Capital Cost and Performance

Characteristics for Utility-Scale

Electric Power Generating
Technologies

January 2024

[Link]
U.S. Department of Energy
Washington, DC 20585
The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), the statistical and analytical agency within the
U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), prepared this report. By law, our data, analyses, and forecasts are
independent of approval by any other officer or employee of the U.S. Government. The views in this
report do not represent those of DOE or any other federal agencies.

U.S. Energy Information Administration | Capital Cost and Performance Characteristics for Utility‐Scale Power Generating Technologies i
 January 2024

Capital Cost and Performance Characteristics for Utility-Scale

Electric Power Generating Technologies
To accurately reflect the changing cost of new electric power generators in the Annual Energy
Outlook 2025 (AEO2025), EIA commissioned Sargent & Lundy (S&L) to evaluate the overnight
capital cost and performance characteristics for 19 electric generator types. The following report
represents S&L’s findings.

EIA accepted the following report in fulfillment of contract number 89303023‐REI000091. All
views expressed in this report are solely those of the contractor and acceptance of the report in
fulfillment of contractual obligations does not imply agreement with nor endorsement of its
findings. Responsibility for accuracy of the information contained in this report lies with the
contractor. Although EIA intends to use this report to inform the updating of EIA’s Electricity
Market Module in the National Energy Model System (NEMS), EIA is not obligated to modify any
of its models or data in accordance with the findings of this report.

Contacts
This report, Capital Cost and Performance Characteristics for Utility‐Scale Electric Power
Generating Technologies, was prepared under the general guidance of Angelina LaRose,
Assistant Administrator for Energy Analysis; Jim Diefenderfer, Director of the Office of Long‐
Term Energy Modeling; and Chris Namovicz (202‐586‐7120), Team Lead of the Electricity, Coal,
and Renewables Modeling Team. Technical information concerning the content of the report
also may be obtained from Richard Bowers at 202‐586‐8586 or Nina Vincent at 202‐586‐8501.

U.S. Energy Information Administration | Capital Cost and Performance Characteristics for Utility‐Scale Power Generating Technologies 1
 January 2024

Introduction
The current 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 will serve future demand for
electricity. These parameters also help to determine how new capacity competes against
existing capacity and how electric generators will respond to imposed environmental controls
on conventional pollutants or any limitations on greenhouse gas emissions.

Consistent with EIA’s practice of developing periodic assessments, EIA commissioned an

external consultant to develop up‐to‐date cost and performance estimates for utility‐scale
electric generating plants for AEO2025. This report is the fifth such report EIA has commissioned
since 2010. As with the prior studies, this information allows EIA to compare the costs of
different electric generating technologies on a standardized basis and is a key input
enhancement to the NEMS.

This report contains cost and performance estimates developed by Sargent & Lundy for 19
reference technology cases for different types of electric generators. To develop the
characteristics of each reference technology case, Sargent and Lundy considered the
specification of representative plant sizes and configurations and major equipment components,
including emission controls, based on current information from similar facilities recently
constructed, under development, or proposed for commercial development in the United States
and abroad. In each successive study that EIA contracted, the evolution of technology,
environmental requirements, and generator preferences influenced the attributes associated
with the reference generating technology. Where these characteristics remain substantially
similar between the study conducted for AEO2020 and the study conducted for AEO2025,
reference technology case costs are comparable and are labeled “updated”; where these
characteristics differ significantly between the two studies, the reference technology costs are
reported as “new” (Findings).

To produce its overnight capital cost estimates, Sargent & Lundy assumed that the power plant
developer or owner will hire an engineering, procurement, and construction (EPC) contractor for
turnkey construction of the project. These costs represent the total cost a developer would
expect to incur during the construction of a project, excluding financing costs. The specific
overnight costs for each type of facility are divided into:

 Civil and structural material and installation cost covering all material and associated
labor for civil and structural tasks
 Mechanical equipment supply and installation cost including all mechanical equipment
and associated labor for mechanical tasks
 Electrical, instrumentation, controls supply, and installation cost including all costs for
transformers, switchgear, control systems, wiring, instrumentation, and raceways.

U.S. Energy Information Administration | Capital Cost and Performance Characteristics for Utility‐Scale Power Generating Technologies 2
 January 2024

 Project indirect costs including engineering, construction management, as well as start‐

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

Sargent & Lundy estimated labor, maintenance, minor repairs, and general and administrative
(G&A) costs based on multiple sources including actual projects, vendor publications, and
internal resources. Variable operations and maintenance costs, such as ammonia, water, and
miscellaneous chemicals and consumables, are directly proportional to the electricity generated.
Fuel costs were estimated for reference unit types using representative fuel specifications for
coal, natural gas, and biomass.

Findings
Table 1 summarizes updated cost estimates for reference case utility–scale generating
technologies specifically two powered by coal, five by natural gas, three by solar energy and by
wind, two by uranium, and one each by hydroelectric, biomass, geothermal, and battery
storage. EIA does not model all these generating plant types but included them in the study 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 AEO2025 that use the cost data from this report are identified in the last
column of Table 1.

Table 2 provides a comparison of updated overnight cost estimates for technologies

substantially similar to those developed for the 2019 report. To facilitate comparisons, the costs
are expressed in 2023 dollars.

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. Sargent & Lundy
estimated capital cost adjustment factors to account for technology deployment at various
U.S. locations using published labor rates for each location to create a wage rate factor for
each location against the base rate (the 30 City Average). The location factors were then
improved by adding a regional labor productivity factor. To reflect these costs in EIA's
modeling, these adjustments were aggregated to represent the 25 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 for the reference technologies are summarized in Table 3.

Summary
Although the estimates provided by Sargent & Lundy for this report are key inputs for EIA
electric market projections, they are not the sole driver of electric generation capacity
expansion decisions. The evolution of the electricity mix in each of the 25 regions modeled

U.S. Energy Information Administration | Capital Cost and Performance Characteristics for Utility‐Scale Power Generating Technologies 3
 January 2024

in AEO2025 is sensitive to many factors, including the projected evolution of capital costs
over the modeling horizon, projected fuel costs, the characteristic of wholesale power
markets (regulated or competitive), the existing generation mix, additional costs associated
with environmental controls, and future electricity demand.

U.S. Energy Information Administration | Capital Cost and Performance Characteristics for Utility‐Scale Power Generating Technologies 4
 Capital Cost and Performance
Characteristic Estimates for Utility
Scale Electric Power Generating
Technologies
Prepared for

U.S. Energy Information Administration and Z Federal

Prepared by Sargent & Lundy

Report SL-018001
Final – Rev A
December 6, 2023
Project 14987.001

55 East Monroe Street

Chicago, IL 60603-5780 USA
312-269-2000
[Link]
 SL-018001
U.S. Energy Information Administration and Z Federal
Final – Rev A
Project 14987.001
December 6, 2023

LEGAL NOTICE

This deliverable was prepared by Sargent & Lundy, L.L.C. (S&L) under contract with Z Federal (Client)
expressly for the sole use of the U.S. Energy Information Administration in accordance with the contract
agreement between S&L and Client. This deliverable was prepared using the degree of skill and care
ordinarily exercised by engineers practicing under similar circumstances. Client acknowledges: (1) S&L
prepared this deliverable subject to the particular scope limitations, budgetary and time constraints, and
business objectives of Client; (2) information and data provided by others, including Client, may not have
been independently verified by S&L; and (3) the information and data contained in this deliverable are time-
sensitive and changes in the data, applicable codes, standards, and acceptable engineering practices may
invalidate the findings of this deliverable. Any use or reliance upon this deliverable by third parties shall be
at their sole risk.

Capital Cost and Performance Characteristic Estimates for Utility Scale Electric
Power Generating Technologies
i
 SL-018001
U.S. Energy Information Administration and Z Federal
Final – Rev A
Project 14987.001
December 6, 2023

Sargent & Lundy is one of the longest-standing full-service architect engineering firms in
the world. Founded in 1891, the firm is a global leader in power and energy with expertise
in grid modernization, renewable energy, energy storage, nuclear power, fossil fuels,
carbon capture, and hydrogen. Sargent & Lundy delivers comprehensive project services
– from consulting, design, and implementation to construction management,
commissioning, and operations/maintenance – with an emphasis on quality and safety.
The firm serves public and private sector clients in the power and energy, gas distribution,
industrial, and government sectors.
55 East Monroe Street • Chicago, IL 60603-5780 USA • 312-269-2000

Capital Cost and Performance Characteristic Estimates for Utility Scale Electric
Power Generating Technologies
ii
 SL-018001
U.S. Energy Information Administration and Z Federal
Final – Rev A
Project 14987.001
December 6, 2023

VERSION LOG

Version Issue Date Sections Modified

Draft A August 11, 2023 Initial Issue

Interim Final October 2, 2023 All

Final November 6, 2023 Issued for Final

Final - Rev A December 6, 2023 Sections 17.1.1, 17.3, 18.1.1, 18.3

Capital Cost and Performance Characteristic Estimates for Utility Scale Electric
Power Generating Technologies
iii
 SL-018001
U.S. Energy Information Administration and Z Federal
Final – Rev A
Project 14987.001
December 6, 2023

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................ I
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................ I
COST AND PERFORMANCE OF TECHNOLOGIES .................................................................................... I
COST AND PERFORMANCE ESTIMATES SUMMARY .............................................................................. II
BASIS OF ESTIMATES ................................................................................................................................ V
BASE FUEL SELECTION ............................................................................................................................. V
ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE BASIS .................................................................................................. VI
COMBUSTION TURBINE CAPACITY ADJUSTMENTS............................................................................. VII
CAPITAL COST ESTIMATING.................................................................................................................... VII
LOCATIONAL ADJUSTMENTS ................................................................................................................... IX
ENVIRONMENTAL LOCATION FACTORS .................................................................................................. X
ADDITIONAL LOCATION FACTOR CONSIDERATIONS ........................................................................... XI
OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COST ESTIMATING ......................................................................... XII
FIXED OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE ............................................................................................. XII
VARIABLE OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE ..................................................................................... XIII
INFLATION REDUCTION ACT CONSIDERATIONS ................................................................................XIV
CARBON CAPTURE TECHNOLOGIES ................................................................................................... XIV
NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGIES ..................................................................................................................... XV
CLEAN ENERGY PRODUCTION AND INVESTMENT TAX CREDITS .................................................... XV
LABOR REQUIREMENTS ........................................................................................................................ XVI
DOMESTIC CONTENT REQUIREMENTS .............................................................................................. XVII
SOLAR PHOTOVOLTAIC SUPPLY CHAINS ......................................................................................... XVIII
WIND ENERGY SUPPLY CHAINS ........................................................................................................... XIX
ENERGY STORAGE SUPPLY CHAINS ................................................................................................... XIX
ENERGY COMMUNITY REQUIREMENTS ............................................................................................... XX
CASE 1. ULTRA-SUPERCRITICAL COAL PLANT WITHOUT CARBON CAPTURE, 650 MW NET ........ 1
1.1. CASE DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................................................ 1
1.1.1. MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT AND SYSTEMS.................................................................................... 2
1.1.2. ELECTRICAL AND CONTROL SYSTEMS ......................................................................................... 4
1.1.3. OFFSITE REQUIREMENTS ............................................................................................................... 4
1.2. CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE .................................................................................................................. 4
1.3. OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE COST ESTIMATE ...................................................................... 7
1.4. ENVIRONMENTAL AND EMISSIONS INFORMATION......................................................................... 8

Capital Cost and Performance Characteristic Estimates for Utility Scale Electric
Power Generating Technologies
iv
 SL-018001
U.S. Energy Information Administration and Z Federal
Final – Rev A
Project 14987.001
December 6, 2023

CASE 2. ULTRA-SUPERCRITICAL COAL PLANT WITH 95% CARBON CAPTURE, 650 MW NET ..... 10
2.1. CASE DESCRIPTION .......................................................................................................................... 10
2.1.1. MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT AND SYSTEMS.................................................................................. 10
2.1.2. ELECTRICAL AND CONTROL SYSTEMS ....................................................................................... 13
2.1.3. OFFSITE REQUIREMENTS ............................................................................................................. 13
2.2. CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE ................................................................................................................ 14
2.3. OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE COST ESTIMATE .................................................................... 16
2.4. ENVIRONMENTAL AND EMISSIONS INFORMATION....................................................................... 17
CASE 3. COMBUSTION TURBINE - SIMPLE CYCLE PLANT, 4 X AERODERIVATIVE, 211 MW NET 19
3.1. CASE DESCRIPTION .......................................................................................................................... 19
3.1.1. MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT AND SYSTEMS.................................................................................. 19
3.1.2. ELECTRICAL AND CONTROL SYSTEMS ....................................................................................... 20
3.1.3. OFFSITE REQUIREMENTS ............................................................................................................. 20
3.2. CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE ................................................................................................................ 20
3.3. OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE COST ESTIMATE .................................................................... 22
3.4. ENVIRONMENTAL AND EMISSIONS INFORMATION....................................................................... 23
CASE 4. COMBUSTION TURBINE - SIMPLE CYCLE PLANT, H CLASS, 419 MW NET ....................... 25
4.1. CASE DESCRIPTION .......................................................................................................................... 25
4.1.1. MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT AND SYSTEMS.................................................................................. 25
4.1.2. ELECTRICAL AND CONTROL SYSTEMS ....................................................................................... 26
4.1.3. OFFSITE REQUIREMENTS ............................................................................................................. 26
4.2. CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE ................................................................................................................ 26
4.3. OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE COST ESTIMATE .................................................................... 28
4.4. ENVIRONMENTAL AND EMISSIONS INFORMATION....................................................................... 29
CASE 5. COMBINED-CYCLE PLANT, H CLASS, 1227 MW NET ............................................................ 31
5.1. CASE DESCRIPTION .......................................................................................................................... 31
5.1.1. MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT AND SYSTEM .................................................................................... 31
5.1.2. ELECTRICAL AND CONTROL SYSTEMS ....................................................................................... 33
5.1.3. OFFSITE REQUIREMENTS ............................................................................................................. 33
5.2. CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE ................................................................................................................ 33
5.3. OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE COST ESTIMATE .................................................................... 35
5.4. ENVIRONMENTAL AND EMISSIONS INFORMATION....................................................................... 36
CASE 6. COMBINED-CYCLE PLANT, H CLASS, SINGLE SHAFT, 627 MW NET ................................. 38
6.1. CASE DESCRIPTION .......................................................................................................................... 38
6.1.1. MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT AND SYSTEMS.................................................................................. 38
6.1.2. ELECTRICAL AND CONTROL SYSTEMS ....................................................................................... 40

Capital Cost and Performance Characteristic Estimates for Utility Scale Electric
Power Generating Technologies
v
 SL-018001
U.S. Energy Information Administration and Z Federal
Final – Rev A
Project 14987.001
December 6, 2023

6.1.3. OFFSITE REQUIREMENTS ............................................................................................................. 40

6.2. CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE ................................................................................................................ 41
6.3. OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE COST ESTIMATE .................................................................... 43
6.4. ENVIRONMENTAL AND EMISSIONS INFORMATION....................................................................... 44
CASE 7. COMBINED-CYCLE PLANT, H CLASS, SINGLE SHAFT, WITH 95% CARBON CAPTURE, 543
MW NET ...................................................................................................................................................... 45
7.1. CASE DESCRIPTION .......................................................................................................................... 45
7.1.1. MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT AND SYSTEMS.................................................................................. 45
7.1.2. 95% CO2 CAPTURE ......................................................................................................................... 46
7.1.3. ELECTRICAL AND CONTROL SYSTEMS ....................................................................................... 46
7.1.4. OFFSITE REQUIREMENTS ............................................................................................................. 47
7.2. CAPITAL COST ESTIMATES .............................................................................................................. 47
7.3. OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE COST ESTIMATE .................................................................... 50
7.4. ENVIRONMENTAL AND EMISSIONS INFORMATION....................................................................... 51
CASE 8. WOODY BIOMASS PLANT, WITH 95% CARBON CAPTURE, 50 MW NET ............................ 52
8.1. CASE DESCRIPTION .......................................................................................................................... 52
8.1.1. MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT AND SYSTEMS.................................................................................. 52
8.1.2. 95% CO2 CAPTURE ......................................................................................................................... 55
8.1.3. ELECTRICAL AND CONTROL SYSTEMS ....................................................................................... 55
8.1.4. OFFSITE REQUIREMENTS ............................................................................................................. 55
8.2. CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE ................................................................................................................ 56
8.3. OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE COST ESTIMATE .................................................................... 58
8.4. ENVIRONMENTAL AND EMISSIONS INFORMATION....................................................................... 59
CASE 9. ADVANCED NUCLEAR PLANT (BROWNFIELD), 2 X AP1000 UNITS, 2156 MW NET........... 61
9.1. CASE DESCRIPTION .......................................................................................................................... 61
9.1.1. MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT AND SYSTEMS.................................................................................. 61
9.1.2. ELECTRICAL AND CONTROL SYSTEMS ....................................................................................... 62
9.1.3. OFFSITE REQUIREMENTS ............................................................................................................. 62
9.2. CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE ................................................................................................................ 62
9.3. OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE COST ESTIMATE .................................................................... 64
9.4. ENVIRONMENTAL AND EMISSIONS INFORMATION....................................................................... 65
CASE 10. SMALL MODULAR REACTOR NUCLEAR POWER PLANT, 6 X 80 MW UNITS, 480 MW NET
66
10.1. CASE DESCRIPTION ........................................................................................................................ 66
10.1.1. MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT AND SYSTEMS................................................................................ 66
10.1.2. ELECTRICAL AND CONTROL SYSTEMS ..................................................................................... 67

Capital Cost and Performance Characteristic Estimates for Utility Scale Electric
Power Generating Technologies
vi
 SL-018001
U.S. Energy Information Administration and Z Federal
Final – Rev A
Project 14987.001
December 6, 2023

10.1.3. OFFSITE REQUIREMENTS ........................................................................................................... 67

10.2. CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE .............................................................................................................. 67
10.3. OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE COST ESTIMATE .................................................................. 69
10.4. ENVIRONMENTAL AND EMISSIONS INFORMATION..................................................................... 70
CASE 11. GEOTHERMAL PLANT, 50 MW NET ....................................................................................... 71
11.1. CASE DESCRIPTION ........................................................................................................................ 71
11.1.1. MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT AND SYSTEMS................................................................................ 72
11.1.2. ELECTRICAL AND CONTROL SYSTEMS ..................................................................................... 72
11.1.3. OFFSITE REQUIREMENTS ........................................................................................................... 73
11.2. CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE .............................................................................................................. 73
11.3. OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE COST ESTIMATE .................................................................. 75
11.4. ENVIRONMENTAL AND EMISSIONS INFORMATION..................................................................... 75
CASE 12. HYDROELECTRIC PLANT, 100 MW NET ................................................................................ 76
12.1. CASE DESCRIPTION ........................................................................................................................ 76
12.2. CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE .............................................................................................................. 78
12.3. OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE COST ESTIMATE .................................................................. 80
12.4. ENVIRONMENTAL AND EMISSIONS INFORMATION..................................................................... 80
CASE 13. ONSHORE WIND, LARGE PLANT FOOTPRINT, 200 MW NET ............................................. 81
13.1. CASE DESCRIPTION ........................................................................................................................ 81
13.1.1. MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT AND SYSTEMS................................................................................ 81
13.1.2 ELECTRICAL AND CONTROL SYSTEMS ...................................................................................... 81
13.1.3 OFFSITE REQUIREMENTS ............................................................................................................ 81
13.2. CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE .............................................................................................................. 82
13.3. OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE COST ESTIMATE .................................................................. 83
13.4. ENVIRONMENTAL AND EMISSIONS INFORMATION..................................................................... 84
CASE 14. ONSHORE WIND, REPOWERING/RETROFIT, 150 MW NET ................................................. 85
14.1. CASE DESCRIPTION ........................................................................................................................ 85
14.1.1. MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT AND SYSTEMS................................................................................ 86
14.1.2. ELECTRICAL AND CONTROL SYSTEMS ..................................................................................... 86
14.1.3. OFFSITE REQUIREMENTS ........................................................................................................... 86
14.2. CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE .............................................................................................................. 86
14.3. OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE COST ESTIMATE .................................................................. 88
14.4. ENVIRONMENTAL AND EMISSIONS INFORMATION..................................................................... 89
CASE 15. OFFSHORE WIND: FIXED-BOTTOM MONOPILE FOUNDATIONS, 900 MW NET ................ 90
15.1. CASE DESCRIPTION ........................................................................................................................ 90
15.1.1. MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT AND SYSTEMS................................................................................ 90

Capital Cost and Performance Characteristic Estimates for Utility Scale Electric
Power Generating Technologies
vii
 SL-018001
U.S. Energy Information Administration and Z Federal
Final – Rev A
Project 14987.001
December 6, 2023

15.1.2 ELECTRICAL AND CONTROL SYSTEMS ...................................................................................... 90

15.1.3 OFFSITE REQUIREMENTS ............................................................................................................ 91
15.2. CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE .............................................................................................................. 91
15.3. OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE COST ESTIMATE .................................................................. 92
15.4. ENVIRONMENTAL AND EMISSIONS INFORMATION..................................................................... 93
CASE 16. SOLAR PHOTOVOLTAIC WITH SINGLE AXIS TRACKING, 150 MWAC............................... 94
16.1. CASE DESCRIPTION ........................................................................................................................ 94
16.1.1. MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT AND SYSTEMS................................................................................ 95
16.1.2. ELECTRICAL AND CONTROL SYSTEMS ..................................................................................... 96
16.1.3. OFFSITE REQUIREMENTS ........................................................................................................... 97
16.2. CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE .............................................................................................................. 97
16.3. OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE COST ESTIMATE .................................................................. 99
16.4. ENVIRONMENTAL AND EMISSIONS INFORMATION................................................................... 100
CASE 17. SOLAR PHOTOVOLTAIC WITH SINGLE AXIS TRACKING, AC-COUPLED BATTERY
ENERGY STORAGE, 150 MWAC | 200 MWH ......................................................................................... 101
17.1. CASE DESCRIPTION ...................................................................................................................... 101
17.1.1. MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT AND SYSTEMS.............................................................................. 101
17.1.2. ELECTRICAL AND CONTROL SYSTEMS ................................................................................... 102
17.1.3. OFFSITE REQUIREMENTS ......................................................................................................... 103
17.2. CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE ............................................................................................................ 103
17.3. OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE COST ESTIMATE ................................................................ 105
17.4. ENVIRONMENTAL AND EMISSIONS INFORMATION................................................................... 106
CASE 18. SOLAR PHOTOVOLTAIC WITH SINGLE AXIS TRACKING, DC-COUPLED BATTERY
ENERGY STORAGE, 150 MWAC | 200 MWH ......................................................................................... 107
18.1. CASE DESCRIPTION ...................................................................................................................... 107
18.1.1. MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT AND SYSTEMS.............................................................................. 107
18.1.2. ELECTRICAL AND CONTROL SYSTEMS ................................................................................... 108
18.1.3. OFFSITE REQUIREMENTS ......................................................................................................... 108
18.2. CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE ............................................................................................................ 109
18.3. OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE COST ESTIMATE ................................................................ 111
18.4. ENVIRONMENTAL AND EMISSIONS INFORMATION................................................................... 112
CASE 19. BATTERY ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEM, 150 MW | 600 MWH ........................................... 113
19.1. CASE DESCRIPTION ...................................................................................................................... 113
19.2. CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE ............................................................................................................ 115
19.3. OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE COST ESTIMATE ................................................................ 117
19.4. ENVIRONMENTAL AND EMISSIONS INFORMATION................................................................... 118

Capital Cost and Performance Characteristic Estimates for Utility Scale Electric
Power Generating Technologies
viii
 SL-018001
U.S. Energy Information Administration and Z Federal
Final – Rev A
Project 14987.001
December 6, 2023

