIGURE 5-1 – AN DESIGN CONFIGURATION.................................................................. 5-1

FIGURE 6-1 – WNCI DESIGN CONFIGURATION............................................................ 6-1

FIGURE 7-1 – BES-2 DESIGN CONFIGURATION ............................................................ 7-1
iv

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE 1-1 – LIST OF TECHNOLOGIES FOR REVIEW................................................. 1-2

TABLE 2-1 – TECHNOLOGY PERFORMANCE SPECIFICATIONS............................. 2-2

TABLE 3-1 – BASE PLANT SITE CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE FOR USC/CCS90...... 3-3

TABLE 3-3 – O&M EXPENSES FOR USC/CCS90 (650,000 KW NET) ............................ 3-4

TABLE 3-4 – ENVIRONMENTAL EMISSIONS FOR USC/CCS90 .................................. 3-4

TABLE 4-1 – BASE PLANT SITE CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE FOR IGCC................. 4-4

TABLE 4-3 – O&M EXPENSES FOR IGCC (618,000 KW)................................................ 4-5

TABLE 4-4 – ENVIRONMENTAL EMISSIONS FOR IGCC ............................................. 4-6

TABLE 5-1 – BASE PLANT SITE CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE FOR ANGF................ 5-2

TABLE 5-3 – O&M EXPENSES FOR ANGF........................................................................ 5-3

TABLE 5-4 – ENVIRONMENTAL EMISSIONS FOR ANGF ............................................ 5-3

TABLE 6-1 – WTG COMPARISION BETWEEN CLASS II/III AND CLASS I .............. 6-1

TABLE 6-2 – LOCATION-BASED COSTS FOR WNCI ..................................................... 6-2

TABLE 6-3 – O&M EXPENSES FOR WNCI........................................................................ 6-3

TABLE 6-4 – ENVIRONMENTAL EMISSIONS FOR WNCI............................................ 6-3

TABLE 7-1 – LOCATION-BASED COSTS FOR BES-2...................................................... 7-2

TABLE 7-3 – O&M EXPENSES FOR BES-2 ........................................................................ 7-3

TABLE 7-4 – ENVIRONMENTAL EMISSIONS FOR BES-2............................................. 7-3

TABLE 3-2 – LOCATION-BASED COSTS FOR USC/CCS90 (650,000 KW).................. A-1

TABLE 4-2 – LOCATION-BASED COSTS FOR IGCC FACILITY (618,000 KW)........ A-3

TABLE 5-2 – LOCATION-BASED COSTS FOR ANGF FACILITY (2,234,000 KW).... A-5

TABLE 6-2 – LOCATION-BASED COSTS FOR WNCI FACILITY (100,000 KW)....... A-7

TABLE 7-2 – LOCATION-BASED COSTS FOR BES-2 FACILITY (50,000 KW) ......... A-9
v

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

(Below is a list of Acronyms and Abbreviations used in addition to the Submitted EIA April 2016 Report.)

ANGF Advanced Nuclear Greenfield Site

BES-2 Battery Storage at 50 MW

IGCC Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle

USC/CCS90 Ultra Supercritical Coal with CCS at 90 Percent

WNC1 Onshore Wind with Class I turbines
vi

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
1-1

1. INTRODUCTION

This Addendum to the report, “EOP III Task 10688, Subtask 4 and Task 10687 Subtask 

2.3.1-Review of Power Plant Cost and Performance Assumptions for NEMS,” submitted 

April 2016 (the “Submitted EIA April Report”), presents Leidos’ performance and cost assessment 

of five additional power generation technologies utilized by the EIA in the EMM of the 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 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. 

 Documentation of the source and basis for final recommendations for altering or retaining 

the various assumptions.

1.1 TECHNOLOGIES ASSESSED

Table 1-1 lists all technologies to be assessed in this project.
1-2

TABLE 1-1 – LIST OF TECHNOLOGIES FOR REVIEW

TECHNOLOGY DESCRIPTION COMMENTS

Coal with 90% CO2 removal 650,000 kW Ultra Supercritical 

with 90 percent Carbon Capture 

and Sequestration 

IGCC 618,000 kW Integrated 

Gasification Combined Cycle Plant

Nuclear Greenfield 2,234,000 kW Nuclear plant built 

at a Greenfield location

Wind 100,000 kW Onshore Wind Energy 

Plant with Class I Wind Turbines

Battery 50,000 kW Battery Storage Plant 

with 8 hour battery duration
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 provided 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; these fuels are outlined in Section 2 of the

submitted EIA April 2016 Report. Table 2-1 provides the technology performance for each 

technology.
2-2

TABLE 2-1 – 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 with 

CCS (USC/CCS) Coal 650,000 11,650 5,569 80.53 9.51 0.02 (7) 0.06 20.6 (8)

IGCC Syngas 618,000 8,600 4,908 65.40 5.00 0.0095

(9) 0.013 (10) 206

Advanced Nuclear (AN) Uranium 2,234,000 N/A 6,384 100.28 2.30 0 0 0

Onshore Wind (WN) Wind 100,000 N/A 1,867 39.70 0 0 0 0

Battery Storage (BES) Lithium Ion 50,000 N/A 3,122 40.00 8.00 N/A N/A N/A

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

(2) Heat Rate is on a net 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) Assuming 3 percent sulfur coal at 12,000 British thermal units per pound (“Btu/lb”) and a 99.5 percent sulfur removal rate. 

(8) Assuming 90 percent capture.

(9) Assuming 3.9 percent sulfur coal at 11,000 British thermal units per pound (“Btu/lb”) and a 99.5 percent sulfur removal rate.

(10) Assuming 2.5 parts per million volume dry (“ppmvd”) corrected to 15 percent O2 f or F-Class engine.
3-1

3. ULTRA SUPERCRITICAL COAL WITH 90 PERCENT CCS (USC/CCS90)

3.1 MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT AND SYSTEMS

The plant configuration for the USC with 90 Percent CCS Facility (“USC/CCS90”), is the same 

as Section 3 of the Submitted EIA April Report, with two exceptions: (1) an amine scrubbing 

system, utilizing 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 90 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/CCS90 Facility case is 650 MW, and 

since based on Leidos’ calculations the CCS system requires about 30 percent of the given

facility’s gross capacity in auxiliary load, the USC/CCS90 Facility assumes that the boiler is 

increased by approximately 30 percent (i.e., it is approximately 130 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 931 MW 

gross output to obtain the 650 MW net output. Figure 3-1 presents a diagram of the USC and 

Figure 3-2 presents a diagram of the USC/CCS90 Facility.

