POWER October 2012 - 62

THE FUTURE OF COAL
July 6, 2011. It replaced the earlier Clean Air
Interstate Rule (CAIR), which was remanded to
the EPA in 2008 by the U.S. District Court of
Appeals (D.C. Circuit). Although the D.C. Circuit
remanded the CAIR rule back to the EPA, it
did not toss it out. As a result, power plants have
still had to comply with CAIR's requirements as
the EPA developed the replacement rule.
Last Dec. 30, the same D.C. Circuit Court
of Appeals stayed CSAPR implementation-
which was to have gone into effect Jan. 1,
2012-to give the EPA time to consider a
range of lawsuits filed against the new rule.
(As of this writing, the court had not yet ruled
on those lawsuits.) In overturning CSAPR,
the court kept CAIR standards in effect. At
press time, the EPA had not said whether it
would appeal the decision or try for a third
time to craft acceptable regulations.
Analysis published last spring by the
Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use
Management concluded CSAPR did not significantly
change the overall reduction requirements
compared with CAIR, although it did
limit the ability of individual power plants to
meet their reduction requirements through interstate
trading of emission allowances. While
the D.C. Circuit rejected the original interstate
trading approach laid out under CAIR, the
now-overturned CSAPR regulation retained
some ability for interstate trading.
With that understanding, the next step in our
analysis is to consider at a macro level several
key characteristics of coal-fired generating units
located in the 27 states covered by CSAPR. The
data source for this analysis is a comprehensive
database of the physical and performance characteristics
of all U.S. coal-fired power plants
created by Burns & McDonnell and made
available to POWER for this report. (An earlier
analysis published in the May 2011 issue,
" Predicting U.S. Coal Plant Retirements, " used
this same database and may be found in the archives
at www.powermag.com.)
The analysis presented here was done independent
of Burns & McDonnell, was neither
reviewed nor endorsed by the firm, and
is structured as follows. First, it considers
four factors for units that have scrubbers and
are in states subject to CSAPR rules. Those
factors are median nameplate capacity, median
in-service date, median capacity factor,
and median heat rate. Second, the analysis
considers those same four factors but this
time for units that have FGD and SCR equipment
installed and are in CSAPR states. It
then applies the same analysis to units that
have scrubbers, FGD, and SCR controls in
non-CSAPR states. Finally, it considers these
same four factors for units whose retirements
have already been announced. Summary results
are presented in the table.
Among scrubbed units in states covered by
62
Updated analysis. Key characteristics of coal-fired power plants in CSAPR and non-CSAPR
states, including those slated for retirement. Sources: POWER and Burns & McDonnell
Median MW Median year built
CSAPR state
Unit has scrubber
Unit has FGD
Unit has SCR
Non-CSAPR state
Unit has scrubber
Unit has FGD
Unit has SCR
CSAPR state, units
for retirement
All units for retirement
Unit has scrubber
Unit has FGD
Unit has SCR
125
117.5
133
212
1955
1957
1957
1961
49.3%
35.8%
42.0%
62.3%
10,786
10,844
10,807
10,092
Notes: CSAPR = Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, FGD = flue gas desulfurization, SCR = selective
catalytic reduction.
the EPA's CSAPR rule, the median in-service
date is 1974, the median nameplate capacity is
444 MW, the median capacity factor is 67.7%,
and the median heat rate is 10,066 Btu/kWh.
Slight variations occurred for units that have
FGD and SCR controls, with the largest difference
evident in the median nameplate capacity
among units that have SCR equipment. In that
case, the median nameplate capacity increased
more than 100 MW to an average of 570 MW.
The capacity factor and heat rates among SCRcontrolled
units showed marginal improvements
over other units in this category.
A different story emerged for coal-fired units
in non-CSAPR states. Here there was little uniformity
across the four factors that were considered.
Scrubbed units had a median nameplate
capacity of 383 MW, a median in-service date
of 1978, a median capacity factor in excess of
76%, and a median heat rate of nearly 10,500
Btu/kWh. Units that included an FGD, by contrast,
were smaller with a median nameplate capacity
of 203 MW. These units also were around
10 years older, had a median capacity factor that
was 12 percentage points lower, and a roughly
comparable median heat rate. Finally, units in
non-CSAPR states that were equipped with
an SCR had a median capacity of 241 MW, a
median capacity factor in excess of 86%, and a
median heat rate of less than 10,000 Btu/kWh.
By comparison, these units are workhorses and,
despite their age, have benefited from capital investment
to meet environmental regulations by
enjoying high capacity factors.
A third story can be gleaned by examining
generating units that are in CSAPR states
and whose owners have already announced
plans to retire them. These units tend to be
www.powermag.com
small, old, relatively less efficient, and lessfrequently
dispatched. The data show these
units have a median nameplate capacity of
125 MW, a median in-service date of 1955,
a median capacity factor of less than 50%,
and a median heat rate in excess of 10,750
Btu/kWh. Some of these units have environmental
controls, but even here the units are
small, old, less likely to be dispatched, and
inefficient. Units slated for retirement that
also have scrubbers had a median nameplate
generating capacity of 117.5 MW, a median
in-service date of 1957, a median capacity
factor of 35.8%, and a heat rate higher than
10,800 Btu/kWh. Units equipped with FGD
or SCR were slightly larger and had improved
median capacity factors and median
heat rates. Even so, they still were out of the
running compared to units in the database not
currently slated for retirement.
The fate of coal-fired generation remains
fluid as owners weigh environmental rules,
the effect of low natural gas prices, and the
shifting cost of investing in emissions control
technology. An analysis of generating
unit data suggests that smaller, older, lessefficient,
and less-frequently dispatched assets
are most vulnerable to retirements. The
recently accelerated retirement dates for
some units indicates that economic factors
are a more important determining factor than
pending environmental mandates. What's
more, state utility regulators play an important-although
varied-role in generating
mix decisions as well as capital investments
to comply with environmental regulations. ■
-David Wagman is executive
editor of POWER.
POWER | October 2012
444
411
570.5
383
203
241
1974
1974
1973
1978
1968
1969
Median capacity
factor
67.7%
67.4%
68.4%
76.1%
64.0%
86.2%
Median heat
rate (Btu/kWh)
10,066
10,090
10,045
10,497
10,355
9,894

http://www.powermag.com http://www.powermag.com

POWER October 2012

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of POWER October 2012