FIGURES AND TABLES

FIGURE 1 — SUMMARY OF INVESTMENT TAX CREDITS AND PRODUCTION TAX CREDITS OVER
TIME .......................................................................................................................................................... XVI
FIGURE 2 — THE SOLAR PHOTOVOLTAICS SUPPLY CHAIN........................................................... XVIII
FIGURE 3 — DOMESTIC MANUFACTURING CONTENT FOR ONSHORE WIND POWER IN 2020 ... XIX
FIGURE 4 — MAP OF CENSUS TRACTS ELIGIBLE FOR ENERGY COMMUNITY BONUS ................ XXI
FIGURE 1-1 — USC COAL BOILER – FLOW DIAGRAM ............................................................................ 2
FIGURE 2-1 — CARBON CAPTURE FLOW DIAGRAM ............................................................................ 12
FIGURE 3-1 — CASE 3 CONFIGURATION ............................................................................................... 19
FIGURE 4-1 — CASE 4 CONFIGURATION ............................................................................................... 25
FIGURE 5-1 — CASE 5 CONFIGURATION ............................................................................................... 32
FIGURE 6-1 — CASE 6 CONFIGURATION – SIMPLIFIED SKETCH ....................................................... 40
FIGURE 8-1 — TYPICAL BFB BIOMASS BOILER ARRANGEMENT ....................................................... 54
FIGURE 11-1 — GEOTHERMAL PLANT CONFIGURATIONS FOR HYDROTHERMAL RESERVOIRS 71
FIGURE 12-1 — DAM OF A HYDROELECTRIC POWER PLANT ............................................................ 76
FIGURE 12-2 — STORAGE-TYPE HYDROELECTRIC POWER PLANT.................................................. 77
FIGURE 12-3 — TYPICAL HYDROELECTRIC POWER TURBINE HALL................................................. 78
FIGURE 14-1 — WIND REPOWER COMPONENT LAYOUT .................................................................... 85
FIGURE 16-1 — SOLAR PV PROJECT ..................................................................................................... 94
FIGURE 16-2 — SINGLE-AXIS TRACKING ............................................................................................... 96
FIGURE 17-1 — AC-COUPLED SOLAR PV AND BATTERY STORAGE ............................................... 102
FIGURE 18-1 — DC-COUPLED SOLAR PV AND BATTERY STORAGE ............................................... 108
FIGURE 19-1 — UTILITY-SCALE LITHIUM-ION BATTERIES................................................................. 114
FIGURE 19-2 — STANDALONE BESS FLOW DIAGRAM ....................................................................... 114

TABLE 1-1 — LIST OF REFERENCE TECHNOLOGIES .............................................................................. I

TABLE 1-2 — COST & PERFORMANCE SUMMARY TABLE .................................................................... III
TABLE 1-3 — REFERENCE COAL SPECIFICATION ..................................................................................V
TABLE 1-4 — REFERENCE NATURAL GAS SPECIFICATION ..................................................................V
TABLE 1-5 — REFERENCE WOOD BIOMASS SPECIFICATION .............................................................VI
TABLE 1-6 — UNITED STATES’ AND CHINA’S EXISTING AND UNDER DEVELOPMENT SHARES OF
GLOBAL LITHIUM-ION BATTERY SUBCOMPONENT CAPACITY ......................................................... XX
TABLE 1-1 — CASE 1 CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE .................................................................................... 5
TABLE 1-2 — CASE 1 OPERATIONAL COST ESTIMATE .......................................................................... 8

Capital Cost and Performance Characteristic Estimates for Utility Scale Electric
Power Generating Technologies
ix
 SL-018001
U.S. Energy Information Administration and Z Federal
Final – Rev A
Project 14987.001
December 6, 2023

TABLE 1-3 — CASE 1 EMISSION RATES ................................................................................................... 9

TABLE 2-1 — CASE 2 CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE .................................................................................. 15
TABLE 2-2 — CASE 2 OPERATIONAL COST ESTIMATE ........................................................................ 17
TABLE 2-3 — CASE 2 EMISSION RATES ................................................................................................. 18
TABLE 3-1 — CASE 3 CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE .................................................................................. 21
TABLE 3-2 — CASE 3 O&M COST ESTIMATE ......................................................................................... 23
TABLE 3-3 — CASE 3 EMISSIONS ........................................................................................................... 24
TABLE 4-1 — CASE 4 CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE .................................................................................. 27
TABLE 4-2 — CASE 4 O&M COST ESTIMATE ......................................................................................... 29
TABLE 4-3 — CASE 4 EMISSIONS ........................................................................................................... 30
TABLE 5-1 — CASE 5 CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE .................................................................................. 34
TABLE 5-2 — CASE 5 O&M COSTS .......................................................................................................... 36
TABLE 5-3 — CASE 5 EMISSIONS ........................................................................................................... 37
TABLE 6-1 — CASE 6 CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE .................................................................................. 41
TABLE 6-2 — CASE 6 O&M COST ............................................................................................................ 44
TABLE 6-3 — CASE 6 EMISSIONS ........................................................................................................... 44
TABLE 7-1 — CASE 7 CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE .................................................................................. 48
TABLE 7-2 — CASE 7 O&M COST ESTIMATES ....................................................................................... 51
TABLE 7-3 — CASE 7 EMISSIONS ........................................................................................................... 51
TABLE 8-1 — CASE 8 CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE .................................................................................. 56
TABLE 8-2 — CASE 8 OPERATIONAL COST ESTIMATE ........................................................................ 59
TABLE 8-3 — CASE 8 EMISSION RATES ................................................................................................. 60
TABLE 9-1 — CASE 9 CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE .................................................................................. 63
TABLE 9-2 -— CASE 9 OPERATIONAL COST ESTIMATE ...................................................................... 65
TABLE 10-1 — CASE 10 CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE .............................................................................. 67
TABLE 10-2 — CASE 10 OPERATIONAL COST ESTIMATE .................................................................... 70
TABLE 11-1 — CASE 11 CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE .............................................................................. 73
TABLE 11-2 — CASE 11 OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE (O&M) COST ESTIMATES ...................... 75
TABLE 12-1 — CASE 12 CAPITAL COST ESTIMATES ............................................................................ 78
TABLE 12-2 — CASE 12 OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE (O&M) COST ESTIMATES ...................... 80
TABLE 13-1 — CASE 13 CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE .............................................................................. 82
TABLE 13-2 — CASE 13 O&M COST ESTIMATE ..................................................................................... 84
TABLE 14-1 — CASE 14 CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE .............................................................................. 87
TABLE 14-2 — CASE 14 O&M COST ESTIMATE ..................................................................................... 88
TABLE 15-1 — CASE 15 CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE .............................................................................. 91
TABLE 15-2 — CASE 15 O&M COST ESTIMATE ..................................................................................... 93

Capital Cost and Performance Characteristic Estimates for Utility Scale Electric
Power Generating Technologies
x
 SL-018001
U.S. Energy Information Administration and Z Federal
Final – Rev A
Project 14987.001
December 6, 2023

TABLE 16-1 — CASE 16 CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE .............................................................................. 98

TABLE 16-2 — CASE 16 O&M COST ESTIMATE ................................................................................... 100
TABLE 17-1 — CASE 17 CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE ............................................................................ 103
TABLE 17-2 — CASE 17 O&M COST ESTIMATE ................................................................................... 106
TABLE 18-1 — CASE 18 CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE ............................................................................ 109
TABLE 18-2 — CASE 18 O&M COST ESTIMATE ................................................................................... 111
TABLE 19-1 — CASE 19 CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE ............................................................................ 115
TABLE 19-2 — CASE 19 O&M COST ESTIMATE ................................................................................... 118

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A. LABOR LOCATION-BASED COST ADJUSTMENTS

APPENDIX B. COMBUSTION TURBINE CAPACITY ADJUSTMENTS

Capital Cost and Performance Characteristic Estimates for Utility Scale Electric
Power Generating Technologies
xi
 SL-018001
U.S. Energy Information Administration and Z Federal
Final – Rev A
Project 14987.001
December 6, 2023

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

Acronym/Abbreviation Definition/Clarification
AC Alternating Current
ACC Air-Cooled Condenser
ASCE American Society of Civil Engineers
BESS Battery Energy Storage System
BFB Bubbling Fluidized Bed
BOP Balance-of-Plant
Btu/kWh British Thermal Units Per Kilowatthour
Btu/lb British Thermal Unit Per Pound
Btu/scf British Thermal Unit Per Standard Cubic Foot
CC Combined-Cycle
CCS Carbon Capture and Sequestration
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CO2 Carbon Dioxide
COD Commercial Operation Date
CT Combustion Turbine
DAC Direct Air Capture
DC Direct Current
DCS Distributed Control System
EGS Enhanced Geothermal System
EIA Energy Information Administration
EOH Equivalent Operating Hours
EPC Engineering, Procurement, and Construction
FGD Flue Gas Desulfurization
G&A General and Administrative
GSU Generator Step-Up Transformer
HHV Higher Heating Value
HRSG Heat Recovery Steam Generator
Hz Hertz

Capital Cost and Performance Characteristic Estimates for Utility Scale Electric
Power Generating Technologies
xii
 SL-018001
U.S. Energy Information Administration and Z Federal
Final – Rev A
Project 14987.001
December 6, 2023

Acronym/Abbreviation Definition/Clarification
I&C Instrumentation and Controls
IBC International Building Code
IRA Inflation Reduction Act
ITC Investment Tax Credit
kV Kilovolts
kW Kilowatt
kWh Kilowatt-hour
lb/MMBtu Pounds Per One Million British Thermal Units
LNB Low Nitrogen Oxide Burner
MCC Motor Control Center
MVA Megavolt-Ampere
MW Megawatt
MWAC Megawatt Alternating Current
MWh Megawatt-hour
NOX Nitrogen Oxide
O&M Operating and Maintenance
OFA Overfire Air
PCS Power Conditioning System
PTC Production Tax Credit
psia Pounds Per Square Inch Absolute
PV Photovoltaic
RH Relative Humidity
SCADA Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition
SCR Selective Catalytic Reduction
SO2 Sulfur Dioxide
STG Steam Turbine Generator
USC Ultra-Supercritical
USD United States Dollar
USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture

Capital Cost and Performance Characteristic Estimates for Utility Scale Electric
Power Generating Technologies
xiii
 SL-018001
U.S. Energy Information Administration and Z Federal
Final – Rev A
Project 14987.001
December 6, 2023

Acronym/Abbreviation Definition/Clarification
WESP Wet Electrostatic Precipitator
WFGD Wet Flue Gas Desulfurization
WTG Wind Turbine Generator
ZLD Zero Liquid Discharge

Capital Cost and Performance Characteristic Estimates for Utility Scale Electric
Power Generating Technologies
xiv
 SL-018001
U.S. Energy Information Administration and Z Federal
Final – Rev A
Project 14987.001
December 6, 2023

INTRODUCTION

INTRODUCTION

The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) retained Z Federal and Sargent & Lundy to conduct a
study of the cost and performance of new utility-scale electric power generating technologies. This report
contains Sargent & Lundy’s cost and performance estimates for 19 different reference technology cases.
The EIA will use these estimates to improve the EIA’s Electricity Market Module’s ability to represent the
changing landscape of electricity generation. With this update, the EIA’s improved Electricity Market Module
will better represent capital and non-fuel operating costs of generating technologies being installed or under
consideration for capacity expansion. The Electricity Market Module is a submodule within the EIA’s
National Energy Modeling System, a computer-based energy supply modeling system used for the EIA’s
Annual Energy Outlook and other analyses.

Sargent & Lundy developed the characteristics of the power generating technologies in this study based
on information about similar facilities recently built or under development in the United States and abroad.
Developing the characteristics of each generating technology included the specification of representative
plant sizes, configurations, major equipment, and emission controls. Sargent & Lundy’s cost assessment
included the estimation of overnight capital costs, construction lead times, contingencies, and fixed and
variable operating costs. We also estimated the net plant capacity, net plant heat rates, and controlled
emission rates, as applicable for each technology studied. We performed our assessments with consistent
estimating methodologies across all generating technologies.

COST AND PERFORMANCE OF TECHNOLOGIES

Table 1-1 lists all the power generating technologies that we assessed in this study.

Table 1-1 — List of Reference Technologies

Case
Technology Description
No.
Ultra-Supercritical (USC) Coal without Carbon Capture –
1 1 x 735 MW Gross, 650 MW Net
Greenfield
2 USC Coal 95% Carbon Capture 1 x 819 MW Gross, 650 MW Net
Aeroderivative Combustion Turbines (CTs) – Simple
3 4 x 54 MW Gross Aeroderivative, 211 MW Net
Cycle
4 CTs – Simple Cycle 1 x H-Class Simple Cycle, 419 MW Net
5 Combined-Cycle (CC) 2x2x1 2 x 1 H Class CC, 1227 MW Net
6 CC 1x1x1, Single Shaft 1 x 1 H Class CC, 627 MW Net
7 CC 1x1x1, Single Shaft, with 95% Carbon Capture 1 x 1 H Class CC, 543 MW Net

Capital Cost and Performance Characteristic Estimates for Utility Scale Electric
Power Generating Technologies
I
 SL-018001
U.S. Energy Information Administration and Z Federal
Final – Rev A
Project 14987.001
December 6, 2023

Case
Technology Description
No.
8 Biomass Plant with 95% Carbon Capture 1 x Bubbling Fluidized Bed (BFB), 50 MW Net
9 Advanced Nuclear (Brownfield) 2 x AP1000, 2156 MW Net
6 x 80-MW Small Modular Reactor, 480 MW
10 Small Modular Reactor Nuclear Power Plant
Net
11 Geothermal Binary Cycle, 50 MW Net
12 Hydroelectric Power Plant New Stream Reach Development, 100 MW Net
Onshore Wind – Large Plant Footprint: Great Plains 200 MW | 2.8-MW Wind Turbine Generator
13
Region (WTG)
14 Onshore Wind – Repowering/Retrofit 150 MW | 1.5-1.62 MW WTG
15 Fixed-bottom Offshore Wind: Monopile Foundations 900 MW | 15 MW WTG
16 Solar Photovoltaic (PV) with Single-Axis Tracking 150 MWAC
Solar PV with Single-Axis Tracking and AC-Coupled 150 MWAC Solar
17
Battery Storage 50 MW | 200 MWh Storage
Solar PV with Single-Axis Tracking and DC-Coupled 150 MWAC Solar
18
Battery Storage 50 MW | 200 MWh Storage
19 Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) Lithium Ion, 150 MW | 600 MWh

As part of the technology assessment, we reviewed recent market trends for the reference technologies
using publicly available sources and in-house data. We also used our extensive background in power plant
design and experience in performing similar cost and performance assessments. Using a combination of
public and internal information sources, we identified the representative costs and performance for the
reference technologies.

COST AND PERFORMANCE ESTIMATES SUMMARY

Table 1-2 summarizes all technologies examined, including overnight capital cost information, fixed
operating and maintenance (O&M) costs, and variable non-fuel O&M costs as well as emissions estimates
for new installations (in pounds per one million British thermal units [lb/MMBtu]).

Capital Cost and Performance Characteristic Estimates for Utility Scale Electric
Power Generating Technologies
II
 SL-018001
U.S. Energy Information Administration and Z Federal
Final – Rev A
Project 14987.001
December 6, 2023

Table 1-2 — Cost & Performance Summary Table

Net Net Nitrogen Sulfur Carbon
Fixed O&M Variable
Case Nominal Nominal Capital Cost Oxide Dioxide Dioxide
Technology Description Cost O&M Cost
No. Capacity Heat Rate ($/kW) (NOx) (SO2) (CO2)
($/kW-year) ($/MWh)
(kW) (Btu/kWh) (lb/MMBtu) (lb/MMBtu) (lb/MMBtu)
USC Coal without Carbon 1 x 735 MW
1 650 8,638 $4,103 $61.60 $6.40 0.06 0.09 206
Capture – Greenfield Gross
USC Coal 95% Carbon 1 x 819 MW
2 650 12,293 $7,346 $86.70 $13.73 0.06 0.09 10.3
Capture Gross
Aeroderivative CTs –
3 4 x 54 MW Gross 211 9,447 $1,606 $9.56 $5.70 0.0075 0.00 117
Simple Cycle
$1.24/
MWh,
4 CTs – Simple Cycle 1 x H-Class 419 9,142 $836 $6.87 0.0075 0.00 117
$23,100/
Start
5 CC 2x2x1 2 x 1 H Class 1,227 6,266 $868 $12.12 $3.41 0.0075 0.00 117
6 CC 1x1x1, Single Shaft 1 x 1 H Class SS 627 6,226 $921 $15.51 $3.33 0.0075 0.00 117
CC 1x1x1, Single Shaft,
7 1 x 1 H Class SS 543 7,239 $2,365 $24.78 $5.05 0.0075 0.00 6
with 95% Carbon Capture
Biomass Plant with 95%
8 1 x BFB 50 19,965 $12,631 $261.18 $9.65 0.08 <0.03 10.3
Carbon Capture
Advanced Nuclear
9 2 x AP1000 2,156 10,608 $7,861 $156.20 $2.52 0 0 0
(Brownfield)
Small Modular Reactor 6 x 80 MW Small
10 480 10,046 $8,936 $121.99 $3.19 0 0 0
Nuclear Power Plant Modular Reactor
11 Geothermal Binary Cycle 50 N/A $3,963 $150.60 $0.00 0 0 0
New Stream
12 Hydroelectric Power Plant Reach 100 N/A $7,073 $33.54 $0.00 0 0 0
Development
Onshore Wind – Large
200 MW | 2.8 MW
13 Plant Footprint: Great 200 N/A $1,489 $33.06 $0.00 0 0 0
WTG
Plains Region
Onshore Wind – 150 MW | 1.5 -
14 150 N/A $1,386 $38.55 $0.00 0 0 0
Repowering/Retrofit 1.62 MW WTG

Capital Cost and Performance Characteristic Estimates for Utility Scale Electric Power Generating Technologies
III
 SL-018001
U.S. Energy Information Administration and Z Federal
Final – Rev A
Project 14987.001
December 6, 2023

Net Net Nitrogen Sulfur Carbon

Fixed O&M Variable
Case Nominal Nominal Capital Cost Oxide Dioxide Dioxide
Technology Description Cost O&M Cost
No. Capacity Heat Rate ($/kW) (NOx) (SO2) (CO2)
($/kW-year) ($/MWh)
(kW) (Btu/kWh) (lb/MMBtu) (lb/MMBtu) (lb/MMBtu)
Fixed-bottom Offshore
900 MW | 15 MW
15 Wind: Monopile 900 N/A $3,689 $154.00 $0.00 0 0 0
WTG
Foundations
Solar PV with Single-Axis
16 150 MWAC 150 N/A $1,502 $20.23 $0.00 0 0 0
Tracking
Solar PV with Single-Axis 150 MWAC Solar
17 Tracking and AC-Coupled 50 MW | 200 150 N/A $2,175 $38.39 $0.00 0 0 0
Battery Storage MWh Storage
Solar PV with Single-Axis 150 MWAC Solar
18 Tracking and DC-Coupled 50 MW | 200 150 N/A $2,561 $39.24 $0.00 0 0 0
Battery Storage MWh Storage
Lithium Ion, 150 $1,744,
19 BESS 150 N/A $40.00 $0.00 0 0 0
MW | 600 MWh ($436/kWh)

Capital Cost and Performance Characteristic Estimates for Utility Scale Electric Power Generating Technologies
IV
 SL-018001
U.S. Energy Information Administration and Z Federal
Final – Rev A
Project 14987.001
December 6, 2023

BASIS OF ESTIMATES

BASE FUEL SELECTION

We used the following fuel specifications as a basis for the cost estimates. Table 1-3, Table 1-4, and Table
1-5 represent typical fuel specifications for coal, natural gas, and wood biomass, respectively.

Table 1-3 — Reference Coal Specification

Rank Bituminous
Proximate Analysis (weight %)

Fuel Parameter As Received

Moisture 11.2

Ash 9.7

Carbon 63.75

Oxygen 6.88

Hydrogen 4.5

Sulfur 2.51
Nitrogen 1.25
Chlorine 0.29
HHV, Btu/lb 11,631
Fixed Carbon/Volatile Matter 1.2

HHV = Higher heating value; Btu/lb = British thermal unit per pound

Table 1-4 — Reference 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
Nitrogen N2 0.8
Total 100
LHV HHV
Btu/lb 20,552 22,793
Btu/scf 939 1,040

LHV = Lower heating value; Btu/scf = British thermal unit per standard cubic foot

Capital Cost and Performance Characteristic Estimates for Utility Scale Electric
Power Generating Technologies
.
V
 SL-018001
U.S. Energy Information Administration and Z Federal
Final – Rev A
Project 14987.001
December 6, 2023

Table 1-5 — Reference Wood Biomass Specification

Type Woodchips

Component Weight %

Moisture 20–50

Ash 0.1–0.7

Carbon 32

Sulfur 0.01

Oxygen 28

Hydrogen 3.8

Nitrogen 0.1–0.3

HHV, Btu/lb 5400–6200

ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE BASIS

Our technology assessments selected include the best available (emissions) control technology for sulfur
dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxide (NOX), particulate matter, mercury, and carbon dioxide (CO2), where
applicable. Best available control technology guidelines are covered by the United States’ Clean Air Act
Title I, which promotes air quality, ozone protection, and emission limitations. The level of emission controls
is based on the following best available control technology guidelines:

 Total source emissions

 Regional environmental impact

 Energy consumption

 Economic costs

Best available control technology is not the most restrictive pollution control standard since it still includes
a cost-benefit analysis for technology use. Specific technologies chosen for estimation are further described
in their respective cases.

The CO2 capture systems are commonly referred to as carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) systems;
however, for the cost estimates provided in this report, no sequestration costs (CO2 transportation or
storage) have been included. The CO2 captured is assumed compressed to supercritical conditions and
injected into a pipeline terminated at the fence line of the facility. For this report, the terms “CO2 capture”
and “carbon capture” are used interchangeably.

Capital Cost and Performance Characteristic Estimates for Utility Scale Electric
Power Generating Technologies
.
VI
 SL-018001
U.S. Energy Information Administration and Z Federal
Final – Rev A
Project 14987.001
December 6, 2023

COMBUSTION TURBINE CAPACITY ADJUSTMENTS

Appendix B includes CT capacity adjustments.

Adjustments for local ambient conditions were made for power plants using CTs. Since CTs produce power
proportional to mass flow and ambient air temperature, relative humidity, and elevation affect air density,
these conditions also affect CT performance. These conditions affect CT performance in the following ways:

 Temperature affects air density in an inversely proportional relationship. Higher ambient

temperature lowers the density of the inlet air which reduces the mass flow through the CT and the
consequent power output. Inlet cooling technology on a CT can increase the air density and recover
lost performance.

 Relative humidity affects air density in an inversely proportional relationship as components of water
vapor are less dense than air. Higher relative humidity lowers density and mass flow through the
CT which reduces the power output. For plants with wet cooling (evaporative coolers, wet cooling
towers, etc.), relative humidity and temperature determine the effectiveness of that equipment as
well. Cooling technologies that depend on evaporation are most effective when the temperature is
high and the relative humidity low.

 Elevation affects air pressure and density in an inversely proportional relationship. Ambient air
density was calculated in this study by using the air pressure related to site elevation above sea
level. This gives the average impact of air pressure on performance, ignoring the short-term effects
of weather.

Temperatures and relative humidity used in the Appendix B adjustment table are based on annual averages
for the locations specified. An adjustment factor for the various technologies were compared across
locations on a consistent basis.

CAPITAL COST ESTIMATING

Sargent & Lundy used a top-down capital cost estimating methodology derived from parametric evaluations
of costs from actual or planned projects with similar scope and configurations to the generating technology
considered. We have used both publicly available information and internal sources to establish the
representative costs and appropriate scaling parameters. In some cases, we have use used portions of
more detailed cost estimates to adjust the parametric factors.

The capital cost estimates represent a complete power plant facility on a generic site at a non-specific
location in the United States. The basis of the capital costs is defined as all costs to engineer, procure,
construct, and commission all equipment within the plant facility fence line, as well as interconnections to
electrical transmission and fuel distribution networks, as applicable. As described in the following section,
we have also estimated location adjustments to help establish the cost impacts to project implementation

Capital Cost and Performance Characteristic Estimates for Utility Scale Electric
Power Generating Technologies
.
VII
 SL-018001
U.S. Energy Information Administration and Z Federal
Final – Rev A
Project 14987.001
December 6, 2023

in more specific areas or regions within the United States. Capital costs account for all costs incurred during
construction of the power plant before the commercial operation date (COD). The capital costs are divided
between the engineering, procurement, and construction (EPC) contractor and owner’s costs. Sargent &
Lundy assumes that the power plant developer or owner will hire an EPC contractor for turnkey construction
of the project. Unless noted otherwise, the estimates assume that the EPC contractor cost will include
procurement of equipment, materials, and all construction labor associated with the project. The capital
costs provided are overnight capital costs in 2023 price levels. Overnight capital costs represent the total
cost a developer would expect to incur during the construction of a project, excluding financing costs. The
capital cost breakdowns for the EPC contractor are as follows:

 Direct Costs: EPC direct costs are broken down in formats applicable to the reference technology.
In some cases, the cost breakdown includes major scope work packages that are inclusive of
equipment, materials, and direct labor costs. Other cases have equipment and material procurement
costs separated from the construction labor.
 Major Work Scope Costs: Costs for major project scopes of work such as
“Civil/Structural/Architectural” or “Nuclear Island” include the equipment, materials, and
construction labor associated with scope described.
 Equipment and Material Costs: For some cases, the costs for the primary generation
technologies are listed explicitly (for example, solar PV “Module Supply,” “WTG Procurement
and Supply,” etc.), or grouped into balance-of-plant (BOP) equipment line items such as
“Racking, Tracker and BOP Equipment Supply.” Where no other descriptors are present,
“Other Equipment” generally refers to ancillary equipment, such as pumps, tanks, motor
control centers, condensers, cooling towers, switchgear, transformers, and any other major
inside-the-fence process equipment required for the complete facility. “Materials” include all
construction materials associated with the EPC scope of work and consumables during
construction. Equipment and material costs are intended to be the delivered costs inclusive
of purchase price, duties, and freight, (but excluding any sales tax) and are clarified with
additional descriptors and notes, as needed.
 Construction Labor Costs: Construction labor costs are intended to represent the fully
burdened cost of labor to the EPC contractor for the project construction activities.
Construction labor costs may be listed for individual activities as “installation” costs, included
with the equipment/material costs where the description includes “supply and installation,”
or aggregated as “construction labor” for all labor directly attributed to onsite civil/structural
work and erection/installation of the equipment included in the EPC contractor’s scope.