FIGURE 3-1 – USC FACILITY DIAGRAM
3-2

FIGURE 3-2 – USC/CCS FACILITY DIAGRAM

3.2 ELECTRICAL AND CONTROL SYSTEMS

The electrical and control systems for the USC/CCS90 Facility are materially similar to the USC

Facility in the Submitted EIA April Report.

3.3 OFF-SITE REQUIREMENTS

The off-site requirements for the USC/CCS90 Facility are materially similar to the USC Facility

in the Submitted EIA April Report, except that the CO2 needs sequestering in one of the following 

geologic formations: (1) exhausted gas storage location, (2) unmineable 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.

3.4 CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE

The base Cost Estimate for the USC/CCS90 Facility with a nominal capacity of 650 MW is 

$5,569/kW. The capital cost estimate was based on the USC Facility (without CCS) in the 

Submitted EIA April Report and the base Cost Estimate was increased to include the expected 

costs of CCS at 90 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 3-1 summarizes the Cost Estimate categories 

for the USC/CCS Facility.
3-3

TABLE 3-1 – BASE PLANT SITE CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE FOR USC/CCS90

TECHNOLOGY: USC/CCS90

Nominal Capacity (ISO): 650,000 kW Net Output

Nominal Heat Rate (ISO): 11,650 Btu/kWh-HHV Net

Capital Cost Category (000s) (August 19, 2016$)

Civil Structural Material and Installation 328,347

Mechanical Equipment Supply and Installation 1,548,824

Electrical / I&C Supply and Installation 235,801

Project Indirects(1) 601,931

EPC Cost before Contingency and Fee 2,714,903

Fee and Contingency 301,389

Total Project EPC (2) 3,016,292

Owner Costs (excluding project finance) (2) 603,258

Total Project Cost (excluding finance) 3,619,550

Total Project EPC / kW 4,640

Owner Costs 20% (excluding project finance) / kW 928

Total Project Cost (excluding project finance) / kW 5,569

____________________

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

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

demarcation point. 

The locational adjustments for the USC/CCS90 Facility are similar to those made for the USC

Facility in the Submitted EIA April Report.

Table 3-2 in the Appendix shows the USC/CCS90 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.

3.5 O&M ESTIMATE

The O&M items for the USC/CCS90 Facility are the same as those discussed in Section 3.5 of the 

Submitted EIA April Report 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 
3-4

maintain the additional equipment. Table 3-3 presents the FOM and VOM expenses for the 

USC/CCS Facility.

TABLE 3-3 – O&M EXPENSES FOR USC/CCS90 (650,000 KW NET)

TECHNOLOGY: USC/CCS90

Fixed O&M Expense $80.53/kW-year

Variable O&M Expense $9.51/MWh

3.6 ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE INFORMATION

In addition to the equipment utilized for environmental compliance in the Submitted EIA April 

Report for the USC Facility, the USC/CCS90 Facility includes an amine scrubber that is intended 

to remove 90 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 3-4 presents the environmental emissions for the USC/CCS90 Facility.

TABLE 3-4 – ENVIRONMENTAL EMISSIONS FOR USC/CCS90

TECHNOLOGY: USC/CCS90

NOX 0.06 lb/MMBtu

SO2 0.02 lb/MMBtu

CO2 20.6 lb/MMBtu
4-1

4. INTEGRATED GASIFICATION COMBINED CYCLE (IGCC)

4.1 MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT AND SYSTEMS

The following describes the IGCC Facility, which is a nominal 618 MW net coal-fired 

gasification-to-power facility. The feed for the gasification system is a slurry of water and ground 

coal and/or petroleum coke. The raw feedstock is ground in rod mills along with recycled water 

and slag fines to form the slurry. A fluxing agent is also added, if necessary, depending on the 

properties of the feedstock, to facilitate slagging at appropriate temperatures in the gasifier.

ASU provide a 95 percent pure O2 stream for gasification, and nitrogen for use as a diluent in the 

CTs, and for purging the gasifiers.

The IGCC Facility is based on two trains of the gasifier, which is a two-stage, refractory lined 

vessel that converts the slurry feed into syngas consisting of hydrogen, CO, CO2, methane, 

nitrogen, argon and water along with sulfur compounds in the form of H2S and COS and a small 

amount of NH3. The first stage is the slagging section in which the feedstock is partially combusted 

with O2 at elevated temperature and pressure (2,500 oF and 540 psia). O2 and preheated slurry are 

fed to each of two opposing mixing nozzles at opposite ends of the horizontal section. The 

gasification temperature is maintained above the ash fusion point to allow for slag formation and 

carbon conversion.

The raw syngas from the first stage flows into the vertical second stage where additional feed 

slurry is introduced to take advantage of the sensible heat in the gas. This fuel undergoes 

devolatization and pyrolysis generating additional syngas. The endothermic nature of the reactions 

and the introduction of a quench fluid reduce the temperature of the gas exiting to the gasifier to 

approximately 1,900oF. At these temperatures (2,500oF to 1,900oF), two additional reactions 

occur, which change the character of the syngas as follows: (1) carbon-steam to produce CO; and 

(2) water gas shift (steam and CO) to produce hydrogen and CO2. In addition, the lower reaction 

temperature in the second stage allows the formation of methane. Unreacted char is carried 

overhead and exits the reactor with the syngas. This char is recycled to the first stage of 

gasification.

The mineral matter in the feedstock and any fluxing agent form a molten slag that flows out of the 

horizontal section into water quench bath. The cooled slag exits the bottom of the quench, is 

crushed and exits the unit through a continuous slag removal system as a slurry.

The hot raw syngas is cooled in a vertical fire tube boiler from 1,900oF to 700oF. The hot gas is 

on the tube side with pressurized water on the shell side. This unit generates HP saturated steam. 

The saturated steam is sent to the HRSGs in the power block.

After cooling, the syngas is cleaned of entrained particles in a filter vessel containing numerous 

candlestick-type filter elements. The particles collect on the filter elements producing an 

essentially particulate matter free syngas that proceeds through the system.

Captured particulate matter is cleaned from the filter elements using cleaned syngas (in a

back-pulse mode) and the carbon-rich material is pneumatically conveyed back to the first stage 

of the gasifier for conversion.
4-2

Following particulate matter removal, the syngas is scrubbed with water to remove chlorine and 

trace metals. The scrubbing medium is condensed sour water from the low-temperature heat 

recovery system.