 Indirect Costs: Indirect costs include engineering, procurement, project services, construction
management, field engineering, start-up, and commissioning services provided by the EPC
contractor.

 EPC Fee and Contingency: The EPC fee is included to represent the premium applied by the EPC
contractor for profit and management of subcontracts within their scope. EPC contingency includes
costs for the “known unknowns” that are not defined explicitly but would be expected to be managed

Capital Cost and Performance Characteristic Estimates for Utility Scale Electric
Power Generating Technologies
.
VIII
 SL-018001
U.S. Energy Information Administration and Z Federal
Final – Rev A
Project 14987.001
December 6, 2023

by the EPC contractor while delivering a fully functional generation facility. Contingencies are added
because experience has shown that such costs are likely, and expected, to be incurred even though
they cannot be explicitly determined at the time the estimate is prepared. The percentages used to
calculate these values are generally representative of the degrees of uncertainty, risk, and
complexity of the generation and any environmental control technologies. These percentages are
listed in the cost tables and represent values generally accepted within their respective markets.

Owner’s costs represent costs to the owner that would typically be incurred outside the scope of the EPC
contract. These primarily consist of costs incurred to develop and manage the project as well as land and
utility interconnection costs.

 Owner’s Services: The owner’s services include project development, studies, permitting, legal,
owner's project management, owner's engineering, and owner's participation in start-up and
commissioning.

 Land: project land requirements are based on typical land requirements for each technology with
per-acreage costs based on a survey of vacant land listings zoned for industrial use within the United
States. For certain technologies, land is assumed to be leased and those costs are included in the
operations and maintenance costs instead.

 Electrical Interconnection: Transmission costs are based on a one-mile transmission line (unless
otherwise stated) with voltage ranging from 115 kilovolts (kV) to 500 kV depending on the unit
capacity. We have also assumed that no substation upgrades would be required for the electrical
interconnections.

 Gas Interconnection: Natural gas interconnection and metering costs are generic and based on
nominal one-mile gas pipeline laterals. Per-mile costs are assumed based on historical costs for
pipeline laterals serving similar generation facilities. Owner’s Contingency: An owner’s contingency
is also included to account for undefined project scope and pricing uncertainty within owner’s cost
components. Like the EPC contingency, the levels of owner’s contingencies differ from case to case,
and do so for many of the same reasons, including project uncertainty, risk, and complexity.

Locational Adjustments

We estimated the capital costs adjustment factors account for technology implementation at various
locations in the United States. Appendix A provides locational adjustment factors.

Craft labor rates for each location were developed from the publication RS Means Labor Rates for the
Construction Industry, 2023 edition. Costs were added to cover social security, workmen’s compensation,
and federal and state unemployment insurance. The resulting burdened craft rates were used to develop
typical crew rates applicable to the task performed. For each technology, up to 26 different crews were
used to determine the average wage rate for each location. For several technologies, relevant internal
Sargent & Lundy estimates were used to further refine the average wage rate by using the weighted
average based on the crew composition for the specific technology.

Capital Cost and Performance Characteristic Estimates for Utility Scale Electric
Power Generating Technologies
.
IX
 SL-018001
U.S. Energy Information Administration and Z Federal
Final – Rev A
Project 14987.001
December 6, 2023

Sargent & Lundy used a “30 City Average” based on RS Means Labor Rates for the Construction Industry
to establish the base location for all the technologies. We measured the wage rate factor for each location
against the base rate (the “30 City Average”). The location factors were then improved by adding the
regional labor productivity factor; these factors are based on the publication Compass International Global
Construction Costs Yearbook, 2022 edition. Even though Compass International Global Construction Costs
Yearbook provides productivity factors for some of the major metro areas in the United States, the
productivity factors on the state level were mostly used to represent the typical construction locations of
plants for each of the technologies. The final location factor was measured against average productivity
factor, which is based on the same 30 cities that are included in the “30 City Average” wage rate.

Environmental Location Factors

Capital cost adjustment factors have also been estimated to account for environmental conditions at various
locations in the United States. These environmental location factors, however, do not account for any state
or local jurisdictional amendments or requirements that modify the national design codes and standards
(for example: American Society of Civil Engineers [ASCE], International Building Code, etc.). Soil Site Class
D for stiff soils was assumed; geotechnical investigation is required to account for site-specific soil
conditions that will need to be considered during detailed design. Risk Category II was assumed for all
power generating technologies. Each environmental factor was baselined, and the geometric mean was
used to determine the combined environmental location factor that accounts for the wind, seismic, snow,
and tsunami effects, as applicable. To distribute the environmental location factor to the material costs for
the civil, mechanical, electrical, carbon capture, and other works for each of the 19 cases, the factor was
proportioned based on the assumed effect environmental loading would have on the works. In other words,
the concrete foundations support most of the design loading; therefore, the percentage of the environmental
loading factor that was distributed to the civil works was typically the highest. The distribution of the
environmental loading factor was based on typical general arrangements of major equipment, buildings,
and balance of plant for each of the 19 cases.

The environmental location factor for wind is based on ASCE 7-16, and it is based on velocity pressure for
enclosed, rigid buildings with flat roofs, which is the most widely used building configuration at power
generating stations. The baseline was the approximate average velocity pressure for the location data set;
therefore, the factor was reduced for locations lower than the average and increased for locations above
the average.

Capital Cost and Performance Characteristic Estimates for Utility Scale Electric
Power Generating Technologies
.
X
 SL-018001
U.S. Energy Information Administration and Z Federal
Final – Rev A
Project 14987.001
December 6, 2023

The environmental location factor for seismic is based on the “Seismic Design” category, which is
determined based on site-specific coefficients1 and the calculated mapped spectral response or design
spectral acceleration. The baseline was Seismic Design Category B; therefore, the factor was reduced for
Seismic Design Category A and increased for Seismic Design Category C and D. None of the locations
selected were Seismic Design Category E or F due in part to the assumed soil Site Class D.

The environmental location factor for snow loading is based on an importance factor of 1.00. The ground
snow load was determined using the ASCE 7-16 Hazard Tool; however, the value for Boise, Idaho, was
based on data from ASCE 7-10 because data from ASCE 7-16 was unavailable. The ground snow load for
case study areas assumed 50 pounds per square foot. The baseline was the approximate average ground
snow load for the location data set; therefore, the factor was reduced for locations lower than the average
and increased for locations above the average.

The environmental location factor for tsunami loading is based on ASCE 7-16 methodology and an article
published by The Seattle Times regarding the cost implications of incorporating tsunami-resistant features
into the first building designed using the methodology. The environmental location factor included tsunami
effects for one location: Seattle, Washington.

Additional Location Factor Considerations

Base costs for the thermal power cases were determined assuming no significant constraints with respect
to available water resources, wastewater discharge requirements, and ambient temperature extremes. In
areas where these constraints are expected to add significantly to the installed equipment, we applied
location adjustments to the capital costs. To account for locations with limited water resources, such as
California, the southwest, and the mountain west regions, air-cooled condensers (ACCs) are used in lieu
of mechanical draft cooling towers. In regions where wastewater loads to rivers and reservoirs are becoming
increasingly restricted, zero liquid discharge (ZLD) equipment is added. ZLD wastewater treatment
equipment is assumed to include reverse osmosis, evaporation/crystallization, and fractional electrode
ionization. To reduce the loading for the ZLD systems, it is assumed that cases where ZLD is applied will
also have equipment in place to reduce wastewater such as ACCs or cooling tower blowdown treatment
systems.

To account for ambient temperature extremes, costs for boiler enclosures have been included as part of
the location factors in areas where ambient temperatures will be below freezing for significant periods of

1Determined using the web interface on [Link] The Structural Engineers Association of California
and California’s Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development developed this web interface that uses the open-
source code provided by the United States Geological Survey to retrieve the seismic design data. This website does
not perform any calculations to the table values.

Capital Cost and Performance Characteristic Estimates for Utility Scale Electric
Power Generating Technologies
.
XI
 SL-018001
U.S. Energy Information Administration and Z Federal
Final – Rev A
Project 14987.001
December 6, 2023

time. Costs for boiler enclosures are applied to the coal-fired cases and the biomass cases, but not to the
CC heat recovery steam generators (HRSGs), which are assumed to open in all regions. It is assumed that
the steam turbine generator (STG) equipment will be enclosed for all cases in all locations.

OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COST ESTIMATING

Once a plant enters commercial operation, the plant owners incur ongoing costs for the operation and
maintenance (O&M) of the facility. These costs are categorized into fixed O&M costs which are incurred
each year independent of the facility dispatch, and variable O&M costs which vary with the hours of
operation. Operations and maintenance costs presented in this report do not include the costs for fuel or
fuel procurement activities.

Fixed Operations and Maintenance

Fixed O&M costs include costs directly related to the generation technology and facility design which do
not vary with dispatch. These typically include labor, materials, contract services for routine O&M, general
and administrative (G&A) costs. Costs were estimated based on a variety of sources including actual
projects, vendor publications, and Sargent & Lundy’s internal resources. Property taxes and insurance
would also typically be considered fixed O&M but are excluded from our estimates.

Where sufficient data was available, fixed O&M cost breakouts are provided in $/year annual costs with
brief descriptors of the cost components. Typical fixed O&M costs include:

 Routine Labor

 Materials and Contract Services

 Administrative and General Expenses

Routine labor includes the regular maintenance of the equipment as recommended by the equipment
manufacturers. This includes maintenance of pumps, compressors, transformers, instruments, controls,
and valves. The power plant’s typical design is such that routine labor activities do not require a plant
outage.

Materials and contract services include the materials associated with the routine labor as well as contracted
services such as those covered under a long-term service agreement, which has recurring monthly
payments.

Capital Cost and Performance Characteristic Estimates for Utility Scale Electric
Power Generating Technologies
.
XII
 SL-018001
U.S. Energy Information Administration and Z Federal
Final – Rev A
Project 14987.001
December 6, 2023

General and administrative expenses are operation expenses, which include leases, management salaries,
and office utilities.

These annual costs are combined in the fixed O&M subtotal and levelized by dividing by the net kW capacity
of the facility to deliver values in $/kW-year. For the geothermal, hydro, wind, solar, and battery energy
storage cases, all O&M costs are treated as fixed costs.

Variable Operations and Maintenance

Variable O&M costs are costs that vary based on the amount of electrical generation at the power plant.
These expenses may include water consumption, waste and wastewater discharge, chemicals such as
selective catalytic reduction ammonia, and consumables including lubricants and calibration gas. Because
these costs are generation dependent, the values are levelized by the cost per unit of energy generation
and presented in $/MWh.

Capital Cost and Performance Characteristic Estimates for Utility Scale Electric
Power Generating Technologies
.
XIII
 SL-018001
U.S. Energy Information Administration and Z Federal
Final – Rev A
Project 14987.001
December 6, 2023

INFLATION REDUCTION ACT CONSIDERATIONS

The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), signed into law in August of 2022, introduced a comprehensive set of tax
credits, grants, and loan programs aimed at financing and expediting the deployment of clean energy
technologies. The capital and operating cost estimates included in this report do not account for investment
tax credits, production tax credits, or any other tax credit incentives that may be applicable to the reference
technology. These credits would, however, represent critical components of the financial considerations for
several of the cases presented herein. For this reason, a brief discussion of some of the available credits
and their qualification requirements is included below.

CARBON CAPTURE TECHNOLOGIES

Carbon capture technologies may be eligible for several incentives under the IRA, including the Energy
Infrastructure Reinvestment Financing, and USDA Assistance for Rural Electric Cooperatives; but the most
impactful feature pertaining to carbon capture is the extension and expansion of the Internal Revenue
Code’s (IRC) 45Q tax credit for Credit for Carbon Oxide Sequestration. The IRA extends the preexisting
45Q tax credit availability timeline, adds an enhanced credit for direct air capture (DAC), and lowers the
carbon capture threshold requirements for certain facilities to benefit from the credit. Facilities meeting
prevailing wage and registered apprenticeship requirements can qualify for bonus credits as well.

The base credit amount is $17 per metric ton of carbon dioxide captured and sequestered or $12 per metric
ton for carbon dioxide that is injected for enhanced oil recovery or utilized. Those amounts are $36 and
$26, respectively, for direct air capture facilities. Recipients may qualify for bonus credits worth 5 times
these amounts if the facilities meet the IRA’s prevailing wage and registered apprenticeship requirements.

Facilities claiming the 45Q credit must be constructed in the U.S. before January 1, 2023, and must capture
the necessary minimum annual volumes of CO2 as determined by the type of facility:

 1,000 metric tons of CO2 per year for DAC facilities

 18,750 metric tons for electricity generating facilities (with carbon capture capacity of 75% of
baseline CO2 production)

 12,500 metric tons for other facilities

The 45Q credits may be claimed for 12 years after an eligible facility is placed in service.

Capital Cost and Performance Characteristic Estimates for Utility Scale Electric
Power Generating Technologies
.
XIV
 SL-018001
U.S. Energy Information Administration and Z Federal
Final – Rev A
Project 14987.001
December 6, 2023

NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGIES

Nuclear power generators are also eligible for several credits, most notably, the IRC section 45J credit for
the production of electricity from advanced nuclear power facilities. This credit was originally enacted by
section 1306 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, offering 1.8 cents per kWh of energy produced and sold by
qualifying advanced nuclear facilities – with certain caps and limitations – which were placed in service
before January 1, 2021. The IRA does not modify the 45J credit but adds an alternative Zero-Emission
Nuclear Power Production Credit in the IRC section 45U. This credit applies to existing nuclear power plants
which at time of enactment, are not eligible for the 45J credit. The base credit amount is 0.3 cents per kWh
and will be inflation adjusted after 2024. The credit amount phases down depending on the amount of
energy produced and the gross receipts of the nuclear power facility.

The 45U credit will be made available for electricity produced at qualifying facilities and sold after December
31, 2023, and in tax years beginning after that date, expiring in 2032. 45U recipients may qualify for bonus
credits worth five times the base credit amount if the facility meets the IRA’s prevailing wage requirements.

CLEAN ENERGY PRODUCTION AND INVESTMENT TAX CREDITS

The Clean Energy Production and Investment Tax Credits (“PTC” and “ITC”) extended in the IRA offer
financial relief to qualifying entities by offsetting a portion of the costs associated with implementing or
operating renewable energy technologies. These two credit structures, more commonly known by their
Internal Revenue Code sections 45Y (PTC) and 48E (ITC) reduce a renewable energy developer’s federal
tax liability in the following ways:

 The investment tax credit is a tax credit that reduces the federal income tax liability for a percentage
of the cost of a qualifying renewable energy system that is installed during the tax year.

 The production tax credit is a per kilowatt-hour (kWh) tax credit for electricity generated by qualifying
technologies for the first 10 years of a system’s operation. It reduces the federal income tax liability
and is adjusted annually for inflation.

These IRA tax credits may be applied to a diverse range of renewable energy technologies including wind,
solar, bioenergy, geothermal, small irrigation, landfill and trash, hydropower, fuel cells, and several more.
Under the IRA, eligible renewable energy projects may qualify for various bonus credits that further increase
the tax incentives. Criteria for these bonus credits include labor requirements, energy community
requirements, and domestic content requirements. These additional qualifications aim to promote fair
wages, support impacted communities, and foster domestic energy independence. A summary of these
credits, their values, and their phase-out schedules is presented in Figure 1.

Capital Cost and Performance Characteristic Estimates for Utility Scale Electric
Power Generating Technologies
.
XV
 SL-018001
U.S. Energy Information Administration and Z Federal
Final – Rev A
Project 14987.001
December 6, 2023

Figure 1 — Summary of Investment Tax Credits and Production Tax Credits Over Time

Source: [Link]

Additional discussion of the qualification requirements for prevailing wage labor, domestic content, and
energy community bonus credits is included in the subsections below.

LABOR REQUIREMENTS

To meet the labor requirements under the IRA, all wages for construction, alteration, and repair—for the
first 5 years of the project for the investment tax credit and the first 10 years of the project for the production
tax credit—must be paid at the prevailing rates of that location. Additionally, a certain percentage of the

Capital Cost and Performance Characteristic Estimates for Utility Scale Electric
Power Generating Technologies
.
XVI
 SL-018001
U.S. Energy Information Administration and Z Federal
Final – Rev A
Project 14987.001
December 6, 2023

total construction labor hours for a project must be performed by an apprentice. Qualifying projects must
meet the following minimum percentages of apprentice labor:

 0% for projects beginning construction in 2022

 12.5% for projects beginning construction in 2023

 15% for projects beginning construction after 2023

If the prevailing wage or apprenticeship requirements were not originally satisfied, a project may still obtain
the bonus credit by paying the affected employees the difference in wages plus interest and paying a $5000
fee to the United States Department of Labor for each impacted individual. The apprenticeship requirements
also can be satisfied if a good faith effort was made to comply or if a penalty is paid to the United States
Department of the Treasury in the amount of $50/hour of noncompliance.

DOMESTIC CONTENT REQUIREMENTS

The domestic content requirements under the IRA aim to support and strengthen United States based
production industries by incentivizing the use of domestically sourced materials and components in
renewable energy products. To qualify for the domestic content bonus, all structural steel or iron products
used in the project must be produced in the United States and a “required percentage” of the total costs of
manufactured products (including components) of the facility need to be mined, produced, or manufactured
in the United States. The minimum required percentage of manufactured products for bonus qualification
is as follows:

 40% for all projects beginning construction before 2025

 45% for projects beginning construction in 2025

 50% for projects beginning construction in 2026

 55% for projects beginning construction after 2026

The percentage is calculated by dividing the cost of all domestically manufactured products and
components by the total cost of all manufactured products.

Executive Order 14017 “America’s Supply Chains,” directed the Secretary of Energy to submit a report on
supply chains for the energy sector industrial base. In response, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)
prepared and issued a series of deep dive assessments of supply chains for eleven different technology
sectors. These assessments illustrate the limited domestic production capacity available for many
renewable technologies from raw material and feedstock processing to finished product manufacturing and
assembly. A brief summary of their findings for solar photovoltaics, wind, and energy storage technologies
is included in the subsections below.

Capital Cost and Performance Characteristic Estimates for Utility Scale Electric
Power Generating Technologies
.
XVII
 SL-018001
U.S. Energy Information Administration and Z Federal
Final – Rev A
Project 14987.001
December 6, 2023

Solar Photovoltaic Supply Chains

In the United States, two primary types of solar PV modules dominate the market: crystalline silicon (c-Si)
modules, constituting approximately 84%, and cadmium telluride (CdTe) modules, making up the remaining
16%. Both these module types require mounting structures, commonly referred to as racking, for
mechanical support, which can either track the sun's movement (tracking) or remain fixed at a specific angle
(fixed tilt). PV modules produce direct current (DC) output, typically converted into alternating current (AC)
through an inverter. However, they can also be used directly to charge nearby battery energy storage in
"DC-coupled" configurations. A breakdown of key components within the solar PV supply chain is illustrated
in Figure 2.

Figure 2 — The Solar Photovoltaics Supply Chain

Source: US Department of Energy. “Solar Photovoltaics Supply Chain." Image. [Link]. February 24, 2022.
[Link]
%[Link]

The supply chain for crystalline silicon (c-Si) modules begins with the refinement of high-purity
polycrystalline silicon, commonly referred to as polysilicon. This essential component's raw material is
metallurgical-grade silicon (MGS), also known as silicon metal, which is derived from high-grade quartz.
Approximately 12% of the global MGS production is dedicated to the production of high-purity polysilicon
for the solar industry. Polysilicon undergoes a melting process to cultivate monocrystalline silicon ingots
which are subsequently sliced into thin silicon wafers. These wafers are then processed to create the solar
cells that are interconnected and enclosed between layers of glass and plastic, forming the c-Si modules.
A significant proportion of silicon wafer production, approximately 97%, is concentrated in China, with these
wafers being exported to manufacturing facilities worldwide, including the United States. Nearly three-
quarters of the silicon solar cells integrated into modules installed in the United States are manufactured
by Chinese subsidiaries located in just three Southeast Asian countries: Vietnam, Malaysia, and Thailand.
Despite announced plans for domestic manufacturing facilities, the United States presently lacks active
production capacity for c-Si ingots, wafers, or cells.

The United States does possess domestic production capacity for thin-film Cadmium Telluride (CdTe)
modules, a technology that does not rely on materials sourced from Chinese companies. The 16% of PV
installations in the United States utilizing CdTe modules were exclusively supplied by a single American

Capital Cost and Performance Characteristic Estimates for Utility Scale Electric
Power Generating Technologies
.
XVIII
 SL-018001
U.S. Energy Information Administration and Z Federal
Final – Rev A
Project 14987.001
December 6, 2023

company. This U.S.-based company is responsible for producing roughly one-third of these CdTe modules
within the United States, contributing to the diversification of the country's solar module manufacturing
supply chain.

Wind Energy Supply Chains

Wind power plants are composed of five primary components: towers, rotors/blades, nacelle/drivetrain,
foundations, and grid interconnection equipment. Domestic content is readily available for larger
components of land-based wind plants, such as towers, nacelles, and blades (Figure 3), though domestic
content in blades has declined in recent years. For offshore wind technologies there was no domestic supply
chain capacity in 2021, apart from some manufacturing of applicable electrical equipment and cabling.
However, several manufacturers have announced their intent to begin production at U.S. facilities in the
coming years. The domestic supply chain in 2020 was capable of producing10-15 GW/year for each primary
land-based turbine component (towers, blades, and nacelles) (Wiser et al. 2021). BloombergNEF estimated
that a typical onshore wind project in the U.S. sources 57% of its components (by dollar value) domestically
(Goldie-Scot, Zindler, and Wang 2021).

Figure 3 — Domestic Manufacturing Content for Onshore Wind Power in 2020

Source: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Analysis

Energy Storage Supply Chains

There are five major components of a lithium-ion battery: anode, cathode, electrolyte salts, electrolyte
solutions, and separators. China has a dominant market presence in terms of both current and planned
capacity for all subcomponents. The United States has less than 10% of global capacity for any

Capital Cost and Performance Characteristic Estimates for Utility Scale Electric
Power Generating Technologies
.
XIX
 SL-018001
U.S. Energy Information Administration and Z Federal
Final – Rev A
Project 14987.001
December 6, 2023

subcomponent and has very little, if any, capacity planned or under construction. The markets for lithium-
ion batteries, are evolving quickly, primarily in the transportation sector. New facilities are announced almost
weekly, and data from government sources such as those in China, often lag announcements from industry
by several months. Table 3 summarizes the subcomponent market positions of the U.S. and China as of
2021.

Table 1-6 — United States’ and China’s Existing and Under Development Shares of
Global Lithium-Ion Battery Subcomponent Capacity
2021 Under Development
Battery Component U.S. China U.S. China
Cathode 0.70% 63% 0% 84%
Anode Materials 0.60% 84% 0% 91%
Separator 3% 66% 0% 76%
Electrolyte 7% 69% 2% 75%

Source: BloombergNEF (2021)

Future estimates change often due to new policies related to decarbonization and country-level
competitiveness. These figures thus indicate overall industry dominance of China over the United States
across the battery component supply chain rather than absolute market size.

ENERGY COMMUNITY REQUIREMENTS

The energy community requirements set forth by the IRA encourage the development of new energy
projects in economically distressed or traditional energy communities. Energy communities include areas
that (i) a coal mine or coal-fired power plant has closed or (ii) have been economically reliant on the
extraction, processing, transport, or storage of coal, oil, or natural gas but now face higher-than-average
unemployment. The DOE maintains an interactive map of metropolitan statistical areas and non-
metropolitan statistical areas that qualify for the energy community bonus under the present definition.