After the chlorine scrubber, the raw syngas is treated in COS hydrolysis units, which convert the 

COS in the syngas to H2S. The syngas is then cooled to approximately 100°F in a series of shell 

and tube heat exchangers in a step known as low-temperature heat recovery. This cooling removes 

most of the water in the syngas. In addition, most of the NH3 and a small portion of CO2 and H2S 

are absorbed in the water. A portion of the condensed water is used in the chlorine scrubber with 

the remainder sent to sour water treatment. The low temperature heat removed prior to AGR is 

used within the process.

After low-temperature heat recovery, the syngas passes through a mercury removal system 

consisting of sulfated activated carbon beds, followed by H2S removal in the AGR units. The 

AGR units use the Selexol solvent in a single absorption stage to remove over 99 percent of the 

sulfur from the syngas. Finally, the treated syngas is moisturized and sent to the power block.

The acid gas streams containing H2S and COS with some CO2 from AGR and sour water treatment 

are fed to the SRU. The SRUs are based on a standard Claus process to convert the acid gas to 

pure molten sulfur; the sulfur is a byproduct that potentially could be sold. The tail gas from the 

SRUs, composed of CO2, nitrogen, and small amounts of sulfur, is catalytically hydrogenated to 

convert all of the sulfur to H2S. This converted tail gas is compressed and recycled to the gasifiers. 

Process water blowdown and water condensed during cooling of the sour syngas contains small 

amounts of dissolved gases (H2S, CO2 and NH3). This water is treated in sour water stripping units 

and either recycled to slurry preparation or further treated in a ZLD system to recover and reuse 

water. Solid waste from the ZLD is landfilled.

The power block for the IGCC Facility case is based on a two-on-one combined-cycle 

configuration using F-class CTs, each with a nominal output of 232 MW. The STG gross output

is 279 MW, and auxiliary power consumption is approximately 125 MW. The combined cycle is 

similar to Section 8 of the Submitted EIA April Report for the NGCC Facility, except the CTs are 

designed to combust natural gas and/or syngas, and the combustors are not DLN. Figure 4-1 

presents the IGCC process flow diagram.
4-3

FIGURE 4-1 – IGCC DESIGN CONFIGURATION

Source: NETL

4.2 ELECTRICAL AND CONTROL SYSTEMS

The IGCC Facility has two CT electric generators and one ST electric generator. The generators 

for the CTs are 60 Hz machines rated at approximately 258 MVA with an output voltage of 18 kV. 

The ST electric generator is a 60 Hz machine rated at approximately 310 MVA with an output 

voltage of 18 kV. Each CT electric generator is connected to a high-voltage bus in the IGCC 

Facility switchyard via a dedicated generator circuit breaker, GSU, and a disconnect switch. The 

ST electric generator is connected directly to its GSU and connected through a disconnect switch 

between two breakers on the high-voltage bus. The GSUs increase the voltage from the electric 

generators from 18 kV to interconnected transmission system high voltage.

The IGCC Facility 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.

4.3 OFF-SITE REQUIREMENTS

Coal is delivered to the IGCC Facility by rail, truck or barge. Water for all processes at the IGCC 

is obtained from one of several available water sources; however, water is typically sourced from 

an adjacent river, when possible. The IGCC 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 an adjacent river or other approved 

wastewater delivery point. Further, the electrical interconnection from the IGCC on-site 

switchyard is effectuated by a connection to an adjacent utility substation.
4-4

4.4 CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE

The base Cost Estimate for the IGCC Facility with a net nominal capacity of 618 MW is 

$4,908 /kW Table 4-1 summarizes the Cost Estimate categories for the IGCC Facility.

TABLE 4-1 – BASE PLANT SITE CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE FOR IGCC

TECHNOLOGY: IGCC

NOMINAL CAPACITY (ISO): 618,000 kW

NOMINAL HEAT RATE (ISO): 8,600 Btu/kWh-HHV

Capital Cost Category (000s) (August 19, 2016$)

Civil Structural Material and Installation 124,918

Mechanical Equipment Supply and Installation 1,433,721

Electrical / I&C Supply and Installation 269,798

Project Indirects(1) 428,356

EPC Cost before Contingency and Fee 2,256,793

Fee and Contingency 270,815

Total Project EPC 2,527,608

Owner Costs (excluding project finance) 505,522

Total Project Cost (excluding finance) 3,033,130

Total Project EPC / kW 4,090

Owner Costs 20% (excluding project finance) / kW 818

Total Project Cost (excluding project finance) / kW 4,908

____________________

(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, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, 

New Mexico, and South Carolina.
4-5

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

camps, higher craft incentives, and higher per diems for construction, because 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 

IGCC Facility include; Fairbanks, Alaska; Albuquerque, New Mexico; and Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Labor wage and productivity differences were handled as discussed in Section 2.5.1 of the 

Submitted EIA April Report, taking into consideration the amount of labor we estimated for the 

IGCC 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 4-2 in the Appendix present the IGCC Facility capital cost variations for alternative U.S. 

plant locations.

4.5 O&M ESTIMATE

In addition to the general O&M items discussed in Section 2.6.2 of the Submitted EIA April 

Report, the IGCC Facility includes the major maintenance for the CTs, as well as the BOP, 

including the ST, associated electric generators, HRSGs, and emissions reduction catalysts. 

Additionally, provisions need to be made for routine and major maintenance for the gasification 

systems, the ASU, and associated gasification auxiliary equipment needs to be made and are 

included in the Fixed O&M expenses. For example, major maintenance for the gasifier includes 

repair and replacement of the refractory. Typically, significant overhauls on an IGCC Facility 

occur no less frequently than 18 months and the cycle for the power generation equipment is 

similar to the to the NGCC Facility in Section 8 of the Submitted EIA April Report. Table 4-3

presents the O&M expenses for the IGCC Facility.

TABLE 4-3 – O&M EXPENSES FOR IGCC (618,000 KW)

TECHNOLOGY: IGCC

Fixed O&M Expense $65.40 /kW-year

Variable O&M Expense $5.00 /MWh
4-6

4.6 ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE INFORMATION

The IGCC uses syngas combustors (which do not have DLN) in the CTs to manage the production 

of NOX. Control of NOX is accomplished through dilution of the syngas fuel with nitrogen and/or 

moisture, and an SCR in the HRSG. SO2 in the IGCC is managed through the removal of sulfur 

in the syngas via the Selexol AGR system prior to combustion. The IGCC does not include any 

control devices for CO2, which is proportional to the heat rate (inversely proportional to the 

efficiency) of the technology. However by using Selexol AGR, the configuration can be modified 

to capture CO2 at a later time. 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 IGCC. Table 4-4 presents environmental emissions for the IGCC Facility.

TABLE 4-4 – ENVIRONMENTAL EMISSIONS FOR IGCC

TECHNOLOGY: IGCC

NOX 0.0095 lb/MMBtu

SO2 0.013 lb/MMBtu

CO2 206 lb/MMBtu
5-1

5. ADVANCED NUCLEAR GREENFIELD SITE (ANGF)

5.1 MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT AND SYSTEMS

The Advanced Nuclear Greenfield Site (“ANGF”) Facility consists of two nominally rated 

1,117 MW Westinghouse AP1000 nuclear power units built at a greenfield site.

The Facility configuration for the ANGF is the same as Section 12 of the Submitted EIA April 

Report, with the exception that the Facility is to be built at a greenfield site instead of a brownfield 

site. Figure 5-1 presents a simplified process flow diagram for the ANGF Facility.

FIGURE 5-1 – AN DESIGN CONFIGURATION

5.2 ELECTRICAL AND CONTROL SYSTEMS

The electrical and control systems for the ANGF Facility are materially similar to the AN Facility 

in the Submitted EIA April Report.

5.3 OFF-SITE REQUIREMENTS

The off-site requirements for the ANGF Facility are materially similar to the AN Facility in the 

Submitted EIA April Report.

5.4 CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE

The base Cost Estimate for the ANGF Facility with a nominal capacity of 2,234 MW is 

$6,384/kW. Table 5-1 summarizes the Cost Estimate categories for the ANGF Facility.
5-2

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

TECHNOLOGY: ANGF

NOMINAL CAPACITY (ISO): 2,234,000 kW

NOMINAL HEAT RATE (ISO): N/A Btu/kWh-HHV

Capital Cost Category (000s) (August 19, 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) 3,374,809

Total Project Cost (excluding finance) 14,261,289

Total Project EPC / kW 4,873

Owner Costs 29% (excluding project finance) / kW 1,511

Total Project Cost (excluding project finance) / kW 6,384

____________________

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

The ANGF Cost Estimate is assumed to be identical to the Cost Estimate from the AN Cost 

Estimate in the Submitted EIA April Report, with the exception that we believe there is to be an 

increase to the Owners Cost for the ANGF Facility. The increase includes: generation tie lines, 

licensing increases for NRC COLA and CPCN, initial fuel load, training and information 

requirements, property taxes, land costs, development fees, work capital, and other infrastructure 

costs. In addition to the increased costs identified, the Owner should also expect an increase to 

the Owner-specific costs for project management, construction management, quality assurance and 

quality control, engineering, project controls, environmental health and safety, and start-up costs. 

We estimate that an increase to only the Owners Costs of approximately 40 percent is sufficient to 

cover the additions outlined above.

The locational adjustments for the ANGF Facility are similar to those made for the AN Facility in 

the Submitted EIA April Report.
5-3

Table 5-2 in the Appendix presents the ANGF 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.

5.5 O&M ESTIMATE

The O&M items for the ANGF Facility are the same as those discussed in Section 12 of the 

Submitted EIA April Report for the AN Facility. Table 5-3 presents the FOM and VOM expenses 

for the ANGF Facility.

TABLE 5-3 – O&M EXPENSES FOR ANGF

TECHNOLOGY: ANGF

Fixed O&M Expense $100.28/kW-year

Variable O&M Expense $2.30/MWh

5.6 ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE INFORMATION

Environmental compliance with respect to air emissions is effectively not necessary for the ANGF

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 5-4 presents 

environmental emissions for the ANGF Facility.

TABLE 5-4 – ENVIRONMENTAL EMISSIONS FOR ANGF

TECHNOLOGY: ANGF

NOX 0 lb/MMBtu

SO2 0 lb/MMBtu

CO2 0 lb/MMBtu
5-4

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
6-1

6. ONSHORE WIND WITH CLASS I WTG (WNCI)

6.1 MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT AND SYSTEMS

The Onshore Wind with a Class I WTG (“WNCI”) Facility is based on 34 WTGs, each with a 

rated capacity of 3 MW, a hub height of 80 meters, and a rotor diameter of 95 meters. The total 

design capacity is 100 MW. The Facility configuration for the WNCI Facility is the same as 

Section 14 of the Submitted EIA April Report, with the exception that the WNCI Facility is to be 

built using Class I WTGs, instead of the Class II/III used in Section 14 of the Submitted EIA April 

Report. The key characteristic differences between the assumed WTG configurations are 

summarized in Table 6-1. Figure 6-1 presents a simplified process flow diagram for the WNCI

Facility.

TABLE 6-1 – WTG COMPARISION BETWEEN CLASS II/III AND CLASS I

WTG CHARACTERISTICS CLASS II/III CLASS I

Generator Rating (MW) (1) 1.79 3.0

Rotor Diameter (m) (2) 100 95

Hub Height (m) 80 80

____________________

(1) Megawatt (MW).

(2) Meter (m).

FIGURE 6-1 – WNCI DESIGN CONFIGURATION

6.2 ELECTRICAL AND CONTROL SYSTEMS

The electrical and control systems for the WNCI Facility is materially similar to the WN Facility 

in the Submitted EIA April Report, with the exception that the WNCI Facility is to use 34 WTGs 

at 3 MW each, and that step-up voltage to 34.5 kV can be completed either in the Nacelle, or with 

a pad-mounted transformer.

6.3 OFF-SITE REQUIREMENTS

The off-site requirements for the WNCI Facility are materially similar to the WN Facility in the 

Submitted EIA April Report.
6-2

6.4 CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE

The base Cost Estimate for the WNCI Facility with a nominal capacity of 100 MW is $1,867/kW. 

Table 6-2 summarizes the Cost Estimate categories for the WNCI Facility.

TABLE 6-2 – LOCATION-BASED COSTS FOR WNCI

TECHNOLOGY: WNCI

NOMINAL CAPACITY (ISO): 100,000 kW

NOMINAL HEAT RATE (ISO): N/A Btu/kWh-HHV 

Capital Cost Category (000s) (August 19, 2016$)

Civil Structural Material and Installation 17,495

Mechanical Equipment Supply and Installation 126,892

Electrical / I&C Supply and Installation 12,633

Project Indirects(1) 6,610

EPC Cost before Contingency and Fee 163,630

Fee and Contingency 12,500

Total Project EPC 176,130

Owner Costs (excluding project finance) 10,568

Total Project Cost (excluding finance) 186,698

Total Project EPC / kW 1,761

Owner Costs 6% (excluding project finance) / kW 106

Total Project Cost (excluding project finance) / kW 1,867

____________________

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

(2) Total Project Costs excludes any transmission lines or utility interconnection facilities

The locational adjustments for the WNCI Facility are similar to those made for the WN Facility in 

the Submitted EIA April Report.