Capital Cost and Performance Characteristic Estimates for Utility Scale Electric
Power Generating Technologies
.
XX
 SL-018001
U.S. Energy Information Administration and Z Federal
Final – Rev A
Project 14987.001
December 6, 2023

Figure 4 — Map of Census Tracts Eligible for Energy Community Bonus

Source: [Link]

Capital Cost and Performance Characteristic Estimates for Utility Scale Electric
Power Generating Technologies
.
XXI
 SL-018001
U.S. Energy Information Administration and Z Federal
Final – Rev A
Project 14987.001
December 6, 2023

CASE 1. ULTRA-SUPERCRITICAL COAL PLANT

WITHOUT CARBON CAPTURE, 650 MW NET

1.1. CASE DESCRIPTION

This case comprises a greenfield coal-fired power plant with a nominal net capacity of 650 megawatts (MW)
with a single steam generator and steam turbine with coal storage and handling systems, balance-of-plant
(BOP) systems, and emissions control systems; there are no carbon dioxide (CO2) capture systems in this
case.

This case employs a modified Rankine cycle, referred to as an ultra-supercritical (USC) thermal cycle, which
is characterized by the operation at supercritical pressures; approximately 3750 psia (pounds per square
inch absolute) and at steam temperatures above 1100°F (degrees Fahrenheit). This increase in steam
pressure and temperature provides more energy per pound of fuel able to be converted to shaft power in
the steam turbine.

The USC steam cycles are a significant improvement from the more common subcritical cycles. Therefore,
USC technology represents the most efficient steam cycle configuration currently available. These higher
efficiency boilers and turbines require less coal and subsequently produce less greenhouse gases and
lower emissions. Throughout the past two decades, many USC coal power plants have been placed in
operation, although most of these facilities have been constructed in outside of the United States. The AEP
John Turk Plant, commissioned in 2012, is the only USC power facility constructed in the United States.
Figure 1-1 represents a flow diagram of a generic USC coal facility.

Capital Cost and Performance Characteristic Estimates for Utility Scale Electric
Power Generating Technologies
1
 SL-018001
U.S. Energy Information Administration and Z Federal
Final – Rev A
Project 14987.001
December 6, 2023

Figure 1-1 — USC Coal Boiler – Flow Diagram

Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Available and Emerging Technologies for Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Coal-Fired Electric Generating Units PDF
Accessed from [Link], [Link]

The base configuration used for the cost estimate is a single unit station constructed on a greenfield site of
approximately 400 acres with rail access for coal deliveries. The facility has a nominal net generating
capacity of 650 MW and is assumed to fire a high sulfur bituminous coal (approximately 4 MMBtu/hour SO2)
with fuel moisture at 11% to 13% by weight and ash at 9% to 10%. Mechanical draft cooling towers are
used for cycle cooling, and the water utilized for cycle cooling and steam cycle makeup is provided by an
assumed adjacent freshwater reservoir or river.

1.1.1. Mechanical Equipment and Systems

[Link]. USC Steam Cycle

The steam turbine is a tandem compound reheat machine consisting of a high-pressure turbine, an
intermediate-pressure turbine, and two double-flow low-pressure turbines with horizontal casing splits. The
USC thermal cycle comprises eight feedwater heaters. The eighth heater is supplied with extraction steam
from the high-pressure turbine. This heater configuration is commonly referred to as a “HARP” system,
which is “Heater Above Reheat Point” of the turbine steam flow path. Boiler feedwater is supplied to the

Capital Cost and Performance Characteristic Estimates for Utility Scale Electric
Power Generating Technologies
2
 SL-018001
U.S. Energy Information Administration and Z Federal
Final – Rev A
Project 14987.001
December 6, 2023

cycle with a single steam driven boiler feedwater pump. with the turbine exhaust directed to the low-
pressure condenser. Steam leaves the boiler to a high-pressure steam turbine designed for the USC
pressures and temperatures. Steam leaving the high-pressure turbine is reheated in the boiler and directed
to the intermediate-pressure turbine. The low-pressure turbine sections are twin dual flow turbines. The
condensers are multi-flow units, one per each dual flow low-pressure turbine, operated at 2.0 inches of
mercury absolute. The plant cooling system uses mechanical draft cooling towers with a circulated water
temperature rise of 20°F.

The plant performance estimate is based on ambient conditions of 59°F, 60% relative humidity, and sea
level elevation. The boiler efficiency is assumed to be 87.5%. The gross plant output is estimated to be 735
MW with a net output of 650 MW. The net heat rate is estimated to be 8638 Btu/kWh (British thermal unit
per kilowatt-hour) based on the higher heating value (HHV) of the fuel and the net electrical output.

[Link]. Steam Generator

For the base case design, the single steam generator is designed for an outdoor location. The steam
generator is a USC, pulverized-coal-fired type, balanced draft, once-through unit equipped with
superheater, reheater, economizer, and regenerative air heaters. All materials of construction are selected
to withstand the pressures and temperatures associated with the USC conditions and are in accordance
with Section 1 of the ASME Boiler Pressure Vessel Code. The boiler is fired with pulverized bituminous coal
through six pulverizers. The boiler-firing system consists of low-nitrogen oxide (NOX) burners (LNBs) and
overfire air (OFA). A submerged flight conveyor system is used for bottom ash removal. An economizer
preheats the feedwater prior to entering the boiler water walls. Combustion air is preheated with two parallel
trisector air preheaters. Combustion air is delivered to the boiler by two forced draft fans and two primary
air fans. Two axial induced draft fans are used to transfer combustion gases through a baghouse, wet flue
gas desulfurization (WFGD) system, wet electrostatic precipitator (WESP), and wet chimney.

[Link]. Water Treatment

The facility’s water treatment plant consists of pretreatment and demineralization. All raw water entering
the facility is first sent to the pretreatment system, which mainly consists of two redundant clarifiers where
chemicals are added for disinfection and suspended solids removal. The pretreatment system includes lime
addition. The lime addition allows for the partial removal of hardness and alkalinity from the raw water, if
required. After pretreatment, the water is sent to a storage tank and then directed to the service and
firewater users. A demineralizer system is used to provide steam cycle makeup water of sufficient quality
for the once-through system. All wastewater from the demineralizer system is either recycled to the WFGD
system or sent to the wastewater neutralization and discharge system.

Capital Cost and Performance Characteristic Estimates for Utility Scale Electric
Power Generating Technologies
3
 SL-018001
U.S. Energy Information Administration and Z Federal
Final – Rev A
Project 14987.001
December 6, 2023

[Link]. Material Handling

The coal handling system includes rail car unloading, reclaim systems, a dual coal conveyor system,
transfer towers, and coal crushers. The fly ash handling system includes equipment to remove ash from
the boiler, economizer, air heater, and baghouse. Fly ash is collected dry and conveyed to a storage silo.
Fly ash is collected from the storage by truck for offsite disposal.

1.1.2. Electrical and Control Systems

The USC facility generator is rated at approximately 780 megavolt-ampere (MVA) with an output of 24
kilovolts (kV) and is connected via generator circuit breakers to a generator step-up transformer (GSU).
The GSU increases the voltage from the generator voltage level to the transmission system high-voltage
level. The electrical system includes auxiliary transformers and reserve auxiliary transformers. The facility
and most of the subsystems are controlled using a central distributed control system (DCS).

1.1.3. Offsite Requirements

Coal is delivered to the facility by rail. The maximum daily coal rate for the facility is approximately 4600
tons per day. The number of rail cars to support this facility is estimated at approximately 330 rail cars per
week.

The site is assumed to be located adjacent to a river or reservoir that can be permitted to supply a sufficient
quantity of cooling water. The total volume of water consumption for cooling tower makeup, cycle makeup,
and other demands is estimated to be approximately 7000 gallons per minute. Wastewater is sent to the
adjacent waterway from one or more outfalls from a water treatment pond or wastewater treatment system.

The facility is assumed to start up on natural gas; therefore, the site is connected to a gas distribution
system. Natural gas interconnection costs are based on a new lateral connected to existing gas pipeline.

The electrical interconnection costs are based on a one-mile distance from the facility switchyard to the
terminal point on an existing utility substation. For the purposes of this estimate, any costs associated with
expansion of the substation is excluded.

1.2. CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE

Table 1-1 summarizes the cost components for this case. The basis of the estimate assumes that the site
is constructed in a United States region that has good access to lower-cost construction labor and has
reasonable access to water resources, coal, natural gas, and existing utility transmission substations or
existing transmission lines. The geographic location is assumed to be characterized by seismic, wind, and

Capital Cost and Performance Characteristic Estimates for Utility Scale Electric
Power Generating Technologies
4
 SL-018001
U.S. Energy Information Administration and Z Federal
Final – Rev A
Project 14987.001
December 6, 2023

other loading criteria that do not add significantly to the capital costs. An outdoor installation is assumed—
meaning that the boiler building is not enclosed—and no special systems are required to prevent freezing
or to account for structural snow loading.

To determine the capital costs adjustments in other United States regions where the assumptions listed
above are not applicable, location factors have been calculated to account for variations in labor wage rates
and access to construction labor, labor productivity, water and wastewater resource constraints, wind and
seismic criteria, and other environmental criteria.

To account for locations where water resources are limited, such as California, the southwest and the
mountain west regions, ACCs are used in lieu of mechanical draft cooling towers. In regions where
wastewater loads to rivers and reservoirs are becoming increasingly restricted, zero liquid discharge (ZLD)
equipment is added. ZLD wastewater treatment equipment is assumed to include reverse osmosis,
evaporation/crystallization, and fractional electrode ionization. To reduce the loading for the ZLD systems,
it is assumed that cases where ZLD is applied will also have equipment in place, such as ACCs or cooling
tower blowdown treatment systems, to reduce wastewater.

To account for ambient temperature extremes, costs for boiler enclosures have been included as part of
the location factors in areas where ambient temperatures will be below freezing for significant periods of
time. It is assumed that the steam turbine generator (STG) equipment will be enclosed in all locations.

Table 1-1 — Case 1 Capital Cost Estimate

Case 1
EIA – Capital Cost Estimates – 2023 $ USD
650 MW Net
Configuration USC Coal without Carbon Capture
1 x 735 MW Gross
Combustion Emissions Controls Low NOx Burners / OFA
Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) / Baghouse / WFGD /
Post-Combustion Emissions Controls
WESP
Fuel Type High Sulfur Bituminous
Units
Plant Characteristics
Net Plant Capacity (60°F, 60% RH) MW 650
Heat Rate, HHV Basis Btu/kWh 8638
Capital Cost Assumptions
Engineering, Procurement, and Construction (EPC) % of Direct and Indirect
10%
Contracting Fee Costs
EPC Contingency % of EPC Costs 10%
Owner's Services % of EPC Costs 7%
Owner's Contingency % of Owner's Costs 12%

Capital Cost and Performance Characteristic Estimates for Utility Scale Electric
Power Generating Technologies
5
 SL-018001
U.S. Energy Information Administration and Z Federal
Final – Rev A
Project 14987.001
December 6, 2023

Case 1
EIA – Capital Cost Estimates – 2023 $ USD
650 MW Net
Configuration USC Coal without Carbon Capture
1 x 735 MW Gross
Combustion Emissions Controls Low NOx Burners / OFA
Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) / Baghouse / WFGD /
Post-Combustion Emissions Controls
WESP
Fuel Type High Sulfur Bituminous
Units
Estimated Land Requirement acres 400
Estimated Land Cost $/acre 24,000
Interconnection Costs
Electrical Transmission Interconnection Costs
Transmission Line Cost $/mile 3,040,000
Miles miles 1.00
Substation Expansion Cost $ 0
Gas Interconnection Costs
Pipeline Cost $/mile 2,900,000
Miles miles 0.50
Metering Station $ 1,900,000
Typical Project Timelines
Development, Permitting, Engineering months 24
Plant Construction Time months 36
Total Lead Time Before Commercial Operation Date
months 60
(COD)
Operating Life years 40
EPC Cost Components (Note 1)
Civil/Structural/Architectural - Equipment and
$ 139,293,000
Materials
Boiler Plant - Equipment and Materials $ 395,674,000
Turbine Plant - Equipment and Materials $ 124,949,000
Main and Auxiliary Power System - Equipment and
$ 41,759,000
Materials
Balance of Plant and I&C - Equipment and Materials $ 272,534,000
Substation and Switchyard Costs $ 23,254,000
Construction Labor Costs $ 783,122,000
Indirect Costs $ 249,366,000
EPC Fee $ 202,995,000
EPC Contingency $ 223,295,000
EPC Subtotal $ 2,456,241,000
Owner's Cost Components (Note 2)
Owner's Services $ 171,937,000
Land $ 9,600,000

Capital Cost and Performance Characteristic Estimates for Utility Scale Electric
Power Generating Technologies
6
 SL-018001
U.S. Energy Information Administration and Z Federal
Final – Rev A
Project 14987.001
December 6, 2023

Case 1
EIA – Capital Cost Estimates – 2023 $ USD
650 MW Net
Configuration USC Coal without Carbon Capture
1 x 735 MW Gross
Combustion Emissions Controls Low NOx Burners / OFA
Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) / Baghouse / WFGD /
Post-Combustion Emissions Controls
WESP
Fuel Type High Sulfur Bituminous
Units
Electrical Interconnection $ 3,040,000
Gas Interconnection $ 3,350,000
Owner's Contingency $ 22,551,000
Owner's Cost Subtotal $ 210,478,000
Total Capital Cost $ 2,666,719,000
$/kW net 4,103
Capital Cost Notes
1. Costs based on EPC contracting approach. Direct costs include equipment, material, and labor to construct the
civil/structural, mechanical, and electrical/I&C components of the facility. Indirect costs include construction
equipment, cranes and vehicles, project management, engineering, construction management, start-up, and
commissioning. EPC fees are applied to the sum of direct and indirect costs.
2. Owner’s costs include project development, studies, permitting, legal, owner’s project management, owner’s
engineering, and owner’s start-up and commissioning costs. Other owner’s costs include electrical interconnection
costs, gas interconnection costs, and land acquisition costs.

1.3. OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE COST ESTIMATE

The operating and maintenance (O&M) costs for the USC coal-fired power generation facility are
summarized in Table 1-2. The fixed costs cover the O&M labor, materials, and contracted maintenance
services, and general and administrative (G&A). Major overhauls for the facility are generally based on a
three-year/six-year basis, depending on the equipment. Major steam turbine maintenance work is generally
performed on a five to six-year cycle. Shorter outages—such as changing out SCR catalyst—are generally
performed on a three-year cycle.

Non-fuel variable costs for this technology case include flue gas desulfurization (FGD) reagent costs, SCR
catalyst replacement costs, ammonia costs, SCR reagent costs, water treatment costs, wastewater
treatment costs, fly ash and bottom ash disposal costs, bag replacement for the fabric filters, and FGD
waste disposal costs.

Capital Cost and Performance Characteristic Estimates for Utility Scale Electric
Power Generating Technologies
7
 SL-018001
U.S. Energy Information Administration and Z Federal
Final – Rev A
Project 14987.001
December 6, 2023

Table 1-2 — Case 1 Operational Cost Estimate

Case 1
EIA – Non-Fuel O&M Costs – 2023 $ USD
650 MW Net, USC Coal without Carbon Capture
Fixed O&M – Plant (Note 1) Units Value
Labor $/year 19,403,000
Materials and Contract Services $/year 15,788,000
Administrative and General $/year 4,851,000
$/year 40,042,000
Subtotal Fixed O&M
$/kW-year 61.60
Variable O&M (Note 2) $/MWh 6.40
O&M Cost Notes
1. Fixed O&M costs include labor, materials and contracted services, and G&A costs. O&M costs exclude property
taxes and insurance.

2. Variable O&M costs include catalyst replacement, ammonia, activated carbon, limestone, water, ash disposal,
FGD waste disposal, and water discharge treatment cost.

The post-combustion environmental controls for this technology case include an SCR NOX system with
aqueous ammonia as the reagent, a fabric-filter baghouse ash collection system with pulse jet cleaning,
and a limestone-based forced-oxidation WFGD for the removal of SO2 and sulfur trioxide. A WESP is
included to mitigate sulfuric acid emissions. The flue gas pressure drops incurred from these backend
controls have been accounted for in the induced draft fan sizing and the resultant auxiliary power demands
in addition to the auxiliary power demands for the emissions control systems themselves.

For this case, no CO2 emissions controls are assumed to be applicable. Refer to Case 2 for the
implementation of a 95% carbon capture system to the USC coal power generation facility.

1.4. ENVIRONMENTAL AND EMISSIONS INFORMATION

The emissions for the major criteria pollutants are summarized in Table 1-3. The NOX emissions assume
that the in-furnace controls such as LNB, OFA, and SCR systems are employed to control emissions to
0.06 lb/MMBtu. The WFGD system is assumed to be capable of 98% reduction of SO2 from an inlet loading
of 4.3 lb/MMBtu to an emission rate of 0.09 lb/MMBtu. The CO2 emissions estimate is derived from 40 CFR,
Subpart C, Table C-1, as 206 lb/MMBtu.

Capital Cost and Performance Characteristic Estimates for Utility Scale Electric
Power Generating Technologies
8
 SL-018001
U.S. Energy Information Administration and Z Federal
Final – Rev A
Project 14987.001
December 6, 2023

Table 1-3 — Case 1 Emission Rates

Case 1
EIA – Emissions Rates
650 MW Net, USC Coal without Carbon Capture
Predicted Emissions Rates (Note 1) Units Value
NOx lb/MMBtu 0.06 (Note 2)
SO2 lb/MMBtu 0.09 (Note 3)
CO2 lb/MMBtu 206 (Note 4)
Emissions Control Notes
1. High sulfur bituminous coal, 4 lb/MMBtu SO2 coal
2. NOx removal using LNBs with OFA, and SCR
3. SO2 removal by forced-oxidation, limestone-based WFGD; 98% reduction
4. Per 40 CFR 98, Subpart C, Table C-1

The post-combustion environmental controls for this technology case include an SCR NOX system with
aqueous ammonia as the reagent, a fabric-filter baghouse ash collection system with pulse jet cleaning,
and a limestone-based forced-oxidation WFGD for the removal of SO2 and sulfur trioxide. A WESP is
included to mitigate sulfuric acid emissions. The flue gas pressure drops incurred from these backend
controls have been accounted for in the induced draft fan sizing and the resultant auxiliary power demands
in addition to the auxiliary power demands for the emissions control systems themselves.

For this case, no CO2 emissions controls are assumed to be applicable. Refer to Case 2 for the
implementation of a 95% carbon capture system to the USC coal power generation facility.

Capital Cost and Performance Characteristic Estimates for Utility Scale Electric
Power Generating Technologies
9
 SL-018001
U.S. Energy Information Administration and Z Federal
Final – Rev A
Project 14987.001
December 6, 2023

CASE 2. ULTRA-SUPERCRITICAL COAL PLANT

W I T H 9 5 % C A R B O N C A P T U R E , 6 5 0 M W N ET

2.1. CASE DESCRIPTION

This case comprises a coal-fired power plant with a nominal net capacity of 650 MW with a single steam
generator and steam turbine with coal storage and handling systems, balance-of-plant (BOP) systems,
emissions control systems, and a 95% CO2 capture system. This case is similar to the plant description
provided in Case 1; however, this case employs a 95% CO2 capture system for the entire flue gas stream,
which requires an increased boiler size and higher heat input to account for the low-pressure steam
extraction and larger auxiliary loads required for the CO2 capture technology employed.

The steam cycle is generally similar to that of the ultra-supercritical USC case, Case 1. As with Case 1, the
base configuration utilized for the cost estimate is a single-unit station constructed on a greenfield site with
rail access for coal deliveries. The estimated land requirement for this facility is of approximately 430 acres
to account for the carbon capture equipment.

The facility has a nominal net generating capacity of 650 MW and is assumed to fire a high sulfur bituminous
coal (approximately 4 MMBtu/hour SO2) with fuel moisture at 11% to 13% by weight and ash at 9% to 10%.
The gross plant output is estimated to be 819 MW to account for the additional parasitic and auxiliary loads
due to the implementation of the CO2 capture system. Mechanical draft cooling towers are used for cycle
cooling, and the water used for cycle cooling and steam cycle makeup is provided by an assumed adjacent
freshwater reservoir or river.

2.1.1. Mechanical Equipment And Systems

Refer to Case 1 for a description of the major mechanical equipment and systems associated with the USC
power generation facility. This section provides a description of the major equipment and systems for the
CO2 capture plant used as the basis for the capital and operating and maintenance (O&M) cost estimates.

[Link]. General CO2 Capture Description

The most commercially available CO2 capture technology for coal-fired power plants is amine-based
scrubbing technology. This technology requires an absorption column to absorb the CO2 from the flue gas
and a stripping column to regenerate the solvent and release the CO2. Amine-based solvents are used in
the absorption column and require periodic makeup streams and waste solvent reclamation. Steam is used
to break the bond between the CO2 and solvent. CO2 leaves the stripper with moisture prior to being
dehydrated and compressed. The product CO2 is pipeline quality at 99.5% purity and approximately 2215

Capital Cost and Performance Characteristic Estimates for Utility Scale Electric
Power Generating Technologies
10
 SL-018001
U.S. Energy Information Administration and Z Federal
Final – Rev A
Project 14987.001
December 6, 2023

psia. The amine-based solvent systems are typically designed for 95% CO2 capture in the absorption
column.

[Link]. CO2 Capture Systems

This case assumes full integration of the CO2 capture facility with the boiler/turbine system design. The CO2
capture technology uses various utilities to operate, including low-quality steam and auxiliary power. Steam
can be extracted between the intermediate pressure and low-pressure turbine sections that will provide the
least amount of capacity derate while maintaining the necessary energy to drive the CO2 capture system.
Extracting steam prior to the low-pressure turbine section requires additional fuel to be fired to account for
the lost generation potential. As such, the boiler, turbine, and associated systems would be required to be
made larger to maintain the same net power production. Additionally, the CO2 capture facility and BOP
associated with the CO2 capture system requires a significant amount of auxiliary power to drive the
mechanical equipment. Most of the power consumption is used to drive the CO2 compressors to produce
pipeline quality CO2 at approximately 2215 psia. The increase in auxiliary power consumption due to the
CO2 facility usage will require a larger turbine throughput to produce the added output. Overall, CO2 capture
system integration can account for approximately 60% of the total full load auxiliary power demand.

Other utilities that are integrated with the base plant are demineralized water and cooling water.
Demineralized water is used to maintain a water balance within the amine process or in the solvent
regeneration stages. The demineralized water consumption rate for the CO2 capture facility is typically
minor in comparison with base-plant utilization rates. As such, the demineralized water is expected to be
fed from the base facility. This cost is accounted for in the O&M estimate only. Conversely, cooling water
demands for the carbon capture process is significant. CO2 capture systems require circulating cooling
water rates similar to that of the condensers. As such, the cooling system, in this case evaporative cooling
towers, are required to be expanded to account for the large amount of additional heat rejection. This cost
is accounted for in the capital and O&M estimates. The increase in cooling tower size also requires a higher
cooling tower blowdown rate that needs to be treated at the wastewater treatment system. This cost is
reflected in the capital and O&M estimates.

Commercial amine-based CO2 capture technology requires a quencher to be located upstream of the CO2
absorber vessel. The quencher cools the flue gas to optimize the kinetics and efficiency of the CO2
absorption process via the amine-based solvent. During the quenching process, a significant amount of flue
gas moisture condenses into the vessel and requires a significant amount of blowdown to maintain the level
in the vessel. This blowdown quality is not good enough to reuse in the absorber system for water balance,
but it is an acceptable quality to either reuse in the cooling towers or wet flue gas desulfurization (WFGD)
for makeup water. Due to the reuse, it does not require additional O&M costs.

Capital Cost and Performance Characteristic Estimates for Utility Scale Electric
Power Generating Technologies
11
 SL-018001
U.S. Energy Information Administration and Z Federal
Final – Rev A
Project 14987.001
December 6, 2023

A generic flow diagram for post-combustion carbon capture system is provided in Figure 2-1. The
termination of the process of the CO2 capture facility is the new emissions point, which is a small stack at
the top of the CO2 absorber vessel. For this configuration, a typical free-standing chimney is not required.
Additionally, the compressed product CO2 is the other boundary limit. This estimate does not include
pipeline costs to transport the CO2 to a sequestration or utilization site.

Figure 2-1 — Carbon Capture Flow Diagram

Source: Author © Sargent & Lundy, L.L.C

[Link]. 95% CO2 Capture

For the case where a new USC coal-fired facility is required to provide 95% CO2 reduction, the full flue gas
path must be treated. As referenced previously, 95% capture is the typical design limit for CO2 reduction in
the absorber. Therefore, 100% of the plant’s flue gas would need to be treated to provide 95% reduction
efficiency. In this scenario, a significant amount of steam and auxiliary power is required to drive the large
CO2 capture system, ultimately increasing the size of the boiler to generate the additional steam and power
required to maintain a net power output of 650 MW. As the boiler gets larger, more flue gas must be treated.
As such, it is an iterative process to determine the new boiler size necessary to treat 100% of the flue gas
from a new USC coal-fired boiler.