Table 6-3 in the Appendix presents the WNCI 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.

6.5 O&M ESTIMATE

The O&M items for the WNCI Facility are slightly lower than those discussed in Section 14 of the 

Submitted EIA April Report for the WN Facility. Table 6-3 presents the FOM and VOM expenses 
6-3

for the WNCI Facility. The WNCI Facility will deploy thirty-four 3 MW WTGs compared to 

fifty-six 1.79 MW WTGs for the WN Facility, resulting in a maintenance cost savings due to 

maintaining less WTGs. Conversely, the WNCI Facility will have higher wind speeds and the 

resulting higher mechanical loads on the WTGs deployed. The maintenance cost advantage of a 

lower WTG count will be partially offset by the additional maintenance costs resulting from higher 

mechanical loads at the WNCI Facility.

TABLE 6-3 – O&M EXPENSES FOR WNCI

TECHNOLOGY: WN

Fixed O&M Expense $38.00/kW-year

Variable O&M Expense $0/MWh

6.6 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 6-4 presents environmental emissions 

for the WNCI Facility.

TABLE 6-4 – ENVIRONMENTAL EMISSIONS FOR WNCI

TECHNOLOGY: WNCI

NOX 0 lb/ MMBtu

SO2 0 lb/MMBtu

CO2 0 lb/MMBtu
6-4

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
7-1

7. BATTERY STORAGE 50 MW (BES-2)

7.1 MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT AND SYSTEMS

The Battery Storage 50MW (“BES-2”) Facility is rated at 50.0 MW and 400 MWh. The Facility 

configuration for the BES-2 is the same as Section 17 of the Submitted EIA April Report, with the 

exception that the duration of discharge is rated for eight hours of operation. Because of the long 

duration, lithium batteries included for this Report may not be suitable, and alternate technologies

may have to be explored. Specific technologies and system designs would need to be identified 

from a competitive solicitation process prior to installation. Figure 7-1 presents a picture of a 

typical BES-2 Facility. 

FIGURE 7-1 – BES-2 DESIGN CONFIGURATION

7.2 ELECTRICAL AND CONTROL SYSTEMS

The electrical and control systems for the BES-2 Facility are materially similar to the BES Facility 

in the Submitted EIA April Report.

7.3 OFF-SITE REQUIREMENTS

The off-site requirements for the BES-2 Facility are materially similar to the BES Facility in the 

Submitted EIA April Report.

7.4 CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE

The base Cost Estimate for the BES-2 Facility with a nominal capacity of 50 MW/400 MWh is 

$3,122/kW. Table 7-1 summarizes the Cost Estimate categories for the BES-2 Facility.
7-2

TABLE 7-1 – LOCATION-BASED COSTS FOR BES-2

TECHNOLOGY: BES-2

NOMINAL CAPACITY (ISO): 50,000 kW 400,000 kWh

NOMINAL HEAT RATE (ISO): N/A Btu/kWh-HHV 

Capital Cost Category (000s) (August 15, 2016$)

Civil Structural Material and Installation 1,977

Mechanical Equipment Supply and Installation 115,993

Electrical / I&C Supply and Installation 5,694

Project Indirects(1) 7,819

EPC Cost before Contingency and Fee 131,483

Fee and Contingency 7,889

Total Project EPC 139,372

Owner Costs (excluding project finance) 16,725

Total Project Cost (excluding finance) 156,097

Total Project EPC / kW 2,787

Owner Costs 12% (excluding project finance) / kW 335

Total Project Cost (excluding project finance) / kW 3,122

____________________

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

The locational adjustments for the BES-2 Facility are similar to those made for the BES Facility 

in the Submitted EIA April Report.

Table 7-2 in the Appendix shows the BES-2 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.

7.5 O&M ESTIMATE

The O&M items for the BES-2 Facility are the same as those discussed in Section 17 of the 

Submitted EIA April Report for the BES Facility, with the exception that fluctuations may occur 

depending on the battery technology selected. Table 7-3 presents the O&M expenses for the 

BES-2 Facility.
7-3

TABLE 7-3 – O&M EXPENSES FOR BES-2

TECHNOLOGY: BES-2

Fixed O&M Expense $40.00/kW-year

Variable O&M Expense $8.00/MWh

7.6 ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE INFORMATION

The BES-2 Facility produces no emissions on discharge; however, during charge, the ascribed 

emissions would be those of the charging generation source. The BES-2 requires 1.18 kWh of 

recharge for each 1.0 kWh discharged. This ratio may be as high as 1.43 for some of the flow 

technologies.

TABLE 7-4 – ENVIRONMENTAL EMISSIONS FOR BES-2

TECHNOLOGY: BES

NOX 0 lb/MMBtu

SO2 0 lb/MMBtu

CO2 0 lb/MMBtu
7-4

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
A-1

APPENDIX 1 – STATE INFORMATION

TABLE 3-2 – LOCATION-BASED COSTS FOR USC/CCS90 (650,000 KW)

(AUGUST 19, 2016 DOLLARS)

State City

Base Project 

Cost ($/kW)

Location 

Variation

Delta Cost 

Difference 

($/kW)

Total Location 

Project Cost 

($/kW)

Alaska Anchorage 5,569 21% 1,146 6,715

Alaska Fairbanks 5,569 22% 1,218 6,787

Alabama Huntsville 5,569 -10% (534) 5,035

Arizona Phoenix 5,569 -7% (393) 5,176

Arkansas Little Rock 5,569 -7% (398) 5,171

California Los Angeles 5,569 11% 620 6,189

California Redding 5,569 6% 346 5,915

California Bakersfield 5,569 6% 342 5,911

California Sacramento 5,569 7% 396 5,965

California San Francisco 5,569 23% 1,279 6,848

Colorado Denver 5,569 -8% (436) 5,133

Connecticut Hartford 5,569 16% 884 6,453

Delaw are Dover 5,569 13% 751 6,320

District of Columbia Washington 5,569 22% 1,228 6,797

Florida Tallahassee 5,569 -9% (484) 5,085

Florida Tampa 5,569 -4% (224) 5,345

Georgia Atlanta 5,569 -10% (532) 5,037

Haw aii Honolulu N/A N/A N/A N/A

Idaho Boise 5,569 -5% (294) 5,275

Illinois Chicago 5,569 12% 677 6,246

Indiana Indianapolis 5,569 -1% (63) 5,506

Iow a Davenport 5,569 -2% (110) 5,459

Iow a Waterloo 5,569 -6% (317) 5,252

Kansas Wichita 5,569 -7% (400) 5,169

Kentucky Louisville 5,569 -7% (379) 5,190

Louisiana New Orleans 5,569 -12% (647) 4,922

Maine Portland 5,569 -6% (320) 5,249

Maryland Baltimore 5,569 -1% (62) 5,507

Massachusetts Boston 5,569 23% 1,279 6,848

Michigan Detroit 5,569 2% 126 5,695

Michigan Grand Rapids 5,569 -3% (194) 5,375

Minnesota Saint Paul 5,569 5% 285 5,854

Mississippi Jackson 5,569 -7% (416) 5,153
A-2

State City

Base Project 

Cost ($/kW)

Location 

Variation

Delta Cost 

Difference 

($/kW)

Total Location 

Project Cost 

($/kW)

Missouri St. Louis 5,569 2% 86 5,655

Missouri Kansas City 5,569 -1% (29) 5,540

Montana Great Falls 5,569 -4% (222) 5,347

Nebraska Omaha 5,569 -4% (227) 5,342

New Hampshire Concord 5,569 -3% (180) 5,389

New Jersey New ark 5,569 10% 558 6,127

New Mexico Albuquerque 5,569 -5% (272) 5,297

New York New York 5,569 30% 1,651 7,220

New York Syracuse 5,569 -2% (133) 5,436

Nevada Las Vegas 5,569 3% 166 5,735

North Carolina Charlotte 5,569 -11% (603) 4,966

North Dakota Bismarck 5,569 -7% (407) 5,162

Ohio Cincinnati 5,569 -4% (238) 5,331

Oregon Portland 5,569 3% 142 5,711

Pennsylvania Philadelphia 5,569 11% 635 6,204

Pennsylvania Wilkes-Barre 5,569 -4% (235) 5,334

Rhode Island Providence 5,569 3% 148 5,717

South Carolina Spartanburg 5,569 -13% (718) 4,851

South Dakota Rapid City 5,569 -9% (518) 5,051

Tennessee Knoxville 5,569 -10% (531) 5,038

Texas Houston 5,569 -10% (579) 4,990

Utah Salt Lake City 5,569 -6% (309) 5,260

Vermont Burlington 5,569 -7% (374) 5,195

Virginia Alexandria 5,569 4% 241 5,810

Virginia Lynchburg 5,569 -5% (275) 5,294

Washington Seattle 5,569 5% 271 5,840

Washington Spokane 5,569 -3% (177) 5,392

West Virginia Charleston 5,569 -2% (110) 5,459

Wisconsin Green Bay 5,569 -1% (76) 5,493

Wyoming Cheyenne 5,569 -1% (65) 5,504

Puerto Rico Cayey N/A N/A N/A N/A
A-3

TABLE 4-2 – LOCATION-BASED COSTS FOR IGCC FACILITY (618,000 KW)

(AUGUST 19, 2016 DOLLARS)

State City

Base Project 

Cost ($/kW)

Location 

Variation

Delta Cost 

Difference 

($/kW)

Total Location 

Project Cost 

($/kW)

Alaska Anchorage 4,908 20% 966 5,874

Alaska Fairbanks 4,908 19% 942 5,850

Alabama Huntsville 4,908 -7% (365) 4,543

Arizona Phoenix 4,908 -5% (247) 4,661

Arkansas Little Rock 4,908 -5% (250) 4,658

California Los Angeles 4,908 12% 609 5,517

California Redding 4,908 8% 376 5,284

California Bakersfield 4,908 10% 467 5,375

California Sacramento 4,908 8% 411 5,319

California San Francisco 4,908 26% 1,281 6,189

Colorado Denver 4,908 -6% (289) 4,619

Connecticut Hartford 4,908 17% 853 5,761

Delaw are Dover 4,908 15% 740 5,648

District of Columbia Washington 4,908 26% 1,268 6,176

Florida Tallahassee 4,908 -7% (348) 4,560

Florida Tampa 4,908 -3% (164) 4,744

Georgia Atlanta 4,908 -7% (364) 4,544

Haw aii Honolulu N/A N/A N/A N/A

Idaho Boise 4,908 -3% (171) 4,737

Illinois Chicago 4,908 11% 517 5,425

Indiana Indianapolis 4,908 0% 12 4,920

Iow a Davenport 4,908 -2% (78) 4,830

Iow a Waterloo 4,908 -5% (224) 4,684

Kansas Wichita 4,908 -5% (264) 4,644

Kentucky Louisville 4,908 -5% (249) 4,659

Louisiana New Orleans 4,908 -9% (463) 4,445

Maine Portland 4,908 -3% (151) 4,757

Maryland Baltimore 4,908 1% 51 4,959

Massachusetts Boston 4,908 21% 1,040 5,948

Michigan Detroit 4,908 2% 108 5,016

Michigan Grand Rapids 4,908 -3% (137) 4,771

Minnesota Saint Paul 4,908 4% 213 5,121

Mississippi Jackson 4,908 -6% (281) 4,627
A-4

State City

Base Project 

Cost ($/kW)

Location 

Variation

Delta Cost 

Difference 

($/kW)

Total Location 

Project Cost 

($/kW)

Missouri St. Louis 4,908 3% 154 5,062

Missouri Kansas City 4,908 0% 17 4,925

Montana Great Falls 4,908 -3% (147) 4,761

Nebraska Omaha 4,908 -3% (142) 4,766

New Hampshire Concord 4,908 -2% (90) 4,818

New Jersey New ark 4,908 8% 413 5,321

New Mexico Albuquerque 4,908 -3% (168) 4,740

New York New York 4,908 19% 929 5,837

New York Syracuse 4,908 6% 315 5,223

Nevada Las Vegas 4,908 4% 174 5,082

North Carolina Charlotte 4,908 -8% (389) 4,519

North Dakota Bismarck 4,908 -6% (287) 4,621

Ohio Cincinnati 4,908 -2% (111) 4,797

Oregon Portland 4,908 5% 232 5,140

Pennsylvania Philadelphia 4,908 6% 303 5,211

Pennsylvania Wilkes-Barre 4,908 -3% (129) 4,779

Rhode Island Providence 4,908 3% 142 5,050

South Carolina Spartanburg 4,908 -10% (476) 4,432

South Dakota Rapid City 4,908 -7% (367) 4,541

Tennessee Knoxville 4,908 -7% (357) 4,551

Texas Houston 4,908 -8% (409) 4,499

Utah Salt Lake City 4,908 -3% (125) 4,783

Vermont Burlington 4,908 -5% (227) 4,681

Virginia Alexandria 4,908 6% 303 5,211

Virginia Lynchburg 4,908 -3% (138) 4,770

Washington Seattle 4,908 7% 323 5,231

Washington Spokane 4,908 -2% (88) 4,820

West Virginia Charleston 4,908 -1% (59) 4,849

Wisconsin Green Bay 4,908 0% (16) 4,892

Wyoming Cheyenne 4,908 1% 72 4,980

Puerto Rico Cayey 4,908 -3% (136) 4,772
A-5

TABLE 5-2 – LOCATION-BASED COSTS FOR ANGF FACILITY (2,234,000 KW)