Capital Cost and Performance Characteristic Estimates for Utility Scale Electric
Power Generating Technologies
12
 SL-018001
U.S. Energy Information Administration and Z Federal
Final – Rev A
Project 14987.001
December 6, 2023

[Link]. Plant Performance

For this case, all the flue gas is discharged from the carbon capture system, so no additional wet chimney
is included in the capital cost estimate.

The plant performance estimate is based on ambient conditions of 59°F, 60% relative humidity, sea level
elevation, and 95% CO2 capture. Approximately 2,238,000 lb/hr of low-pressure steam is required for the
CO2 system. The boiler efficiency is assumed to be 87.5%, and the estimated gross size of the boiler is
1013 MW, which is approximately 40% larger than the case without carbon capture (Case 1). The generator
gross output is approximately 819 MW. The estimated total auxiliary load for the plant is 169 MW, with 106
MW required for the for the CO2 system. The net heat rate is estimated to be 12,293 Btu/kWh based on the
higher heating value (HHV) of the fuel and the net electrical output.

2.1.2. Electrical and Control Systems

The electrical equipment includes the turbine generator, which is connected via generator circuit breakers
to a generator step-up transformer (GSU). The GSU increases the voltage from the generator voltage level
to the transmission system high-voltage level. The electrical system is essentially similar to the USC case
without carbon capture (Case 1); however, there are additional electrical transformers and switchgear for
the CO2 capture systems. The electrical system includes auxiliary transformers and reserve auxiliary
transformers. The facility and most of the subsystems are controlled using a central distributed control
system (DCS).

2.1.3. Offsite Requirements

Coal is delivered to the facility by rail. The maximum daily coal rate for the facility is approximately 6500
tons per day. The number of rail cars to support this facility is estimated at approximately 460 rail cars per
week.

The site is assumed to be located adjacent to a river or reservoir that can be permitted to supply a sufficient
quantity of cooling water. The total volume of water required for cooling tower makeup, cycle makeup, and
cooling for the CO2 system is estimated to be approximately 17,500 gallons per minute. Wastewater is sent
to the adjacent waterway from one or more outfalls from a water treatment pond or wastewater treatment
system.

The CO2 captured will need to be sequestered in a geologic formation or used for enhanced oil recovery.
The viability of this technology case will be driven, to a large extent, by the proximity of the facility to the
appropriate geologic formations. The costs presented herein do not account for equipment, piping, or
structures associated with CO2 sequestration.

Capital Cost and Performance Characteristic Estimates for Utility Scale Electric
Power Generating Technologies
13
 SL-018001
U.S. Energy Information Administration and Z Federal
Final – Rev A
Project 14987.001
December 6, 2023

The facility is assumed to start up on natural gas. Therefore, the site is connected to a gas distribution
system. Natural gas interconnection costs are based on a new lateral connected to existing gas pipeline.

The electrical interconnection costs are based on a one-mile distance from the facility switchyard to the
terminal point on an existing utility substation. For the purposes of this estimate, the cost associated with
the expansion of the substation is excluded.

2.2. CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE

Table 2-1 summarizes the cost components for this case. The basis of the estimate assumes that the site
is constructed in a United States region that has good access to lower-cost construction labor and has
reasonable access to water resources, coal, natural gas, and existing utility transmission substations or
existing transmission lines. The geographic location is assumed to be characterized by seismic, wind, and
other loading criteria that do not add significantly to the capital costs. An outdoor installation is assumed,
meaning that the boiler building is not enclosed, and no special systems are required to prevent freezing or
to account for structural snow loading.

To determine the capital costs adjustments in other United States regions where the assumptions listed
above are not applicable, location factors have been calculated to account for variations in labor wage rates
and access to construction labor, labor productivity, water and wastewater resource constraints, wind and
seismic criteria, and other environmental criteria.

To account for locations where water resources are limited, such as California, the southwest and the
mountain west regions, air-cooled condensers (ACCs) are used in lieu of mechanical draft cooling towers.
In regions where wastewater loads to rivers and reservoirs are becoming increasingly restricted, ZLD
equipment is added. ZLD wastewater treatment equipment is assumed to include reverse osmosis,
evaporation/crystallization, and fractional electrode ionization. To reduce the loading for the ZLD systems,
it is assumed that cases where ZLD is applied will also have equipment in place, such as ACCs or cooling
tower blowdown treatment systems, to reduce wastewater.

To account for ambient temperature extremes, costs for boiler enclosures have been included as part of
the location factors in areas where ambient temperatures will be below freezing for significant periods of
time. It is assumed that the steam turbine generator (STG) equipment will be enclosed in all locations.

Capital Cost and Performance Characteristic Estimates for Utility Scale Electric
Power Generating Technologies
14
 SL-018001
U.S. Energy Information Administration and Z Federal
Final – Rev A
Project 14987.001
December 6, 2023

Table 2-1 — Case 2 Capital Cost Estimate

Case 2
EIA – Capital Cost Estimates – 2023 $ USD
650 MW Net
USC Coal
Configuration
95% Carbon Capture System
1 x 819 MW Gross
Combustion Emissions Controls Low NOx Burners (LNBs) / Overfire Air (OFA)
Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) / Baghouse/
Post-Combustion Emissions Controls WFGD / WESP / Amine-Based Carbon Capture and
Sequestration (CCS)
Fuel Type High Sulfur Bituminous
Units
Plant Characteristics
Net Plant Capacity (60°F, 60% RH) MW 650
Heat Rate, HHV Basis Btu/kWh 12,293
Capital Cost Assumptions
Engineering, Procurement, and Construction (EPC) % of Direct and Indirect
10%
Contracting Fee Costs
EPC Contingency % of EPC Costs 12%
Owner's Services % of EPC Costs 7%
Owner's Contingency % of Owner's Costs 12%
Estimated Land Requirement acres 430
Estimated Land Cost $/acre 23,000
Interconnection Costs
Electrical Transmission Interconnection Costs
Transmission Line Cost $/mile 3,040,000
Miles miles 1.00
Substation Expansion Cost $ 0
Gas Interconnection Costs
Pipeline Cost $/mile 2,900,000
Miles miles 0.50
Metering Station $ 1,900,000
Typical Project Timelines
Development, Permitting, Engineering months 30
Plant Construction Time months 44
Total Lead Time Before Commercial Operation Date
months 74
(COD)
Operating Life years 40
EPC Cost Components (Note 1)
Civil/Structural/Architectural - Equipment and Materials $ 174,284,000
Boiler Plant - Equipment and Materials $ 434,360,000
Turbine Plant - Equipment and Materials $ 158,270,000
Main and Auxiliary Power System - Equipment and
Materials $ 55,194,000

Capital Cost and Performance Characteristic Estimates for Utility Scale Electric
Power Generating Technologies
15
 SL-018001
U.S. Energy Information Administration and Z Federal
Final – Rev A
Project 14987.001
December 6, 2023

Case 2
EIA – Capital Cost Estimates – 2023 $ USD
650 MW Net
USC Coal
Configuration
95% Carbon Capture System
1 x 819 MW Gross
Combustion Emissions Controls Low NOx Burners (LNBs) / Overfire Air (OFA)
Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) / Baghouse/
Post-Combustion Emissions Controls WFGD / WESP / Amine-Based Carbon Capture and
Sequestration (CCS)
Fuel Type High Sulfur Bituminous
Units
Balance of Plant and I&C - Equipment and Materials $ 283,960,000
Substation and Switchyard Costs $ 23,254,000
Carbon Capture System Plant – Equipment and
$ 615,388,000
Materials
Construction Labor Costs $ 1,562,601,000
Indirect Costs $ 272,942,000
EPC Fee $ 358,025,000
EPC Contingency $ 472,593,000
EPC Subtotal $ 4,410,871,000
Owner's Cost Components (Note 2)
Owner's Services $ 308,761,000
Land $ 9,890,000
Electrical Interconnection $ 3,040,000
Gas Interconnection $ 3,350,000
Owner's Contingency $ 39,005,000
Owner's Cost Subtotal $ 364,046,000
Total Capital Cost $ 4,774,917,000
$/kW net 7,346
Capital Cost Notes
1. Costs based on EPC contracting approach. Direct costs include equipment, material, and labor to construct the
civil/structural, mechanical, and electrical/I&C components of the facility. Indirect costs include engineering,
construction management, start-up, and commissioning. EPC fees are applied to the sum of direct and indirect
costs.
2. Owner’s costs include project development, studies, permitting, legal, owner’s project management, owner’s
engineering, and owner’s start-up and commissioning costs. Other owner’s costs include electrical interconnection
costs, gas interconnection costs, and land acquisition costs.

2.3. OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE COST ESTIMATE

The O&M costs for the USC coal-fired power generation facility with 95% carbon capture are summarized
in Table 2-2. The fixed costs cover the O&M labor, materials and contract services, and general and
administrative (G&A). Major overhauls for the facility are generally based on a three-year/six-year basis
depending on the equipment. Major steam turbine maintenance work is generally performed on a five to

Capital Cost and Performance Characteristic Estimates for Utility Scale Electric
Power Generating Technologies
16
 SL-018001
U.S. Energy Information Administration and Z Federal
Final – Rev A
Project 14987.001
December 6, 2023

six-year cycle. Shorter outages, such as changing out the SCR catalyst, are generally performed on a three-
year cycle. It is assumed that the carbon capture equipment would have major overhauls on a three-year
cycle, but there is not a sufficient operating base to confidently predict the required frequency of major
maintenance. The carbon capture equipment will require additional O&M labor. It is assumed that some
form of service agreement would be needed for the compressors, absorbers, strippers, and other
specialized equipment.

Non-fuel variable costs for this technology case include glue gas desulfurization (FGD) reagent costs, SCR
catalyst replacement costs, ammonia, SCR reagent costs, water treatment costs, wastewater treatment
costs, fly ash and bottom ash disposal costs, bag replacement for the fabric filters, FGD waste disposal
costs, and solvent makeup. For the CO2 capture system, variable costs include solvent makeup and
disposal costs—usually offsite disposal—as the spent solvent may be considered hazardous waste;
additional wastewater treatment costs (predominantly cooling tower blowdown treatment); and additional
demineralized makeup water costs.

Table 2-2 — Case 2 Operational Cost Estimate

Case 2
EIA – Non-Fuel O&M Costs – 2023 $ USD
650 MW Net, USC Coal with 95% Carbon Capture
Fixed O&M – Plant (Note 1) Units Value
Labor $/year 27,313,000
Materials and Contract Services $/year 23,173,000
Administrative and General $/year 5,872,000
$/year 56,358,000
Subtotal Fixed O&M
$/kW-year 86.70
Variable O&M (Note 2) $/MWh 13.73
O&M Cost Notes
1. Fixed O&M costs include labor, materials and contracted services, and G&A costs. O&M costs exclude property
taxes and insurance.

2. Variable O&M costs include catalyst replacement, ammonia, limestone, water, ash disposal, FGD waste
disposal, solvent and water costs for the CCS, and water discharge treatment cost.

2.4. ENVIRONMENTAL AND EMISSIONS INFORMATION

The emissions for the major criteria pollutants are summarized in Table 2-3. The NOX emissions assume
that the in-furnace controls, such as LNB, OFA, and SCR systems, are employed to control emissions to
0.06 lb/MMBtu. The WFGD system is assumed to be capable of 98% reduction of SO2 from an inlet loading
of 4.3 lb/MMBtu to an emission rate of 0.09 lb/MMBtu. The CO2 emissions estimate is based on a 95%

Capital Cost and Performance Characteristic Estimates for Utility Scale Electric
Power Generating Technologies
17
 SL-018001
U.S. Energy Information Administration and Z Federal
Final – Rev A
Project 14987.001
December 6, 2023

reduction in base emissions, which are derived from 40 CFR, Subpart C, Table C-1 as 206 lb/MMBtu, giving
a CO2 emission rate of 10.3 lb/MMBtu.

Table 2-3 — Case 2 Emission Rates

Case 2
EIA – Emissions Rates
650 MW Net, USC Coal with 95% Carbon Capture
Predicted Emissions Rates (Note 1) Units Value
NOx lb/MMBtu 0.06 (Note 2)
SO2 lb/MMBtu 0.09 (Note 3)
CO2 lb/MMBtu 10.3 (Note 4)
Emissions Control Notes
1. High sulfur bituminous coal, 4 lb/MMBtu SO2 Coal
2. NOx removal using LNBs with OFA, and SCR
3. SO2 removal by forced-oxidation, limestone-based WFGD; 98% Reduction
4. Per 40 CFR 98, Subpart. C, Table C-1 in conjunction with 95% reduction of emissions through the carbon
capture system.

Capital Cost and Performance Characteristic Estimates for Utility Scale Electric
Power Generating Technologies
18
 SL-018001
U.S. Energy Information Administration and Z Federal
Final – Rev A
Project 14987.001
December 6, 2023

CASE 3. COMBUSTION TURBINE - SIMPLE CYCLE

PLANT, 4 X AERODERIVATIVE, 211 MW NET

3.1. CASE DESCRIPTION

This case is comprised of four identical aeroderivative combustion turbines (CTs) in a simple-cycle
configuration. It is based on the use of natural gas as fuel, although dual-fuel capability is provided. Output
power voltage is stepped up for transmission to the external grid through an onsite switchyard.

3.1.1. Mechanical Equipment and Systems

Case 3 is comprised of four of aeroderivative dual-fuel CTs in a simple-cycle configuration, with a nominal
output of approximately 54 MW gross per turbine. After deducting internal auxiliary power demand, the net
output of the plant is approximately 211 MW. Each CT’s inlet air duct has an evaporative cooler to reduce
the inlet air temperature in warmer seasons to increase the CT output. Each CT is also equipped with
burners designed to reduce the CT’s emission of NOX. Included in Case 3 are selective catalytic reduction
(SCR) units for further reduction of NOX emissions and CO catalysts for further reduction of CO emissions.
Refer to Figure 3-1 for a diagram of the CT systems.

Figure 3-1 — Case 3 Configuration

Note: Only one CT shown. All CTs has the same configuration. Source: Author © Sargent & Lundy, L.L.C.

Aeroderivative CTs differ from industrial frame CTs in that aeroderivative CTs have been adapted from an
existing aircraft engine design for stationary power generation applications. Consequently, compared to

Capital Cost and Performance Characteristic Estimates for Utility Scale Electric
Power Generating Technologies
19
 SL-018001
U.S. Energy Information Administration and Z Federal
Final – Rev A
Project 14987.001
December 6, 2023

industrial frame CTs of the same MW output, aeroderivative CTs are lighter weight, have a smaller size
footprint, and have more advanced materials of construction. Additionally, aeroderivative CTs generally
operate at higher pressure ratios, have faster start-up times, faster ramp rates, and higher efficiencies
compared to industrial frame CTs.

3.1.2. Electrical and Control Systems

Case 3 includes one 60-hertz (Hz) electric generator per CT with an approximate rating of 54 MVA and
output voltage of 13.8 kV. The generator output power is converted to a higher voltage by generator step-
up transformers (GSUs) for transmission to the external grid transmitted via an onsite switchyard.

The simple-cycle facility is controlled by a control system provided by the CT manufacturer, supplemented
by controls for the balance-of-plant (BOP) systems (for example, water supply to evaporative coolers, and
fuel supply).

3.1.3. Offsite Requirements

Offsite provisions in Case 3 include the following:

 Fuel Gas Supply: A half-mile-long pipeline and a dedicated metering station.

 High-Voltage Transmission Line: A one-mile-long transmission line.

 Water Supply for Evaporative Cooler and Miscellaneous Uses: It is assumed that the water
supply source, such as a municipal water system, is near the power plant site and the
interconnection for water is at the plant’s site boundary. Blowdown waste from the evaporative
cooler is sent to an approved discharge location after appropriate treatment of the wastewater, and
the wastewater interconnection’s location is assumed at the power plant’s site boundary.

3.2. CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE

Table 3-1 summarizes the cost components for this case. This estimate is based on an engineering,
procurement, and construction (EPC) contracting approach.

In addition to EPC contract costs, the capital cost estimate in Table 3-1 covers owner’s costs. Owner’s
costs include owner’s services, which include project development, studies, permitting, legal, owner’s
project management, owner’s engineering, and owner’s start-up and commissioning costs. Other owner’s
costs include electrical interconnection costs, gas interconnection costs, and land acquisition costs. The
estimate is presented as an overnight cost in 2023 dollars and thus excludes allowance for funds used
during construction or interest during construction. In addition to the cost of external systems noted above
(for example, fuel gas supply and transmission line), an estimated amount is included for the cost of land.

Capital Cost and Performance Characteristic Estimates for Utility Scale Electric
Power Generating Technologies
20
 SL-018001
U.S. Energy Information Administration and Z Federal
Final – Rev A
Project 14987.001
December 6, 2023

Table 3-1 — Case 3 Capital Cost Estimate

Case 3
EIA – Capital Cost Estimates – 2023 $ USD
CT – Simple Cycle
Configuration
4 x Aeroderivative Class
Combustion Emissions Controls Dry Low Emissions Combustor
Post-Combustion Emissions Controls SCR Catalyst, CO Catalyst
Natural Gas / No. 2 Backup
Fuel Type
4 x 54 MW rating
Units
Plant Characteristics
Net Plant Capacity (60°F, 60% RH) MW 211
Heat Rate, Higher Heating Value (HHV) Basis Btu/kWh 9447
Capital Cost Assumptions
% of Direct &
EPC Contracting Fee 9%
Indirect Costs
EPC Contingency % of EPC Costs 10%
% of Project
Owner's Services Costs 12%
% of Owner's
Owner's Contingency 8%
Costs
Estimated Land Requirement acres 20
Estimated Land Cost $/acre 62,000
Interconnection Costs
Electrical Transmission Interconnection Costs
Transmission Line Cost $/mile 2,412,000
Miles miles 1.00
Substation Expansion $ 0
Gas Interconnection Costs
Pipeline Cost $/mile 3,500,000
Miles miles 0.50
Metering Station $ 2,200,000
Typical Project Timelines
Development, Permitting, Engineering months 18
Plant Construction Time months 22
Total Lead Time Before Commercial Operation Date
months 40
(COD)
Operating Life years 40
EPC Cost Components (Note 1)
Major Owner-Furnished Equipment (Note 2) $ 155,900,000
Other Equipment (Note 3) $ 22,800,000
Construction Labor (Note 4) $ 35,500,000
Indirect Costs (Note 5) $ 19,278,000

Capital Cost and Performance Characteristic Estimates for Utility Scale Electric
Power Generating Technologies
21
 SL-018001
U.S. Energy Information Administration and Z Federal
Final – Rev A
Project 14987.001
December 6, 2023

Case 3
EIA – Capital Cost Estimates – 2023 $ USD
CT – Simple Cycle
Configuration
4 x Aeroderivative Class
Combustion Emissions Controls Dry Low Emissions Combustor
Post-Combustion Emissions Controls SCR Catalyst, CO Catalyst
Natural Gas / No. 2 Backup
Fuel Type
4 x 54 MW rating
Units
Materials (Note 6) $ 10,722,000
EPC Fee $ 21,978,000
EPC Contingency $ 26,618,000
EPC Subtotal $ 292,796,000
Owner's Cost Components (Note 7)
Owner's Services $ 35,136,000
Land $ 1,240,000
Electrical Interconnection $ 2,412,000
Gas Interconnection $ 3,950,000
Owner's Contingency $ 3,419,000
Owner's Subtotal $ 46,157,000
Total Capital Cost $ 338,953,000
$/kW net 1,606
Capital Cost Notes

1. Costs based on EPC contracting approach. Direct costs include equipment, material, and labor to construct the
civil/structural, mechanical, and electrical/I&C components of the facility. EPC fees are applied to the sum of direct
and indirect costs.
2. Major owner-furnished equipment includes CTs, SCRs, and CO catalysts.
3. Other equipment includes pumps, tanks, MCCs, switchgear, transformers, and any other major inside-the-fence
process equipment required for the complete facility (excluding major owner-furnished equipment).
4. Construction labor costs are directly attributed to onsite civil/structural work and erection/installation of the
equipment included in the EPC’s scope.
5. Indirect costs are attributed to engineering, procurement, project services, construction management, field
engineering, start-up, and commissioning services.
6. Materials include all construction materials associated with the EPC scope of work, material freight costs, and
consumables during construction.
7. Owner’s services include project development, studies, permitting, legal, owner’s project management, owner’s
engineering, and owner’s start-up and commissioning costs. Other owner’s costs include electrical interconnection
costs, gas interconnection costs, and land acquisition costs.

3.3. OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE COST ESTIMATE

Table 3-2 shows operating and maintenance (O&M) costs. Fixed O&M costs include staff and administrative
costs, supplies, and minor routine maintenance. (Not included are property taxes and insurance.) Fixed
costs also include the fixed payment portion of a long-term service agreement for the CTs.

Capital Cost and Performance Characteristic Estimates for Utility Scale Electric
Power Generating Technologies
22
 SL-018001
U.S. Energy Information Administration and Z Federal
Final – Rev A
Project 14987.001
December 6, 2023

Variable O&M costs include consumable commodities, such as water, lubricants, and chemicals. Also
included is the average annual cost of the planned maintenance events for the CTs over the long-term
maintenance cycle, based on the number of equivalent operating hours (EOH) the CT has run. A significant
overhaul is typically performed for this type of CT every 30,000 EOH, and a major overhaul is performed
every 60,000 EOH. CTs generally have two criteria to schedule overhauls: number of equivalent starts and
number of EOH. The aeroderivative CTs in Case 3 always use an EOH-driven maintenance overhaul
schedule regardless of the operating profile. (Refer to Case 4 for a starts-based overhaul schedule.) An
additional advantage of an aeroderivative CTs is that, depending on the long-term service agreement terms,
sections of the CT can be changed out with replacement assemblies, reducing the outage time of major
overhauls to less than one week (compared to more than a two-week outage for industrial frame CTs).

Table 3-2 — Case 3 O&M Cost Estimate

Case 3
EIA – Non-Fuel O&M Costs – 2023 $ USD
CT – Simple Cycle
Fixed O&M – Plant (Note 1) Units Value
Subtotal Fixed O&M $/kW-year 9.56 $/kW-year
Variable O&M (Note 2) $/MWh 5.70 $/MWh
O&M Cost Notes
1. Fixed O&M costs include labor, materials and contracted services, and general and administrative (G&A) costs.
O&M costs exclude property taxes and insurance.
2. Variable O&M costs include water and water discharge treatment cost. These include turbine major
maintenance activities which are based on an operating hours-dependent maintenance cycle.

3.4. ENVIRONMENTAL AND EMISSIONS INFORMATION

For the Case 3 simple-cycle configuration, SCR and CO catalysts are included to reduce emissions of NOX
and CO below the emission levels in the CT exhaust gas. Table 3-3 indicates predicted NOX, SO2, and CO2
emissions assuming natural gas firing.

Capital Cost and Performance Characteristic Estimates for Utility Scale Electric
Power Generating Technologies
23
 SL-018001
U.S. Energy Information Administration and Z Federal
Final – Rev A
Project 14987.001
December 6, 2023

Table 3-3 — Case 3 Emissions

Case 3
EIA – Emissions Rates
CT – Simple Cycle
Predicted Emissions Rates (Note 1) Units Value
NOx lb/MMBtu 0.0075
SO2 lb/MMBtu 0.00
CO2 lb/MMBtu 117
Emissions Control Notes
1. Natural gas fuel, emissions controlled with SCR, no water injection

Capital Cost and Performance Characteristic Estimates for Utility Scale Electric
Power Generating Technologies
24
 SL-018001
U.S. Energy Information Administration and Z Federal
Final – Rev A
Project 14987.001
December 6, 2023

CASE 4. COMBUSTION TURBINE - SIMPLE CYCLE

P L A N T , H C L A S S , 4 1 9 M W N ET

4.1. CASE DESCRIPTION

This case is comprised of one industrial frame Model H combustion turbine (CT) in simple-cycle
configuration. It is based on natural gas firing of the CT, although dual-fuel capability is provided. Output
power voltage is stepped up for transmission to the external grid through an onsite switchyard.

4.1.1. Mechanical Equipment and Systems

Case 4 is comprised of one industrial frame Model H dual-fuel CT in simple-cycle configuration with a
nominal output of approximately 430 MW gross. After deducting internal auxiliary power demand, the net
output of the plant is approximately 419 MW. The inlet air duct for the CT is equipped with an evaporative
cooler to reduce the inlet air temperature in warmer seasons to increase the CT output. The CT is also
equipped with burners designed to reduce the CT’s emission of NOX. Included in the Case 4 configuration
is a selective catalytic reduction (SCR) unit for further reduction of NOX emissions and a CO catalyst for
further reduction of CO emissions. Figure 4-1 shows a diagram of the CT systems.

Figure 4-1 — Case 4 Configuration

Source: Author © Sargent & Lundy, L.L.C.

Frame CTs differ from aeroderivative CTs in that the industrial frame CT’s performance characteristics
generally are more conducive to improved performance in combined-cycle (CC) applications; that is,
industrial frame CTs have a greater amount of exhaust energy to produce steam for the CC’s steam turbine

Capital Cost and Performance Characteristic Estimates for Utility Scale Electric
Power Generating Technologies
25
 SL-018001
U.S. Energy Information Administration and Z Federal
Final – Rev A
Project 14987.001
December 6, 2023

portion of the plant. Industrial frame CT sizes, over 400 MW in 60-Hz models, far exceed the maximum
aeroderivative size, and on a $/kW basis, industrial frame turbines are less costly.

4.1.2. Electrical and Control Systems

Case 4 includes one 60-Hz CT electric generator with an approximate rating of 430 MVA and output voltage
of 13.8 kV. The generator output power is converted to a higher voltage by generator step-up transformers
(GSUs) for transmission to the external grid, transmitted through an onsite facility switchyard.

The simple-cycle facility is controlled by a control system provided by the CT manufacturer, supplemented
by controls for the balance-of-plant (BOP) systems (for example, water supply to evaporative coolers, and
fuel supply).

4.1.3. Offsite Requirements

Offsite provisions in Case 4 include the following:

 Fuel Gas Supply: A half-mile-long pipeline and a dedicated metering station.

 High-Voltage Transmission Line: A one-mile-long transmission line.

 Water Supply for Evaporative Cooler and Miscellaneous Uses: It is assumed that the water
supply source, such as a municipal water system, is near the power plant site and the
interconnection for water is at the plant’s site boundary. Blowdown waste from the evaporative
cooler is sent to an approved discharge location after appropriate treatment of the wastewater, and
the wastewater interconnection is assumed at the power plant’s site boundary.

4.2. CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE

Table 4-1 summarizes the cost components for this case. This estimate is based on an engineering,
procurement, and construction (EPC) contracting approach.

In addition to EPC contract costs, the capital cost estimate in Table 4-1 covers owner’s costs. Owner’s
costs include owner’s services which include project development, studies, permitting, legal, owner’s project
management, owner’s engineering, and owner’s start-up and commissioning costs. Other owner’s costs
include electrical interconnection costs, gas interconnection costs, and land acquisition costs. The estimate
is presented as an overnight cost in 2023 dollars and thus excludes allowance for funds used during
construction or interest during construction. In addition to the cost of external systems noted above (for
example, fuel gas supply), an estimated amount is included for the cost of land.

Capital Cost and Performance Characteristic Estimates for Utility Scale Electric
Power Generating Technologies
26
 SL-018001
U.S. Energy Information Administration and Z Federal
Final – Rev A
Project 14987.001
December 6, 2023

Table 4-1 — Case 4 Capital Cost Estimate

Case 4
EIA – Capital Cost Estimates – 2023 $ USD
CT – Simple Cycle
Configuration
H-Class
Dry Low Emissions
Combustion Emissions Controls
Combustor
Post-Combustion Emissions Controls SCR Catalyst, CO Catalyst
Natural Gas / No. 2 Backup
Fuel Type
1 x 430 MW rating
Units
Plant Characteristics
Net Plant Capacity (60°F, 60% RH) MW 419
Heat Rate, Higher Heating Value (HHV) Basis Btu/kWh 9142
Capital Cost Assumptions
% of Direct and
EPC Contracting Fee 9%
Indirect Costs
EPC Contingency % of EPC Costs 10%
Owner's Services % of Project Costs 12%
Owner's Contingency % of Owner's Costs 8%
Estimated Land Requirement acres 20
Estimated Land Cost $/acre 62,000
Interconnection Costs
Electrical Transmission Interconnection Costs
Transmission Line Cost $/mile 3,040,000
Miles miles 1.00
Substation Expansion $ 0
Gas Interconnection Costs
Pipeline Cost $/mile 4,800,000
Miles miles 0.50
Metering Station $ 2,800,000
Typical Project Timelines
Development, Permitting, Engineering months 18
Plant Construction Time months 22
Total Lead Time Before Commercial
months 40
Operation Date (COD)
Operating Life years 40
EPC Cost Components (Note 1)
Major Owner-Furnished Equipment (Note 2) $ 132,800,000
Other Equipment (Note 3) $ 30,800,000
Construction Labor (Note 4) $ 57,600,000
Indirect Costs (Note 5) $ 19,908,000

Capital Cost and Performance Characteristic Estimates for Utility Scale Electric
Power Generating Technologies
27
 SL-018001
U.S. Energy Information Administration and Z Federal
Final – Rev A
Project 14987.001
December 6, 2023

Case 4
EIA – Capital Cost Estimates – 2023 $ USD
CT – Simple Cycle
Configuration
H-Class
Dry Low Emissions
Combustion Emissions Controls
Combustor
Post-Combustion Emissions Controls SCR Catalyst, CO Catalyst
Natural Gas / No. 2 Backup
Fuel Type
1 x 430 MW rating
Units
Materials (Note 6) $ 9,816,000
EPC Fee $ 22,583,000
EPC Contingency $ 27,351,000
EPC Subtotal $ 300,858,000
Owner's Cost Components (Note 7)
Owner's Services $ 36,103,000
Land $ 1,240,000
Electrical Interconnection $ 3,040,000
Gas Interconnection $ 5,200,000
Owner's Contingency $ 3,647,000
Owner's Subtotal $ 49,230,000
Total Capital Cost $ 350,088,000
$/kW net 835.5
Capital Cost Notes

1. Costs based on EPC contracting approach. Direct costs include equipment, material, and labor to construct the
civil/structural, mechanical, and electrical/I&C components of the facility. EPC fees are applied to the sum of direct
and indirect costs.
2. Major owner-furnished equipment includes CTs, SCRs, and CO catalysts.
3. Other equipment includes pumps, tanks, MCCs, switchgear, transformers, and any other major inside-the-fence
process equipment required for the complete facility (excluding major owner-furnished equipment).
4. Construction labor costs are directly attributed to onsite civil/structural work and erection/installation of the
equipment included in the EPC’s scope.
5. Indirect costs are attributed to engineering, procurement, project services, construction management, field
engineering, start-up, and commissioning services.
6. Materials include all construction materials associated with the EPC scope of work, material freight costs, and
consumables during construction.
7. Owner’s services include project development, studies, permitting, legal, owner’s project management, owner’s
engineering, and owner’s start-up and commissioning costs. Other owner’s costs include electrical interconnection
costs, gas interconnection costs, and land acquisition costs.

4.3. OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE COST ESTIMATE

Operating and maintenance (O&M) costs are indicated in Table 4-2. Fixed O&M costs include staff and
administrative costs, supplies, and minor routine maintenance. (Not included are property taxes and
insurance.) Fixed costs also include the fixed payment portion of a long-term service agreement for the CT.

Capital Cost and Performance Characteristic Estimates for Utility Scale Electric
Power Generating Technologies
28
 SL-018001
U.S. Energy Information Administration and Z Federal
Final – Rev A
Project 14987.001
December 6, 2023

Variable O&M costs include consumable commodities, such as water, lubricants, and chemicals. Also
included is the average annual cost of the planned maintenance events for the CT over the long-term
maintenance cycle. Planned maintenance costs for the CT in a given year are based on the number of
equivalent starts the CT has accumulated. A hot path gas inspection is performed for this type of CT every
900 equivalent starts, and a major inspection is performed every 1800 equivalent starts. CTs generally have
two criteria to schedule overhauls: number of equivalent starts or number of equivalent operating hours
[EOH], whichever occurs first. In Case 4, it is assumed the operating profile results in a starts-driven
maintenance overhaul schedule. (Refer to Case 3 for an EOH-based overhaul schedule.) In Table 4-2, the
cost per start is broken out from the variable O&M costs that cover the consumables.

Table 4-2 — Case 4 O&M Cost Estimate

Case 4
EIA – Non-Fuel O&M Costs – 2023 $ USD
CT – Simple Cycle
Fixed O&M – Plant (Note 1) Units Value
Subtotal Fixed O&M $/kW-year 6.87 $/kW-year
Variable O&M
Consumables (Note 2) $/MWh 1.24 $/MWh
CT Major Maintenance (Note 2) $/Start 23,100
O&M Cost Notes
1. Fixed O&M costs include labor, materials and contracted services, and general and administrative (G&A) costs.
O&M costs exclude property taxes and insurance.
2. Variable O&M consumables costs include water, water discharge treatment cost, etc. based on $/MWh. In
addition to the consumables costs, add CT major maintenance variable costs, which are based on a start-
dependent maintenance cycle, with cost per start indicated.

4.4. ENVIRONMENTAL AND EMISSIONS INFORMATION

For the Case 4 simple-cycle configuration, SCR and CO catalysts are included to reduce emissions of NOX
and CO below the emission levels in the CT exhaust gas. Table 4-3 indicates predicted NOX, SO2, and CO2
emissions assuming natural gas firing.

Capital Cost and Performance Characteristic Estimates for Utility Scale Electric
Power Generating Technologies
29
 SL-018001
U.S. Energy Information Administration and Z Federal
Final – Rev A
Project 14987.001
December 6, 2023

Table 4-3 — Case 4 Emissions

Case 4
EIA – Emissions Rates
CT – Simple Cycle
Predicted Emissions Rates (Note 1) Units Value
NOx lb/MMBtu 0.0075
SO2 lb/MMBtu 0.00
CO2 lb/MMBtu 117
Emissions Control Notes
1. Natural gas fuel, emissions controlled with SCR, no water injection

Capital Cost and Performance Characteristic Estimates for Utility Scale Electric
Power Generating Technologies
30
 SL-018001
U.S. Energy Information Administration and Z Federal
Final – Rev A
Project 14987.001
December 6, 2023

CASE 5. COMBINED-CYCLE PLANT, H CLASS,

1 2 2 7 MW N E T

5.1. CASE DESCRIPTION

This case is comprised of one block of a combined-cycle (CC) power generation unit in a 2x2x1
configuration. The plant includes two industrial frame Model H “advanced technology” combustion turbines
(CTs) and one steam turbine generator (STG). Case 5 is based on natural gas firing of the CTs, although
dual-fuel capability is provided. Main plant cooling is accomplished with a wet cooling tower system. Output
power voltage is stepped up for transmission to the external grid through an onsite switchyard.

5.1.1. Mechanical Equipment and System

Case 5 is comprised of a pair of Model H, dual-fuel CTs in a 2x2x1 CC configuration (two CTs, two heat
recovery steam generators [HRSGs], and one steam turbine). Each CT generates approximately 436 MW
gross; the STG generates approximately 393 MW gross. After deducting internal auxiliary power demand,
the net output of the plant is 1227 MW. Refer to Figure 5-1 for a diagram of the Case 5 configuration.

Each CT’s inlet air duct has an evaporative cooler to reduce the inlet air temperature in warmer seasons to
increase the CT and plant output. Each CT is also equipped with burners designed to reduce NOX
emissions. Included in the Case 5 configuration are selective catalytic reduction (SCR) units for further NOX
emissions reduction and CO catalysts for further CO emissions reduction.

The CTs are Model H industrial frame-type CTs with an advanced technology design, since they incorporate
the following features:

 High firing temperatures (~2900°F)

 Advanced materials of construction

 Advanced thermal barrier coatings

 Additional cooling of CT assemblies (depending on the CT model, additional cooling applies to the
CT rotor, turbine section vanes, and the combustor). Refer to Figure 5-1, which depicts a dedicated
additional cooler for the CT assemblies in Case 5.

The high-firing temperature and additional features listed above result in increased MW output and
efficiency of the CT as well as in the CC plant.

Hot exhaust gas from each CT is directed to a HRSG, with one HRSG per CT. Steam generated in the
HRSGs is directed to the STG. HRSGs may be optionally equipped with additional supplemental firing,

Capital Cost and Performance Characteristic Estimates for Utility Scale Electric
Power Generating Technologies
31
 SL-018001
U.S. Energy Information Administration and Z Federal
Final – Rev A
Project 14987.001
December 6, 2023

however, this feature is not included in Case 5. (Supplemental HRSG firing, while increasing the MW output
of the STG, reduces plant efficiency.)

A wet cooling tower system provides plant cooling for Case 5. A wet cooling tower is preferred over the
alternative air-cooled condensers (ACC) approach since plant performance is better (that is, greater MW
output and higher efficiency) and capital cost is generally lower. However, ACCs are often selected in areas
where the supply of makeup water needed for a wet cooling tower is scarce or expensive, such as in desert
areas in the southwestern United States.

Figure 5-1 — Case 5 Configuration

Heat Recovery Steam Generator

HRSG #1
(Three Pressure Levels with Reheat)

SCR/CO CATALYST
Combustion Turbine #1

Heat Exchanger
for CT Cooling
Heat Recovery Steam Generator
HRSG #2
(Three Pressure Levels with Reheat)
SCR/CO CATALYST

Combustion Turbine #2

Wet
Cooling
Tower

Steam Turbine

Source: Author © Sargent & Lundy, L.L.C.

Capital Cost and Performance Characteristic Estimates for Utility Scale Electric
Power Generating Technologies
32
 SL-018001
U.S. Energy Information Administration and Z Federal
Final – Rev A
Project 14987.001
December 6, 2023

5.1.2. Electrical and Control Systems

Case 5 includes one 60-Hz electric generator per CT with an approximate rating of 436 MVA and output
voltage of 13.8 kV. The STG includes one 60-Hz electric generator with an approximate 393 MVA rating.
The output power from the three generators is converted to a higher voltage by generator step-up
transformers (GSUs) for transmission to the external grid, transmitted through an onsite facility switchyard.

The CC facility is controlled by a central distributed control system (DCS), which is linked to a CT control
system provided by the CT manufacturer. This DCS includes controls for the steam cycle systems and
equipment as well as balance-of-plant (BOP) systems and equipment (for example, water systems, fuel
systems, and main cooling systems).

5.1.3. Offsite Requirements

Offsite provisions Case 5 include the following:

 Fuel Gas Supply: A half-mile-long pipeline and a dedicated metering station.

 High-Voltage Transmission Line: A one-mile-long transmission line.

 Water Supply for Cooling Tower, Evaporative Coolers, Makeup to Steam Cycle, and
Miscellaneous Uses: It is assumed that the water supply source is near the power plant site and
the interconnection for water is at the plant’s site boundary. Blowdown waste from the cooling tower
and other areas of the plant is sent to an approved discharge location after appropriate treatment of
the wastewater, and the wastewater interconnection is assumed to be located at the power plant’s
site boundary.

5.2. CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE

Table 5-1 summarizes the cost components for this case. This estimate is based on an engineering,
procurement, and construction (EPC) contracting approach.

In addition to EPC contract costs, the capital cost estimate in Table 5-1 covers owner’s costs. Owner’s
costs include owner’s services which include project development, studies, permitting, legal, owner’s project
management, owner’s engineering, and owner’s start-up and commissioning costs. Other owner’s costs
include electrical interconnection costs, gas interconnection costs, and land acquisition costs. The estimate
is presented as an overnight cost in 2023 dollars and thus excludes allowance for funds used during
construction or interest during construction. In addition to the cost of external systems noted above (for
example, fuel gas supply and transmission line), an estimated amount is included for the cost of land.

Capital Cost and Performance Characteristic Estimates for Utility Scale Electric
Power Generating Technologies
33
 SL-018001
U.S. Energy Information Administration and Z Federal
Final – Rev A
Project 14987.001
December 6, 2023

Table 5-1 — Case 5 Capital Cost Estimate

Case 5
EIA – Capital Cost Estimates – 2023 $ USD
CC 2x2x1
Configuration
H-Class
Combustion Emissions Controls Dry Low NOx combustor
Post-Combustion Emissions Controls SCR Catalyst, CO Catalyst
Fuel Type Natural gas / No. 2 Backup
Post Firing No Post Firing
Units
Plant Characteristics
Net Plant Capacity (60°F, 60% RH) MW 1227
Net Plant Heat Rate, Higher Heating Value (HHV) Basis Btu/kWh 6266
Capital Cost Assumptions
% of Direct and
EPC Contracting Fee 10%
Indirect Costs
EPC Contingency % of EPC Costs 11%
Owner’s Services % of Project Costs 9%
Owner’s Contingency % of Owner’s Costs 7%
Estimated Land Requirement acres 30
Estimated Land Cost $/acre 54,000
Interconnection Costs
Electrical Transmission Interconnection Costs
Transmission Line Cost $/mile 3,040,000
Miles miles 1.00
Substation Expansion $ 0
Gas Interconnection Costs
Pipeline Cost $/mile 6,000,000
Miles miles 0.50
Metering Station $ 3,400,000
Typical Project Timelines
Development, Permitting, Engineering months 18
Plant Construction Time months 24
Total Lead Time Before Commercial
months 42
Operation Date (COD)
Operating Life years 40
EPC Cost Components (Note 1)
Major Owner-Furnished Equipment (Note 2) $ 319,400,000
Other Equipment (Note 3) $ 119,700,000
Construction Labor (Note 4) $ 200,000,000
Indirect Costs (Note 5) $ 63,910,000

Capital Cost and Performance Characteristic Estimates for Utility Scale Electric
Power Generating Technologies
34
 SL-018001
U.S. Energy Information Administration and Z Federal
Final – Rev A
Project 14987.001
December 6, 2023

Case 5
EIA – Capital Cost Estimates – 2023 $ USD
CC 2x2x1
Configuration
H-Class
Combustion Emissions Controls Dry Low NOx combustor
Post-Combustion Emissions Controls SCR Catalyst, CO Catalyst
Fuel Type Natural gas / No. 2 Backup
Post Firing No Post Firing
Units
Materials (Note 6) $ 83,429,000
EPC Fee $ 78,644,000
EPC Contingency $ 95,159,000
EPC Subtotal $ 960,242,000
Owner’s Cost Components (Note 7)
Owner’s Services $ 86,422,000
Land $ 1,620,000
Electrical Interconnection $ 3,040,000
Gas Interconnection $ 6,400,000
Owner’s Contingency $ 6,824,000
Owner’s Subtotal $ 104,306,000
Total Capital Cost $ 1,064,548,000
$/kW net 867.6
Capital Cost Notes
1. Costs based on EPC contracting approach. Direct costs include equipment, material, and labor to construct the
civil/structural, mechanical, and electrical/I&C components of the facility. EPC fees are applied to the sum of direct
and indirect costs.
2. Major owner-furnished equipment includes CTs, HRSG, SCRs, CO catalysts, and steam turbines.
3. Other equipment includes pumps, tanks, MCCs, condensers, cooling towers, switchgear, transformers, and any
other major inside-the-fence process equipment required for the complete facility (excluding major owner-furnished
equipment).
4. Construction labor costs are directly attributed to onsite civil/structural work and erection/installation of the
equipment included in the EPC’s scope.
5. Indirect costs are attributed to engineering, procurement, project services, construction management, field
engineering, start-up, and commissioning services.
6. Materials include all construction materials associated with the EPC scope of work, material freight costs, and
consumables during construction.
7. Owner’s services include project development, studies, permitting, legal, owner’s project management, owner’s
engineering, and owner’s start-up and commissioning costs. Other owner’s costs include electrical interconnection
costs, gas interconnection costs, and land acquisition costs.

5.3. OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE COST ESTIMATE

Table 5-2 indicates operating and maintenance (O&M) costs. Fixed O&M costs include staff and
administrative costs, supplies, and minor routine maintenance. (Not included are property taxes and
insurance.) Fixed costs also include the fixed payment portion of a long-term service agreement for the

Capital Cost and Performance Characteristic Estimates for Utility Scale Electric
Power Generating Technologies
35
 SL-018001
U.S. Energy Information Administration and Z Federal
Final – Rev A
Project 14987.001
December 6, 2023

CTs. Additional O&M costs for firm gas transportation service are not included as the facility has dual-fuel
capability.

Variable O&M costs include consumable commodities, such as water, lubricants, and chemicals. It also
includes the periodic costs to change out the SCR and CO catalysts. The variable O&M costs also include
the average annual cost of the planned maintenance events for the CTs and the STG over the long-term
maintenance cycle. Planned maintenance costs for the CTs in a given year are based on the number of
equivalent operating hours (EOH) the CT has run. A hot path gas inspection is performed for this type of
CT every 900 equivalent starts, and a major inspection is performed every 1800 equivalent starts. (CTs
generally have two criteria to schedule overhauls: number of equivalent starts and number of EOH. Case
5 assumes the operating profile results in an EOH-driven maintenance overhaul schedule. Refer to Case 4
for a starts-based overhaul schedule.)

Table 5-2 — Case 5 O&M Costs

Case 5
EIA – Non-Fuel O&M Costs – 2023 $ USD
CC 2x2x1
Fixed O&M – Plant (Note 1) Units Value
Subtotal Fixed O&M $/kW-year 12.12 $/kW-year
Variable O&M (Note 2) $/MWh 3.41 $/MWh
O&M Cost Notes
1. Fixed O&M costs include labor, materials and contracted services, and general and administrative (G&A) costs.
O&M costs exclude property taxes and insurance.
2. Variable O&M costs include water and water discharge treatment cost. These include turbine major
maintenance activities which are based on an operating hours-dependent maintenance cycle.

5.4. ENVIRONMENTAL AND EMISSIONS INFORMATION

For the Case 5 CC configuration, NOX emissions from the HRSG stacks when firing gas are indicated in
Table 5-3. SCRs and CO catalysts are included in the HRSGs to reduce HRSG stack emissions of NOX
and CO below the emission levels in the CT exhaust gas.

Capital Cost and Performance Characteristic Estimates for Utility Scale Electric
Power Generating Technologies
36
 SL-018001
U.S. Energy Information Administration and Z Federal
Final – Rev A
Project 14987.001
December 6, 2023

Table 5-3 — Case 5 Emissions

Case 5
EIA – Emissions Rates
CC 2x2x1
Predicted Emissions Rates (Note 1) Units Value
NOx lb/MMBtu 0.0075 (Note 1)
SO2 lb/MMBtu 0.00
CO2 lb/MMBtu 117
Emissions Control Notes
1. Natural gas, SCR, no water injection

Capital Cost and Performance Characteristic Estimates for Utility Scale Electric
Power Generating Technologies
37
 SL-018001
U.S. Energy Information Administration and Z Federal
Final – Rev A
Project 14987.001
December 6, 2023

CASE 6. COMBINED-CYCLE PLANT, H CLASS,

SINGLE SHAFT, 627 MW NET

6.1. CASE DESCRIPTION

This case is comprised of one block of a combined-cycle (CC) power generation unit. The plant includes
one industrial frame Model HL derived from an H-Class technology combustion turbine (CT), one steam
turbine generator (STG), and one electric generator that is common to the CT and the STG. Case 6 is
based on natural gas firing of the CT, although dual-fuel capability is provided. Main plant cooling is
accomplished with a wet cooling tower system. Output power voltage is stepped up for transmission to the
external grid through an onsite switchyard.

6.1.1. Mechanical Equipment and Systems

Case 6 is comprised of one Model HL dual-fuel CT in a 1x1x1 single-shaft CC configuration. The CT

generates approximately 453 MW gross and the STG generates 192 MW gross. After deducting internal
auxiliary power demand, the net output of the plant is approximately 627 MW.

Case 6 layout differs from Case 5 in that Case 6 is a single-shaft CC plant. That is, the Case 5 CT, STG,
and electric generator all share one horizontal shaft. Therefore, it has a more compact footprint than a plant
like Case 5, where the CTs and STG have separate shafts and generators. Refer to Figure 6-1 for a
simplified sketch of a single-shaft CT/steam turbine/generator unit. Generally, there are no major
performance advantages of a single-shaft CC unit. Instead, the advantages are in costs; that is, in the case
of a 1x1x1 CC configuration, the single-shaft unit will have only one electric generator whereas a multiple
shaft 1x1x1 CC configuration will have two generators. Also, the smaller footprint of the single-shaft unit
will lessen balance-of-plant (BOP) costs, such as foundations, piping, and cabling costs.

The inlet air duct for the CT is equipped with an evaporative cooler to reduce the inlet air temperature in
warmer seasons to increase the CT and plant output. The CT is also equipped with burners designed to
reduce the CT’s emission of NOX. Included in the Case 6 configuration is a selective catalytic reduction
(SCR) unit for further reduction of NOX emissions and a CO catalyst for further reduction of CO emissions.