(AUGUST 19, 2016 DOLLARS)

State City

Base Project 

Cost ($/kW)

Location 

Variation

Delta Cost 

Difference 

($/kW)

Total Location 

Project Cost 

($/kW)

Alaska Anchorage 6,384 12% 787 7,171

Alaska Fairbanks 6,384 13% 799 7,183

Alabama Huntsville 6,384 -4% (227) 6,157

Arizona Phoenix 6,384 -2% (156) 6,228

Arkansas Little Rock 6,384 -2% (158) 6,226

California Los Angeles 6,384 7% 469 6,853

California Redding 6,384 4% 277 6,661

California Bakersfield 6,384 5% 332 6,716

California Sacramento 6,384 5% 299 6,683

California San Francisco 6,384 16% 1,028 7,412

Colorado Denver 6,384 -3% (174) 6,210

Connecticut Hartford 6,384 12% 772 7,156

Delaw are Dover 6,384 11% 704 7,088

District of Columbia Washington 6,384 20% 1,280 7,664

Florida Tallahassee 6,384 -3% (217) 6,167

Florida Tampa 6,384 -2% (106) 6,278

Georgia Atlanta 6,384 -4% (226) 6,158

Haw aii Honolulu N/A N/A N/A N/A

Idaho Boise 6,384 -2% (103) 6,281

Illinois Chicago 6,384 6% 362 6,746

Indiana Indianapolis 6,384 1% 59 6,443

Iow a Davenport 6,384 -1% (47) 6,337

Iow a Waterloo 6,384 -2% (135) 6,249

Kansas Wichita 6,384 -2% (159) 6,225

Kentucky Louisville 6,384 -2% (150) 6,234

Louisiana New Orleans 6,384 -4% (286) 6,098

Maine Portland 6,384 -1% (39) 6,345

Maryland Baltimore 6,384 2% 134 6,518

Massachusetts Boston 6,384 14% 884 7,268

Michigan Detroit 6,384 1% 64 6,448

Michigan Grand Rapids 6,384 -1% (83) 6,301

Minnesota Saint Paul 6,384 2% 143 6,527

Mississippi Jackson 6,384 -3% (177) 6,207
A-6

State City

Base Project 

Cost ($/kW)

Location 

Variation

Delta Cost 

Difference 

($/kW)

Total Location 

Project Cost 

($/kW)

Missouri St. Louis 6,384 1% 92 6,476

Missouri Kansas City 6,384 0% 10 6,394

Montana Great Falls 6,384 -1% (89) 6,295

Nebraska Omaha 6,384 -1% (85) 6,299

New Hampshire Concord 6,384 -1% (54) 6,330

New Jersey New ark 6,384 4% 248 6,632

New Mexico Albuquerque 6,384 -1% (93) 6,291

New York New York 6,384 9% 557 6,941

New York Syracuse 6,384 5% 345 6,729

Nevada Las Vegas 6,384 2% 130 6,514

North Carolina Charlotte 6,384 -4% (233) 6,151

North Dakota Bismarck 6,384 -3% (173) 6,211

Ohio Cincinnati 6,384 0% (15) 6,369

Oregon Portland 6,384 3% 191 6,575

Pennsylvania Philadelphia 6,384 3% 181 6,565

Pennsylvania Wilkes-Barre 6,384 -1% (77) 6,307

Rhode Island Providence 6,384 1% 85 6,469

South Carolina Spartanburg 6,384 -5% (294) 6,090

South Dakota Rapid City 6,384 -3% (220) 6,164

Tennessee Knoxville 6,384 -3% (214) 6,170

Texas Houston 6,384 -4% (246) 6,138

Utah Salt Lake City 6,384 -1% (75) 6,309

Vermont Burlington 6,384 -2% (137) 6,247

Virginia Alexandria 6,384 5% 338 6,722

Virginia Lynchburg 6,384 0% (31) 6,353

Washington Seattle 6,384 4% 246 6,630

Washington Spokane 6,384 -1% (53) 6,331

West Virginia Charleston 6,384 -1% (36) 6,348

Wisconsin Green Bay 6,384 1% 42 6,426

Wyoming Cheyenne 6,384 3% 178 6,562

Puerto Rico Cayey N/A N/A N/A N/A
A-7

TABLE 6-2 – LOCATION-BASED COSTS FOR WNCI FACILITY (100,000 KW)

(AUGUST 19, 2016 DOLLARS)

State City

Base Project 

Cost ($/kW)

Location 

Variation

Delta Cost 

Difference 

($/kW)

Total Location 

Project Cost 

($/kW)

Alaska Anchorage 1,867 30% 560 2,427

Alaska Fairbanks 1,867 56% 1,044 2,911

Alabama Huntsville 1,867 -5% (97) 1,770

Arizona Phoenix 1,867 -3% (61) 1,806

Arkansas Little Rock 1,867 -3% (56) 1,811

California Los Angeles 1,867 15% 279 2,146

California Redding 1,867 12% 220 2,087

California Bakersfield 1,867 14% 254 2,121

California Sacramento 1,867 12% 222 2,089

California San Francisco 1,867 21% 386 2,253

Colorado Denver 1,867 3% 49 1,916

Connecticut Hartford 1,867 8% 156 2,023

Delaw are Dover 1,867 6% 110 1,977

District of Columbia Washington 1,867 10% 195 2,062

Florida Tallahassee 1,867 -4% (81) 1,786

Florida Tampa 1,867 -3% (63) 1,804

Georgia Atlanta 1,867 -5% (97) 1,770

Haw aii Honolulu 1,867 35% 650 2,517

Idaho Boise 1,867 5% 98 1,965

Illinois Chicago 1,867 14% 261 2,128

Indiana Indianapolis 1,867 -1% (12) 1,855

Iow a Davenport 1,867 6% 115 1,982

Iow a Waterloo 1,867 4% 69 1,936

Kansas Wichita 1,867 3% 61 1,928

Kentucky Louisville 1,867 -4% (69) 1,798

Louisiana New Orleans 1,867 -7% (128) 1,739

Maine Portland 1,867 7% 138 2,005

Maryland Baltimore 1,867 1% 27 1,894

Massachusetts Boston 1,867 11% 201 2,068

Michigan Detroit 1,867 3% 48 1,915

Michigan Grand Rapids 1,867 -1% (18) 1,849

Minnesota Saint Paul 1,867 11% 198 2,065

Mississippi Jackson 1,867 -3% (64) 1,803
A-8

State City

Base Project 

Cost ($/kW)