The CT is categorized as derived from H Class industrial frame-type CT with an advanced technology
design since it incorporates in the design the following features:

 High-firing temperatures (~2900°F)

 Advanced materials of construction

Capital Cost and Performance Characteristic Estimates for Utility Scale Electric
Power Generating Technologies
38
 SL-018001
U.S. Energy Information Administration and Z Federal
Final – Rev A
Project 14987.001
December 6, 2023

 Advanced thermal barrier coatings

 Additional cooling of CT assemblies (depending on the CT model, additional cooling applies to the
CT rotor, turbine section vanes, and the combustor). The high-firing temperature and additional
features listed above result in an increase in MW output and efficiency of the CT as well as in the
CC plant.

In addition, the HL class industrial frame-type CT utilizes a modular design approach and is designed for
operational flexibility.

Hot exhaust gas from the CT is directed to a heat recovery steam generator (HRSG). Steam generated in
the HRSG is directed to the STG. An HRSG may be optionally equipped with additional supplemental firing
to boost steam turbine output, but this feature is not included in Case 6. (Supplemental HRSG firing, while
increasing the MW output of the STG, reduces plant efficiency.)

Plant cooling for Case 6 is provided by a wet cooling tower system. Generally, a wet cooling tower is
preferred over the alternative air-cooled condensers (ACC) approach since plant performance is better (that
is, greater MW output and higher efficiency) with a wet tower and capital cost is generally lower. However,
ACCs are often selected in areas where the supply of makeup water needed for a wet cooling tower is
scarce, expensive, or difficult to permit such as in desert areas in the southwestern United States.

Capital Cost and Performance Characteristic Estimates for Utility Scale Electric
Power Generating Technologies
39
 SL-018001
U.S. Energy Information Administration and Z Federal
Final – Rev A
Project 14987.001
December 6, 2023

Figure 6-1 — Case 6 Configuration – Simplified Sketch

Conceptual sketch of a 1x1x1 single-shaft CT/steam turbine/generator plant

Source: Author © Sargent & Lundy, L.L.C

6.1.2. Electrical and Control Systems

Case 6 includes one 60-Hz electric generator for both the CT and steam turbine, with an approximate rating
of 453 MVA and output voltage of 13.8 kV. The output power from the generator is converted to a higher
voltage by a generator step-up transformer (GSU) for transmission to the external grid, transmitted through
an onsite facility switchyard.

The CC facility is controlled by a central distributed control system (DCS), which is linked to a CT control
system provided by the CT manufacturer. The DCS system includes controls for the steam cycle systems
and equipment as well as the BOP systems and equipment (for example, water systems, fuel systems, and
main cooling systems).

6.1.3. Offsite Requirements

Offsite provisions in Case 6 include the following:

 Fuel Gas Supply: A half-mile-long pipeline and a dedicated metering station.

Capital Cost and Performance Characteristic Estimates for Utility Scale Electric
Power Generating Technologies
40
 SL-018001
U.S. Energy Information Administration and Z Federal
Final – Rev A
Project 14987.001
December 6, 2023

 High-Voltage Transmission Line: A one-mile-long transmission line.

 Water Supply for Cooling Tower, Evaporative Coolers, Makeup to Steam Cycle, and
Miscellaneous Uses: It is assumed that the water supply source is near the power plant site and
the interconnection for water is at the plant’s site boundary. Blowdown waste from the cooling tower
and other areas of the plant is sent to an approved discharge location after appropriate treatment of
the wastewater, and the wastewater interconnection is assumed to be located at the power plant’s
site boundary.

6.2. CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE

Table 6-1 summarizes the cost components for this case. The capital cost estimate is based on an
engineering, procurement, and construction (EPC) contracting approach.

In addition to EPC contract costs, the capital cost estimate in Table 6-1 covers owner’s costs. Owner’s
costs include owner’s services which include project development, studies, permitting, legal, owner’s project
management, owner’s engineering, and owner’s start-up and commissioning costs. Other owner’s costs
include electrical interconnection costs, gas interconnection costs, and land acquisition costs. The estimate
is presented as an overnight cost in 2023 dollars and thus excludes allowance for funds used during
construction or interest during construction. In addition to the cost of external systems noted above (for
example, fuel gas supply and transmission line), an estimated amount is included for the cost of land.

Table 6-1 — Case 6 Capital Cost Estimate

Case 6
EIA – Capital Cost Estimates – 2023 $ USD
CC 1x1x1, Single Shaft
Configuration
H Class
Dry Low Emissions
Combustion Emissions Controls
Combustor
Post-Combustion Emissions Controls SCR Catalyst, CO Catalyst
Fuel Type Natural Gas / No. 2 Backup
Post Firing No Post Firing
Units
Plant Characteristics
Net Plant Capacity (60°F, 60% RH) MW 627
Heat Rate, Higher Heating Value (HHV) Basis Btu/kWh 6226
Capital Cost Assumptions
% of Direct and
EPC Contracting Fee 10%
Indirect Costs
EPC Contingency % of EPC Costs 11%
Owner’s Services % of Project Costs 9%
Owner’s Contingency % of Owner’s Costs 7%

Capital Cost and Performance Characteristic Estimates for Utility Scale Electric
Power Generating Technologies
41
 SL-018001
U.S. Energy Information Administration and Z Federal
Final – Rev A
Project 14987.001
December 6, 2023

Case 6
EIA – Capital Cost Estimates – 2023 $ USD
CC 1x1x1, Single Shaft
Configuration
H Class
Dry Low Emissions
Combustion Emissions Controls
Combustor
Post-Combustion Emissions Controls SCR Catalyst, CO Catalyst
Fuel Type Natural Gas / No. 2 Backup
Post Firing No Post Firing
Units
Estimated Land Requirement acres 30
Estimated Land Cost $/acre 54,000
Interconnection Costs
Electrical Transmission Interconnection Costs
Transmission Line Cost $/mile 3,040,000
Miles miles 1.00
Substation Expansion $ 0
Gas Interconnection Costs
Pipeline Cost $/mile 4,800,000
Miles miles 0.50
Metering Station $ 2,800,000
Typical Project Timelines
Development, Permitting, Engineering months 18
Plant Construction Time months 22
Total Lead Time Before Commercial Operation
months 40
Date (COD)
Operating Life years 40
EPC Cost Components (Note 1)
Major Owner-Furnished Equipment (Note 2) $ 158,000,000
Other Equipment (Note 3) $ 80,400,000
Construction Labor (Note 4) $ 105,400,000
Indirect Costs (Note 5) $ 34,380,000
Materials (Note 6) $ 45,296,000
EPC Fee $ 42,348,000
EPC Contingency $ 51,241,000
EPC Subtotal $ 517,065,000
Owner’s Cost Components (Note 7)
Owner’s Services $ 46,536,000
Land $ 1,620,000
Electrical Interconnection $ 3,040,000
Gas Interconnection $ 5,200,000

Capital Cost and Performance Characteristic Estimates for Utility Scale Electric
Power Generating Technologies
42
 SL-018001
U.S. Energy Information Administration and Z Federal
Final – Rev A
Project 14987.001
December 6, 2023

Case 6
EIA – Capital Cost Estimates – 2023 $ USD
CC 1x1x1, Single Shaft
Configuration
H Class
Dry Low Emissions
Combustion Emissions Controls
Combustor
Post-Combustion Emissions Controls SCR Catalyst, CO Catalyst
Fuel Type Natural Gas / No. 2 Backup
Post Firing No Post Firing
Units
Owner’s Contingency $ 3,948,000
Owner’s Subtotal $ 60,344,000
Total Capital Cost $ 577,409,000
$/kW net 920.9
Capital Cost Notes
1. Costs based on EPC contracting approach. Direct costs include equipment, material, and labor to construct the
civil/structural, mechanical, and electrical/I&C components of the facility. EPC fees are applied to the sum of direct
and indirect costs.
2. Major owner-furnished equipment includes CTs, HRSG, SCRs, CO catalysts, and steam turbines.
3. Other equipment includes pumps, tanks, MCCs, condensers, cooling towers, switchgear, transformers, and any
other major inside-the-fence process equipment required for the complete facility (excluding the major owner-
furnished equipment).
4. Construction labor costs are directly attributed to onsite civil/structural work and erection/installation of the
equipment included in the EPC’s scope.
5. Indirect costs are attributed to engineering, procurement, project services, construction management, field
engineering, start-up, and commissioning services.
6. Materials include all construction materials associated with the EPC scope of work, material freight costs, and
consumables during construction.
7. Owner’s services include project development, studies, permitting, legal, owner’s project management, owner’s
engineering, and owner’s start-up and commissioning costs. Other owner’s costs include electrical interconnection
costs, gas interconnection costs, and land acquisition costs.

6.3. OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE COST ESTIMATE

Operating and maintenance (O&M) costs are indicated in Table 6-2. Fixed O&M costs include staff and
administrative costs, supplies, and minor routine maintenance. (Not included are property taxes and
insurance.) Fixed costs also include the fixed payment portion of a long-term service agreement for the CT.

Variable O&M costs include consumable commodities, such as water, lubricants, and chemicals and
periodic costs to change out the SCR and CO catalysts. The variable O&M costs also include the average
annual cost of the planned maintenance events for the CT and the STG over the long-term maintenance
cycle. Planned maintenance costs for the CT in a given year are based on the number of equivalent
operating hours (EOH) the CT has run. A hot gas path inspection is typically performed for this type of CT
every 25,000 EOH, and a major inspection is performed every 66,400 EOH. (CTs generally have two criteria
to schedule overhauls: number of equivalent starts and number of EOH. In Case 6, it is assumed the

Capital Cost and Performance Characteristic Estimates for Utility Scale Electric
Power Generating Technologies
43
 SL-018001
U.S. Energy Information Administration and Z Federal
Final – Rev A
Project 14987.001
December 6, 2023

operating profile results in an EOH-driven maintenance overhaul schedule. Refer to Case 4 for a starts-
based overhaul schedule.)

Table 6-2 — Case 6 O&M Cost

Case 6
EIA – Non-Fuel O&M Costs – 2023 $ USD
Combined-Cycle 1x1x1, Single Shaft
Fixed O&M – Plant (Note 1) Units Value
Subtotal Fixed O&M $/kW-year 15.51 $/kW-year
Variable O&M (Note 2) $/MWh 3.33 $/MWh
O&M Cost Notes
1. Fixed O&M costs include labor, materials and contracted services, and general and administrative (G&A) costs.
O&M costs exclude property taxes and insurance.
2. Variable O&M costs include water and water discharge treatment cost. These include turbine major
maintenance activities which are based on an operating hours-dependent maintenance cycle.

6.4. ENVIRONMENTAL AND EMISSIONS INFORMATION

For the Case 6 CC configuration, NOX emissions from the HRSG stack when firing gas are indicated in
Table 6-3. An SCR and a CO catalyst are included in the HRSG to reduce HRSG stack emissions of NOX
and CO below the emission levels in the CT exhaust gas.

Table 6-3 — Case 6 Emissions

Case 6
EIA – Emissions Rates
Combined-Cycle 1x1x1, Single Shaft
Predicted Emissions Rates (Note 1) Units Value
NOx lb/MMBtu 0.0075 (Note 1)
SO2 lb/MMBtu 0.00
CO2 lb/MMBtu 117
Emissions Control Notes
1. Natural gas, SCR, no water injection

Capital Cost and Performance Characteristic Estimates for Utility Scale Electric
Power Generating Technologies
44
 SL-018001
U.S. Energy Information Administration and Z Federal
Final – Rev A
Project 14987.001
December 6, 2023

CASE 7. COMBINED-CYCLE PLANT, H CLASS,

SINGLE SHAFT, WITH 95% CARBON CAPTURE,
543 MW NET

7.1. CASE DESCRIPTION

This case includes one block of a combined-cycle (CC) power generation unit in a 1x1x1 single-shaft
configuration. The plant includes one industrial frame Model HL derived from H-Class combustion-turbine
(CT) technology, one steam turbine generator (STG), and one electric generator that is common to the CT
and the STG. Case 7 is based on natural gas firing of the CT, although dual-fuel capability is provided. Main
plant cooling is accomplished with a wet cooling tower system. Output power voltage is stepped up for
transmission to the external grid through an onsite switchyard.

In addition, a system is included to remove and capture 95% of the CO2 in the CT exhaust gas.

Refer to Case 6 for a description the power generation systems since Case 7 is the same in this regard.

7.1.1. Mechanical Equipment and Systems

This technology case adds a 95% CO2 capture system to an industrial frame Siemens Energy Model SGT6-
9000HL dual-fuel CTs in a 1x1x1 single-shaft CC configuration. The nominal output of the CC plant unit
without carbon capture is 627 MW gross. The major power cycle equipment and configurations are
described in Case 6. The CO2 capture systems are commonly referred to as carbon capture and
sequestration (CCS) systems; however, for cost estimates provided in this report, no sequestration costs
have been included. For this case, the CO2 captured is assumed to be compressed to supercritical
conditions and injected into a pipeline that terminates at the facility’s fence line. For this report, the terms
“CO2 capture” and “carbon capture” are used interchangeably.

As with the technology of Case 6, the base configuration used for the cost estimate is a single CC unit
power generation plant station constructed on a greenfield site of approximately 30 acres. Case 7 CC unit
power generation plant station constructed with a 95% CC system on a greenfield site increase to
approximately 60 acres or required land. A wet mechanical draft cooling tower is used for plant cycle cooling
and the makeup water used for cycle cooling and steam cycle makeup is provided by an adjacent fresh
water source, reservoir, or river.

Capital Cost and Performance Characteristic Estimates for Utility Scale Electric
Power Generating Technologies
45
 SL-018001
U.S. Energy Information Administration and Z Federal
Final – Rev A
Project 14987.001
December 6, 2023

7.1.2. 95% CO2 Capture

For Case 7, to obtain 95% CO2 removal from the flue gas generated from the CT, the full flue gas path must
be treated. The flue gas generated from natural gas-fired CT combustion results in a much lower CO2
concentration in the flue gas than flue gas from a coal-fired facility. As such, the flue gas absorber and
quencher would be much larger in scale on a per ton of CO2 treated basis than with a coal facility. The
stripper and compression system, however, would scale directly with the mass rate of CO2 captured.

In this scenario, it is not practical to increase the CT size or STG size to account for the steam extraction
and added auxiliary power required by the CO2 capture system. The net power output in the CO2 capture
case is significantly less than Case 6.

The flue gas path differs from the base case (Case 6) in that 100% of the gas is directed to the carbon
capture system located downstream of the preheater section of the heat recovery steam generator (HRSG).
The selective catalytic reduction (SCR) and CO catalysts would operate the same and the flue gas mass
flows would be the same. Rather than exiting a stack, the flue gases would be ducted to a set of booster
fans that would feed the CO2 absorber column. The total gross power generated from the CT is
approximately the same as Case 6 with no carbon capture.

Steam for the CO2 stripper is to be extracted from the intermediate-pressure turbine to low-pressure turbine
crossover line; however, the steam must be attemporated to meet the requirements of the carbon capture
system. The total process steam flow required for the carbon capture system is approximately 571,514
pounds per hour. As a result of the steam extraction, the gross STG generation outlet decreases from
approximately 192 MW to 151 MW.

The total auxiliary power required by the plant is approximately 61 MW, of which approximately 44 MW is
used by the carbon capture system. The net output decreases from the base case (Case 6) from 627 MW
to 543 MW. The net plant heat rate for the 95% carbon capture case is 7,239 Btu/kWh, higher heating value
(HHV) basis (compared to 6,226 Btu/kWh, HHV basis, for Case 6).

7.1.3. Electrical and Control Systems

The electrical and controls systems for this case are similar in scope to Case 6’s electrical system; however,
the auxiliary power system supplies a much larger amount of medium voltage load for the 95% carbon
capture case.

The CC facility and the CO2 capture plant are controlled by a central distributed control system (DCS),
which is linked to a CT control system provided by the CT manufacturer. It includes controls for the steam

Capital Cost and Performance Characteristic Estimates for Utility Scale Electric
Power Generating Technologies
46
 SL-018001
U.S. Energy Information Administration and Z Federal
Final – Rev A
Project 14987.001
December 6, 2023

cycle systems and equipment as well as the balance-of-plant (BOP) systems and equipment (for example,
water systems, fuel systems, main cooling systems).

7.1.4. Offsite Requirements

Offsite provisions in Case 7 include the following:

 Fuel Gas Supply: A half-mile-long pipeline and a dedicated metering station.

 High-Voltage Transmission Line: A is a one-mile-long transmission line.

 Water Supply for Cooling Tower, Evaporative Coolers, Makeup to Steam Cycle, and
Miscellaneous Uses: It is assumed that the water supply source is near the power plant site and
the interconnection for water is at the plant’s site boundary. The volume of water needed for this
95% carbon capture case is significantly higher than for the base CC case (Case 6). Blowdown
waste from the cooling tower and other areas of the plant is sent to an approved discharge location
after appropriate treatment of the wastewater, and the wastewater interconnection is assumed to
be located at the power plant’s site boundary.

7.2. CAPITAL COST ESTIMATES

Table 7-1 summarizes the cost components for this case. The capital cost estimate is based on an
engineering, procurement, and construction (EPC) contracting approach.

In addition to EPC contract costs, the capital cost estimate in Table 7-1 covers owner’s costs. Owner’s
costs include owner’s services which include project development, studies, permitting, legal, owner’s project
management, owner’s engineering, and owner’s start-up and commissioning costs. Other owner’s costs
include electrical interconnection costs, gas interconnection costs, and land acquisition costs. The estimate
is presented as an overnight cost in 2023 dollars and thus excludes allowance for funds used during
construction or interest during construction. In addition to the cost of external systems noted above (for
example, fuel gas supply and transmission line), an estimated amount is included for the cost of land.

Capital Cost and Performance Characteristic Estimates for Utility Scale Electric
Power Generating Technologies
47
 SL-018001
U.S. Energy Information Administration and Z Federal
Final – Rev A
Project 14987.001
December 6, 2023

Table 7-1 — Case 7 Capital Cost Estimate

Case 7
EIA – Capital Cost Estimates – 2023 $ USD
CC 1x1x1, Single Shaft,
Configuration with 95% Carbon Capture

H-Class
Dry Low Emissions
Combustion Emissions Controls
Combustor
Post-Combustion Emissions Controls SCR Catalyst, CO Catalyst
Fuel Type Natural gas / No. 2 Backup
Post Firing No Post Firing
Units
Plant Characteristics
Net Plant Capacity (60°F, 60% RH) MW 543
Heat Rate, HHV Basis Btu/kWh 7239
Capital Cost Assumptions
% of Direct and
EPC Contracting Fee 10%
Indirect Costs
EPC Contingency % of EPC Costs 12%
Owner's Services % of Project Costs 9%
% of Owner's
Owner's Contingency 7%
Costs
Estimated Land Requirement acres 60
Estimated Land Cost $/acre 44,000
Interconnection Costs
Electrical Transmission Interconnection Costs
Transmission Line Cost $/mile 3,040,000
Miles miles 1.00
Substation Expansion $ 0
Gas Interconnection Costs
Pipeline Cost $/mile 4,800,000
Miles miles 0.50
Metering Station $ 2,800,000
Typical Project Timelines
Development, Permitting, Engineering months 24
Plant Construction Time months 30
Total Lead Time Before Commercial Operation
months 54
Date (COD)
Operating Life years 40
EPC Cost Components (Note 1)
CC: Major Owner-Furnished Equipment (Note 2) $ 158,000,000
CC: Other Equipment (Note 3) $ 80,400,000

Capital Cost and Performance Characteristic Estimates for Utility Scale Electric
Power Generating Technologies
48
 SL-018001
U.S. Energy Information Administration and Z Federal
Final – Rev A
Project 14987.001
December 6, 2023

Case 7
EIA – Capital Cost Estimates – 2023 $ USD
CC 1x1x1, Single Shaft,
Configuration with 95% Carbon Capture

H-Class
Dry Low Emissions
Combustion Emissions Controls
Combustor
Post-Combustion Emissions Controls SCR Catalyst, CO Catalyst
Fuel Type Natural gas / No. 2 Backup
Post Firing No Post Firing
Units
CC: Construction Labor (Note 4) $ 105,400,000
CC: Indirect Costs (Note 5) $ 34,380,000
CC: Materials (Note 6) $ 45,296,000
Carbon Capture: Equipment and Materials $ 251,424,000
Carbon Capture: System Labor $ 267,469,000
EPC Fee $ 94,237,000
EPC Contingency $ 124,393,000
EPC Subtotal $ 1,160,999,000
Owner's Cost Components (Note 7)
Owner's Services $ 104,490,000
Land $ 2,640,000
Electrical Interconnection $ 3,040,000
Gas Interconnection $ 5,200,000
Owner's Contingency $ 8,076,000
Owner's Subtotal $ 123,446,000
Total Capital Cost $ 1,284,445,000
$/kW net 2,365
Capital Cost Notes
1. Costs based on EPC contracting approach. Direct costs include equipment, material, and labor to construct the
civil/structural, mechanical, and electrical/I&C components of the facility. EPC fees are applied to the sum of direct
and indirect costs.
2. CC: major owner-furnished equipment for the CC Unit includes CT, HRSG, SCRs, CO catalyst, and steam
turbine.
3. CC: other equipment includes pumps, tanks, MCCs, condensers, cooling towers, switchgear, transformers, and
any other major inside-the-fence process equipment required for the complete facility (excluding the major owner
furnished equipment).
4. CC: construction labor costs are directly attributed to onsite civil/structural work and erection/installation of the
equipment included in the EPC’s scope.
5. CC: indirect costs are attributed to engineering, procurement, project services, construction management, field
engineering, start-up, and commissioning services.
6. CC: materials include all construction materials associated with the EPC scope of work, material freight costs,
and consumables during construction.

Capital Cost and Performance Characteristic Estimates for Utility Scale Electric
Power Generating Technologies
49
 SL-018001
U.S. Energy Information Administration and Z Federal
Final – Rev A
Project 14987.001
December 6, 2023

Case 7
EIA – Capital Cost Estimates – 2023 $ USD
CC 1x1x1, Single Shaft,
Configuration with 95% Carbon Capture

H-Class
Dry Low Emissions
Combustion Emissions Controls
Combustor
Post-Combustion Emissions Controls SCR Catalyst, CO Catalyst
Fuel Type Natural gas / No. 2 Backup
Post Firing No Post Firing
Units
7. Owner’s services include project development, studies, permitting, legal, owner’s project management, owner’s
engineering, and owner’s start-up and commissioning costs. Other owner’s costs include electrical interconnection
costs, gas interconnection costs (if applicable), and land acquisition costs.

7.3. OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE COST ESTIMATE

Operation and maintenance costs are indicated in Table 7-2. Fixed operating and maintenance (O&M)
costs include staff and administrative costs, supplies, and minor routine maintenance. (Not included are
property taxes and insurance.) Fixed costs also include the fixed payment portion of a long-term service
agreement for the CT and carbon capture system equipment.

Variable O&M costs include consumable commodities such as water, lubricants, chemicals, solvent
makeup, and periodic costs to change out the SCR and CO catalysts. The variable O&M costs also include
the average annual cost of the planned maintenance events for the CT and the STG over the long-term
maintenance cycle. Planned maintenance costs for the CT in a given year are based on the number of
equivalent operating hours (EOH) the CT has run. A hot gas path inspection is typically performed for this
type of CT every 25,000 EOH, and a major inspection is performed every 66,400 EOH. (CTs generally have
two criteria to schedule overhauls: number of equivalent starts and number of EOH. In Case 7, it is assumed
the operating profile results in an EOH-driven maintenance overhaul schedule. Refer to Case 4 for a start-
based overhaul schedule.) Planned major outage work on the STG is scheduled less frequently than the
CT; it is typically planned for every six to eight years.

For the CO2 capture system, variable costs include solvent makeup and disposal costs (usually offsite
disposal; the spent solvent may be considered hazardous waste), additional wastewater treatment costs
(predominantly CT blowdown treatment), and additional demineralized makeup water costs.

Capital Cost and Performance Characteristic Estimates for Utility Scale Electric
Power Generating Technologies
50
 SL-018001
U.S. Energy Information Administration and Z Federal
Final – Rev A
Project 14987.001
December 6, 2023

Table 7-2 — Case 7 O&M Cost Estimates

Case 7
EIA – O&M Costs – 2023 $ USD
CC 1x1x1, Single Shaft, with 95% Carbon Capture
Fixed O&M – Plant (Note 1) Units Value
Subtotal Fixed O&M $/kW-year 24.78 $/kW-year
Variable O&M (Note 2) $/MWh 5.05 $/MWh
O&M Cost Notes
1. Fixed O&M costs include labor, materials, and contracted services, and general and administrative (G&A) costs.
O&M costs exclude property taxes and insurance.
2. Variable O&M costs include water and water discharge treatment cost. These include turbine major
maintenance activities which are based on an operating hours-dependent maintenance cycle.

7.4. ENVIRONMENTAL AND EMISSIONS INFORMATION

For the Case 7 CC configuration with 95% carbon capture, NOX emissions from the plant when firing gas
are indicated in Table 7-3. An SCR and a CO catalyst are included in the HRSG to further reduce plant
emissions of NOX and CO below the emissions levels in the CT exhaust gas. The CO2 in the CT exhaust
gas is reduced by 95% for Case 7.