Location 

Variation

Delta Cost 

Difference 

($/kW)

Total Location 

Project Cost 

($/kW)

Missouri St. Louis 1,867 3% 56 1,923

Missouri Kansas City 1,867 0% 9 1,876

Montana Great Falls 1,867 8% 154 2,021

Nebraska Omaha 1,867 5% 92 1,959

New Hampshire Concord 1,867 8% 155 2,022

New Jersey New ark 1,867 10% 186 2,053

New Mexico Albuquerque 1,867 4% 75 1,942

New York New York 1,867 25% 467 2,334

New York Syracuse 1,867 0% - 1,867

Nevada Las Vegas 1,867 9% 166 2,033

North Carolina Charlotte 1,867 -6% (107) 1,760

North Dakota Bismarck 1,867 4% 80 1,947

Ohio Cincinnati 1,867 -4% (67) 1,800

Oregon Portland 1,867 9% 171 2,038

Pennsylvania Philadelphia 1,867 5% 92 1,959

Pennsylvania Wilkes-Barre 1,867 -2% (33) 1,834

Rhode Island Providence 1,867 3% 59 1,926

South Carolina Spartanburg 1,867 -7% (127) 1,740

South Dakota Rapid City 1,867 2% 36 1,903

Tennessee Knoxville 1,867 -5% (101) 1,766

Texas Houston 1,867 -6% (118) 1,749

Utah Salt Lake City 1,867 6% 112 1,979

Vermont Burlington 1,867 6% 109 1,976

Virginia Alexandria 1,867 3% 63 1,930

Virginia Lynchburg 1,867 -4% (69) 1,798

Washington Seattle 1,867 4% 67 1,934

Washington Spokane 1,867 6% 109 1,976

West Virginia Charleston 1,867 0% 4 1,871

Wisconsin Green Bay 1,867 -2% (42) 1,825

Wyoming Cheyenne 1,867 3% 62 1,929

Puerto Rico Cayey 1,867 9% 167 2,034
A-9

TABLE 7-2 – LOCATION-BASED COSTS FOR BES-2 FACILITY (50,000 KW)

(AUGUST 19, 2016 DOLLARS)

State City

Base Project 

Cost ($/kW)

Location 

Variation

Delta Cost 

Difference 

($/kW)

Total Location 

Project Cost 

($/kW)

Alaska Anchorage 3,122 16% 490 3,612

Alaska Fairbanks 3,122 28% 861 3,983

Alabama Huntsville 3,122 -2% (53) 3,069

Arizona Phoenix 3,122 -1% (33) 3,089

Arkansas Little Rock 3,122 -1% (30) 3,092

California Los Angeles 3,122 6% 196 3,318

California Redding 3,122 2% 48 3,170

California Bakersfield 3,122 2% 66 3,188

California Sacramento 3,122 2% 50 3,172

California San Francisco 3,122 8% 240 3,362

Colorado Denver 3,122 -1% (44) 3,078

Connecticut Hartford 3,122 4% 123 3,245

Delaw are Dover 3,122 3% 95 3,217

District of Columbia Washington 3,122 6% 195 3,317

Florida Tallahassee 3,122 -1% (44) 3,078

Florida Tampa 3,122 -1% (34) 3,088

Georgia Atlanta 3,122 -2% (52) 3,070

Haw aii Honolulu 3,122 28% 880 4,002

Idaho Boise 3,122 -1% (17) 3,105

Illinois Chicago 3,122 3% 80 3,202

Indiana Indianapolis 3,122 0% 2 3,124

Iow a Davenport 3,122 0% (8) 3,114

Iow a Waterloo 3,122 -1% (33) 3,089

Kansas Wichita 3,122 -1% (37) 3,085

Kentucky Louisville 3,122 -1% (38) 3,084

Louisiana New Orleans 3,122 -2% (69) 3,053

Maine Portland 3,122 -1% (22) 3,100

Maryland Baltimore 3,122 2% 53 3,175

Massachusetts Boston 3,122 5% 147 3,269

Michigan Detroit 3,122 0% 15 3,137

Michigan Grand Rapids 3,122 -1% (20) 3,102

Minnesota Saint Paul 3,122 1% 46 3,168

Mississippi Jackson 3,122 -1% (34) 3,088
A-10

State City

Base Project 

Cost ($/kW)

Location 

Variation

Delta Cost 

Difference 

($/kW)

Total Location 

Project Cost 

($/kW)

Missouri St. Louis 3,122 1% 30 3,152

Missouri Kansas City 3,122 0% 5 3,127

Montana Great Falls 3,122 1% 40 3,162

Nebraska Omaha 3,122 -1% (21) 3,101

New Hampshire Concord 3,122 0% 3 3,125

New Jersey New ark 3,122 2% 65 3,187

New Mexico Albuquerque 3,122 -1% (30) 3,092

New York New York 3,122 17% 537 3,659

New York Syracuse 3,122 0% (11) 3,111

Nevada Las Vegas 3,122 1% 19 3,141

North Carolina Charlotte 3,122 -2% (58) 3,064

North Dakota Bismarck 3,122 -1% (18) 3,104

Ohio Cincinnati 3,122 -1% (36) 3,086

Oregon Portland 3,122 1% 22 3,144

Pennsylvania Philadelphia 3,122 2% 49 3,171

Pennsylvania Wilkes-Barre 3,122 -1% (18) 3,104

Rhode Island Providence 3,122 1% 31 3,153

South Carolina Spartanburg 3,122 -2% (69) 3,053

South Dakota Rapid City 3,122 -1% (31) 3,091

Tennessee Knoxville 3,122 -2% (54) 3,068

Texas Houston 3,122 -2% (64) 3,058

Utah Salt Lake City 3,122 0% (10) 3,112

Vermont Burlington 3,122 0% (12) 3,110

Virginia Alexandria 3,122 0% (8) 3,114

Virginia Lynchburg 3,122 -1% (37) 3,085

Washington Seattle 3,122 1% 36 3,158

Washington Spokane 3,122 0% (11) 3,111

West Virginia Charleston 3,122 1% 21 3,143

Wisconsin Green Bay 3,122 0% (3) 3,119

Wyoming Cheyenne 3,122 -1% (17) 3,105

Puerto Rico Cayey 3,122 6% 180 3,302