Table 7-3 — Case 7 Emissions

Case 7
EIA – Emissions Rates
CC 1x1x1, Single Shaft, with 95% Carbon Capture
Predicted Emissions Rates (Note 1) Units Value
NOx lb/MMBtu 0.0075 (Note 1)
SO2 lb/MMBtu 0.00
CO2 lb/MMBtu 6
Emissions Control Notes
1. Natural gas, SCR, CCS, no water injection

Capital Cost and Performance Characteristic Estimates for Utility Scale Electric
Power Generating Technologies
51
 SL-018001
U.S. Energy Information Administration and Z Federal
Final – Rev A
Project 14987.001
December 6, 2023

CASE 8. WOODY BIOMASS PLANT, WITH 95%

CARBON CAPTURE, 50 MW NET

8.1. CASE DESCRIPTION

This case comprises a greenfield biomass-fired power generation facility with a net capacity of 50 MW with
a single steam generator and condensing steam turbine with biomass storage and handling systems,
balance-of-plant (BOP) systems, in-furnace and post-combustion emissions control systems, and a 95%
CO2 capture system. The CO2 capture systems are commonly referred to as carbon capture and
sequestration (CCS) systems; however, for the cost estimates provided in this report, no sequestration
costs have been included. For this case, the CO2 captured is assumed to be compressed to supercritical
conditions and injected into a pipeline terminated at the fence line of the facility. For this report, the terms
“CO2 capture” and “carbon capture” are used interchangeably.

The facility is designed to receive, store, and burn wood chips with moisture content between 20% and
50%. The technology used is a bubbling fluidized bed (BFB) boiler with bed material consisting of sand,
crushed limestone, or ash. The facility does not include equipment to further process or dry the fuel prior to
combustion. The fuel storage area is assumed to be uncovered. The facility does not have a connection to
a natural gas supply and is designed to start up on diesel fuel only. The emission controls are used to limit
NOX and particulate matter, while SO2 emissions are not controlled.

8.1.1. Mechanical Equipment and Systems

The core technology for this case is a BFB boiler designed to combust wood chips. The boiler is a natural
circulation balanced-draft, non-reheat cycle. For this size range, the boiler is assumed to be a top-supported
design arranged in a similar manner as shown in Figure 8-1. The BFB furnace consists of horizontally
arranged air distribution nozzles in the lower portion of the furnace that introduces air or recirculated flue
gas to a bed of sand, ash, or other non-combustible material such as crushed limestone. The balanced-
draft boiler consists of water-wall tubes that are refractory lined in the bed area. Air flow is forced upward
through the bed material at velocities just beyond the point of fluidization where voids or bubbles start to
form within the bed. The bed material is maintained typically at a range of temperatures between 1400°F
to 1600°F, depending on the moisture content of the fuel. Diesel oil-fired start-up burners are used to heat
the bed material prior to the introduction of fuel. The biomass fuel is fed through chutes located in the lower
furnace. Depending on the moisture content of the fuel, flue gases can be mixed with the fluidized air to
control the bed heat release rate to levels that prevent the formation of agglomerated ash. Overfire air
(OFA) is used to complete combustion of the fuel and to control the emissions of NOX.

Capital Cost and Performance Characteristic Estimates for Utility Scale Electric
Power Generating Technologies
52
 SL-018001
U.S. Energy Information Administration and Z Federal
Final – Rev A
Project 14987.001
December 6, 2023

The steam cycle includes a condensing steam turbine and turbine auxiliaries, condensate pumps, low-
pressure and high-pressure feedwater heaters, boiler feed pumps, economizers, furnace water walls, steam
drum, and primary and secondary superheaters. Boiler feed pumps and condensate pumps are provided
in a 2x100% sizing basis. The steam conditions at the turbine are assumed to be 1500 psig at 950°F. Cycle
cooling is provided by a mechanical draft cooling tower.

The air and flue gas systems include primary and secondary air fans, flue gas recirculation fans, a single
tubular air heater, induced draft fans and the associated duct work, and dampers. The fans are assumed
to be provided on a 2x50% basis. A material handling is provided to convey the wood chips to the fuel surge
bins that direct the fuel to multiple feeders. The BOP equipment includes sootblowers, a water treatment
system and demineralized water storage tanks, a fire protection and detection system, a diesel oil storage
and transfer system, a compressed air system, an aqueous ammonia storage system and feed pumps, an
ash handling and storage system, and a continuous emissions monitoring system.

NOX emissions are controlled in-furnace using OFA and with a high dust selective catalytic reduction (SCR)
system, SO2 emissions from wood firing are inherently low and therefore are uncontrolled. Particulate
matter is controlled using a pulse jet fabric filter baghouse.

Capital Cost and Performance Characteristic Estimates for Utility Scale Electric
Power Generating Technologies
53
 SL-018001
U.S. Energy Information Administration and Z Federal
Final – Rev A
Project 14987.001
December 6, 2023

Figure 8-1 — Typical BFB Biomass Boiler Arrangement

Superheaters Sootblowers

Steam
Drum

Downcomers

Upper OFA Supply Duct

Upper OFA Ports

Lower OFA Supply Ducts

Furnace
Economizers Start-up Burner
Supply Duct

Fuel Chutes
Lower OFA Ports

Start-up Burners

Bed Material

Open Bed Material Bed Material Fluidizing Air

Bottom Transfer Collection Supply Duct
Hoppers Conveyor Conveyors

Babcock & Wilcox Top-Supported BFB Boiler

Source: Babcock & Wilcox, BFB-boiler-top-supported, ND. Digital Image. Reprinted with permission from Babcock &
Wilcox.
Retrieved from [Link], [Link]

The plant performance estimates for woodchip fired BFB boilers are highly dependent on fuel moisture.
Generally, BFB boiler efficiencies range from 75% to 80%. The estimated net heat rate firing wood chips is
19,965 Btu/kWh for this system based on the higher heating value (HHV) of the fuel.

Capital Cost and Performance Characteristic Estimates for Utility Scale Electric
Power Generating Technologies
54
 SL-018001
U.S. Energy Information Administration and Z Federal
Final – Rev A
Project 14987.001
December 6, 2023

8.1.2. 95% CO2 Capture

For Case 8, to obtain 95% CO2 removal from the flue gas generated from the biomass plant, the full flue
gas path must be treated. The flue gas generated from biomass combustion results in a similar CO2
concentration in the flue gas as compared to the flue gas from a coal-fired facility. As such, the CO2 capture
system would scale directly with the mass rate of CO2 captured.

In this scenario, it is not practical to increase the biomass plant size to account for the steam extraction and
added auxiliary power required by the CO2 capture system.

100% of the gas is directed to the CO2 capture system located downstream of the pulse jet fabric filter
baghouse. Rather than exiting a stack, the flue gases would be ducted to a set of booster fans that would
feed the CO2 absorber column.

Steam for the CO2 stripper is to be extracted from the intermediate-pressure turbine to low-pressure turbine
crossover line; however, the steam must be attemperated to meet the requirements of the CO2 capture
system. The total process steam flow required for the carbon capture system is approximately 77 pounds
per hour.

The total auxiliary power required by the plant is approximately 15.5 MW, of which 9 MW is used by the
CO2 capture system. This reduces the plant’s 65.5 MW (gross) steam turbine generator to 50 MW of net
output. The net plant heat rate for the 95% carbon capture case is 19,965 Btu/kWh, HHV basis.

8.1.3. Electrical and Control Systems

The electrical system for this case includes the turbine generator which is connected via generator circuit
breakers to a generator step-up transformer (GSU). The GSU increases the voltage from the generator
voltages level to the transmission system high-voltage level. The facility and most of the sub-systems are
controlled using a central distributed control system (DCS). Some systems are controlled using
programmable logic controllers, and these systems include the sootblower system, the fuel handling
system, and the ash handling system.

8.1.4. Offsite Requirements

The facility is constructed on a greenfield site of approximately 100 acres. Wood chips are delivered to the
facility by truck and rail. The maximum daily rate for wood chips for the facility is approximately 1750 tons
per day.

Capital Cost and Performance Characteristic Estimates for Utility Scale Electric
Power Generating Technologies
55
 SL-018001
U.S. Energy Information Administration and Z Federal
Final – Rev A
Project 14987.001
December 6, 2023

Water for steam cycle makeup and cooling tower makeup is assumed to be sourced from onsite wells.
Wastewater generated from the water treatment systems and the cooling tower blow down is sent to the
adjacent waterway from one or more outfalls from a water treatment pond or wastewater treatment system.

The electrical interconnection costs are based on a one-mile distance from the facility switchyard to the
terminal point on an existing utility substation. For the purposes of this estimate, the cost associated with
the expansion of the substation is excluded.

8.2. CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE

Table 8-1 below summarizes the cost components for this case. The basis of the estimate assumes that
the site is constructed in a United States region that has good access to lower cost construction labor and
has reasonable access to either well water or water resources, locally sourced wood chips, and existing
utility transmission substations or existing transmission lines. The geographic location is assumed to be
characterized by seismic, wind, and other loading criteria that do not add significantly to the capital costs.
An outdoor installation is assumed, meaning that the boiler building is not enclosed. No special systems
are needed to prevent freezing or to account for snow loads on structures.

Table 8-1 — Case 8 Capital Cost Estimate

Case 8
EIA – Capital Cost Estimates – 2023 $ USD
50 MW Biomass Plant
Configuration Bubbling Fluidized Bed
95% Carbon Capture System
Combustion Emissions Controls OFA
Post-Combustion Emissions Controls SCR / Baghouse / Amine-Based CCS
Fuel Type Woodchips
Units
Plant Characteristics
Net Plant Capacity (60°F, 60% RH) MW 50
Heat Rate, HHV Basis Btu/kWh 19,965
Capital Cost Assumptions
Engineering, Procurement, and Construction (EPC) % of Direct and Indirect
10%
Contracting Fee Costs
EPC Contingency % of EPC Costs 12%
Owner's Services % of EPC Costs 7%
Owner's Contingency % of Owner's Costs 12%
Estimated Land Requirement acres 100
Estimated Land Cost $/acre 37,000
Interconnection Costs
Electrical Transmission Interconnection Costs

Capital Cost and Performance Characteristic Estimates for Utility Scale Electric
Power Generating Technologies
56
 SL-018001
U.S. Energy Information Administration and Z Federal
Final – Rev A
Project 14987.001
December 6, 2023

Case 8
EIA – Capital Cost Estimates – 2023 $ USD
50 MW Biomass Plant
Configuration Bubbling Fluidized Bed
95% Carbon Capture System
Combustion Emissions Controls OFA
Post-Combustion Emissions Controls SCR / Baghouse / Amine-Based CCS
Fuel Type Woodchips
Units
Transmission Line Cost $/mile 2,076,000
Miles miles 1.00
Substation Expansion Cost $ 0
Typical Project Timelines
Development, Permitting, Engineering months 24
Plant Construction Time months 40
Total Lead Time Before Commercial Operation Date
months 64
(COD)
Operating Life years 40
EPC Cost Components (Note 1)
Civil/Structural/Architectural - Equipment and Materials $ 19,621,000
Boiler Plant - Equipment and Materials $ 44,217,000
Turbine Plant - Equipment and Materials $ 10,330,000
Main and Aux Power System - Equipment and
$ 3,801,000
Materials
Balance of Plant and I&C - Equipment and Materials $ 4,326,000
Substation and Switchyard Costs $ 29,405,000
Carbon Capture System Plant – Equipment and
$ 134,825,000
Materials
Construction Labor Costs $ 181,190,000
Indirect Costs $ 42,772,000
EPC Fee $ 47,049,000
EPC Contingency $ 62,104,000
EPC Subtotal $ 579,640,000
Owner's Cost Components (Note 2)
Owner's Services $ 40,575,000
Land $ 3,700,000
Electrical Interconnection $ 2,076,000
Gas Interconnection $ 0
Owner's Contingency $ 5,562,000
Owner's Cost Subtotal $ 51,913,000
Total Capital Cost $ 631,553,000
$/kW net 12,631
Capital Cost Notes

Capital Cost and Performance Characteristic Estimates for Utility Scale Electric
Power Generating Technologies
57
 SL-018001
U.S. Energy Information Administration and Z Federal
Final – Rev A
Project 14987.001
December 6, 2023

Case 8
EIA – Capital Cost Estimates – 2023 $ USD
50 MW Biomass Plant
Configuration Bubbling Fluidized Bed
95% Carbon Capture System
Combustion Emissions Controls OFA
Post-Combustion Emissions Controls SCR / Baghouse / Amine-Based CCS
Fuel Type Woodchips
Units
1. Costs based on EPC contracting approach. Direct costs include equipment, material, and labor to construct the
civil/structural, mechanical, and electrical/I&C components of the facility. Indirect costs include engineering,
construction management, start-up, and commissioning. EPC fees are applied to the sum of direct and indirect
costs.
2. Owner’s costs include project development, studies, permitting, legal, owner’s project management, owner’s
engineering, and owner’s start-up and commissioning costs. Other owner’s costs include electrical interconnection
costs, and land acquisition costs.

8.3. OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE COST ESTIMATE

The operating and maintenance (O&M) costs for the 50 MW biomass wood-fired generation facility are
summarized in Table 8-2. The fixed costs cover the O&M labor, contracted maintenance services and
materials, and general and administrative (G&A). Major overhauls for the facility are generally based on a
three-year basis for boiler equipment and firing equipment and a six-year basis for the steam turbine.
Shorter outages (for example, change out SCR catalyst) are generally performed on a two-year cycle.

Non-fuel variable costs for this case include SCR catalyst replacement costs, SCR reagent costs, water
treatment costs, wastewater treatment costs, fly ash and bottom ash disposal costs, bag replacement for
the fabric filters, bed material makeup, and water and solvent costs for the CO2 capture system.

Capital Cost and Performance Characteristic Estimates for Utility Scale Electric
Power Generating Technologies
58
 SL-018001
U.S. Energy Information Administration and Z Federal
Final – Rev A
Project 14987.001
December 6, 2023

Table 8-2 — Case 8 Operational Cost Estimate

Case 8
EIA – Non-Fuel O&M Costs – 2023 $ USD
50 MW BFB Biomass Plant with 95% Carbon Capture
Fixed O&M – Plant (Note 1) Units Value
Labor $/year 7,957,000
Materials and Contract Services $/year 3,266,000
Administrative and General $/year 1,836,000
$/year 13,059,000
Subtotal Fixed O&M
$/kW-year 261.18 $/kW-year
Variable O&M (Note 2) $/MWh 9.65 $/MWh
O&M Cost Notes
1. Fixed O&M costs include labor, materials and contracted services, and G&A costs. O&M costs exclude property
taxes and insurance.

2. Variable O&M costs include catalyst replacement, ammonia, water, ash disposal, solvent and water costs for the
CCS, and water discharge treatment cost.

8.4. ENVIRONMENTAL AND EMISSIONS INFORMATION

The emissions for the major criteria pollutants are summarized below in Table 8-3. The NOX emissions
assume that the in-furnace controls such as low NOx burners (LNBs), OFA, and SCR systems are
employed to control emissions to 0.08 lb/MMBtu. The SO2 emissions from wood fired combustion are
assumed to be negligible and are uncontrolled. The CO2 emissions estimate is based on a 95% reduction
in base emissions, through the implementation of the CO2 capture system. The base CO2 emission rate is
derived from 40 CFR, Subpart C, Table C-1; as 206 lb/MMBtu; therefore, giving a net CO2 emission rate of
10.3 lb/MMBtu.

Capital Cost and Performance Characteristic Estimates for Utility Scale Electric
Power Generating Technologies
59
 SL-018001
U.S. Energy Information Administration and Z Federal
Final – Rev A
Project 14987.001
December 6, 2023

Table 8-3 — Case 8 Emission Rates

Case 8
EIA – Emissions Rates
50 MW, BFB Biomass Plant with 95% Carbon Capture
Predicted Emissions Rates (Note 1) Units Value
NOx lb/MMBtu 0.08 (Note 2)
SO2 lb/MMBtu <0.03 (Note 3)
PM lb/MMBtu 0.03 (Note 4)
CO2 lb/MMBtu 10.3 (Note 5)
Emissions Control Notes
1. Wood fuel – 20% to 50% fuel moisture
2. NOx removal using OFA, and SCR
3. SO2 is assumed negligible in wood fuel
4. Controlled using pulse jet fabric filter
5. Per 40 CFR 98, Subpart. C, Table C-1

Capital Cost and Performance Characteristic Estimates for Utility Scale Electric
Power Generating Technologies
60
 SL-018001
U.S. Energy Information Administration and Z Federal
Final – Rev A
Project 14987.001
December 6, 2023

CASE 9. ADVANCED NUCLEAR PLANT

(BROWNFIELD), 2 X AP1000 UNITS, 2156 MW
NET

9.1. CASE DESCRIPTION

The case is based on the AP1000 (“AP” stands for “Advanced Passive”), which is an improvement of
AP600. The AP1000 is a pressurized water reactor nuclear plant designed by Westinghouse. The first
AP1000 unit came online in China’s Sanmen Nuclear Power Station in June 2018. Two new AP1000 units
have been constructed at the Vogtle Electric Generating Station in Burke County Georgia. Vogtle Unit 3
began commercial operation in July of 2023, and Vogtle Unit 4 began the process to load fuel into the
reactor core in August of 2023. These represent the only newly constructed nuclear units in the United
States in more than three decades. We assume the plant for this case is constructed on a brownfield site
as it is likely for current U.S. operators to take advantage of their existing nuclear plant sites as in the case
of Vogtle Units 3 and 4. This assumption considers several efficiencies in zoning, permitting, and regulatory
activities, which would otherwise add to the cost and extend the development schedule if a new greenfield
nuclear facility were being considered.

9.1.1. Mechanical Equipment and Systems

The AP1000 improves on previous nuclear designs by simplifying the design to decrease the number of
components including piping, wiring, and valves. The AP1000 design is also standardized as much as
possible to reduce engineering and procurement costs. The AP1000 component reductions from previous
designs are approximately:

 50% fewer valves

 35% fewer pumps

 80% less pipe

 45% less seismic building volume

 85% less cable

The AP1000 design uses an improved passive nuclear safety system that requires no operator intervention
or external power to remove heat for up to 72 hours.

The AP1000 uses a traditional steam cycle similar to other generating facilities such as coal or combined-
cycle (CC) units. The primary difference is that the AP1000 uses enriched uranium as fuel instead of coal
or gas as the heat source to generate steam. The fission reaction of enriched uranium releases large

Capital Cost and Performance Characteristic Estimates for Utility Scale Electric
Power Generating Technologies
61
 SL-018001
U.S. Energy Information Administration and Z Federal
Final – Rev A
Project 14987.001
December 6, 2023

amounts of energy in the form of heat and radiation inside the pressurized water reactor. The AP1000 uses
a two-loop system in which the heat generated by the fuel is released into the surrounding pressurized
reactor cooling water. The pressurization allows the cooling water to absorb the released heat without
boiling. The reactor cooling water then flows through a steam generator where it rejects heat into the
secondary loop, producing steam that turns a steam turbine for electrical generation.

9.1.2. Electrical and Control Systems

The advanced nuclear facility has one steam turbine 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 steam turbine
electric generator is connected through a generator circuit breaker to a generator step-up transformer
(GSU). The GSU is 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 advanced nuclear facility is controlled using a distributed control system (DCS). The DCS provides
centralized control of the facility by integrating the control systems provided with the reactor, steam turbine,
and associated electric generator and the control of balance-of-plant (BOP) systems and equipment.

9.1.3. Offsite Requirements

Water for the power plant is obtained from a nearby river or lake. The facility uses a water treatment system
to produce the high-quality process water required as well as service water and potable water. The electrical
interconnection from the power plant onsite switchyard is connected to the transmission line through a
nearby substation.

9.2. CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE

Table 9-1 summarizes the cost components for this case. The overnight capital cost estimate was compared
to actual construction costs documented for various reactor types in multiple countries found in Table 8.2
of the IEA 2020 Projected Costs of Generating Electricity Report. The capital cost breakdown for the various
reactor types was not provided in the report, nor were the construction completion dates, but construction
of all reference projects commenced ten or more years ago. Therefore, these values (escalated to 2023 $
USD), their mean and collective standard deviation were used as benchmarks to validate the capital cost
estimate we determined.

Capital Cost and Performance Characteristic Estimates for Utility Scale Electric
Power Generating Technologies
62
 SL-018001
U.S. Energy Information Administration and Z Federal
Final – Rev A
Project 14987.001
December 6, 2023

Table 9-1 — Case 9 Capital Cost Estimate

Case 9
EIA – Capital Cost Estimates – 2023 $ USD
Advanced Nuclear
Configuration (Brownfield)
2 x AP1000
Units
Plant Characteristics
Net Plant Capacity (60°F, 60% RH) MW 2156
Net Plant Heat Rate Btu/kWh 10608
Capital Cost Assumptions
Engineering, Procurement, and Construction (EPC) % of Direct and Indirect
10%
Contracting Fee Costs
EPC Contingency % of EPC Costs 12%
Owner’s Services % of EPC Costs 20%
Owner’s Contingency % of Owner's Costs 12%
Estimated Land Requirement acres 60
Estimated Land Cost $/acre 44,000
Interconnection Costs
Electrical Transmission Line Costs
Transmission Line Cost $/mile 3,040,000
Miles miles 1.00
Substation Expansion $ 0
Gas Interconnection Costs
Pipeline Cost $/mile 0
Miles miles 0.00
Metering Station $ 0
Typical Project Timelines
Development, Permitting, Engineering months 32
Plant Construction Time months 52
Total Lead Time Before Commercial Operation Date
months 84
(COD)
Operating Life years 40
EPC Cost Components (Note 1)
Civil/Structural/Architectural $ 2,098,819,000
Nuclear Island $ 3,086,499,000
Conventional Island $ 1,728,440,000
Balance of Plant $ 1,975,360,000
Indirect Costs $ 2,345,739,000
EPC Fee $ 1,123,486,000
EPC Contingency $ 1,483,001,000
EPC Subtotal $ 13,841,344,000
Owner's Cost Components (Note 2)
Owner's Services $ 2,768,269,000
Land $ 2,640,000
Electrical Interconnection $ 3,040,000
Gas Interconnection $ 0
Owner’s Contingency $ 332,874,000
Owner's Cost Subtotal $ 3,106,823,000

Capital Cost and Performance Characteristic Estimates for Utility Scale Electric
Power Generating Technologies
63
 SL-018001
U.S. Energy Information Administration and Z Federal
Final – Rev A
Project 14987.001
December 6, 2023

Case 9
EIA – Capital Cost Estimates – 2023 $ USD
Advanced Nuclear
Configuration (Brownfield)
2 x AP1000
Units
Total Capital Cost $ 16,948,167,000
$/kW net 7,861
Capital Cost Notes
1. Costs based on EPC contracting approach. Direct costs include equipment, material, and labor to construct the
civil/structural, mechanical, and electrical/I&C components of the facility. Indirect costs include distributable
material and labor costs, cranes, scaffolding, engineering, construction management, start-up and commissioning,
and contractor overhead. EPC fees are applied to the sum of direct and indirect costs.
2. Owner’s costs include project development, studies, permitting, legal, owner’s project management, owner’s
engineering, and owner’s start-up and commissioning costs. Other owner’s costs include electrical interconnection
costs, gas interconnection costs (if applicable), and land acquisition costs.

As a consideration for the interconnection costs, the transmission line for the nuclear facility is expected to
operate at a high voltage to be capable of exporting the large capacity of baseload power.

9.3. OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE COST ESTIMATE

The operating and maintenance (O&M) cost estimates for nuclear power were informed by the Nuclear
Energy Institute’s (NEI) Nuclear Costs in Context (NEI 2022) which summarizes operating and maintenance
data collected by the EUCG from operating nuclear power generation facilities. The NEI report is the most
comprehensive source of cost data that is publicly available for both merchant and regulated nuclear power
plants in the United States. Non-fuel reported costs were separated between fixed and variable components
and escalated to 2023 dollars using Handy Whitman’s Total Nuclear Production Plant index.

Capital Cost and Performance Characteristic Estimates for Utility Scale Electric
Power Generating Technologies
64
 SL-018001
U.S. Energy Information Administration and Z Federal
Final – Rev A
Project 14987.001
December 6, 2023

Table 9-2 -— Case 9 Operational Cost Estimate

Case 9
EIA – Non-Fuel O&M Costs – 2023 $ USD
Advanced Nuclear (Brownfield)
Fixed O&M – Plant (Note 1) Units Value
Subtotal Fixed O&M $/kW-year 156.20 $/kW-year
Variable O&M (Note 2) $/MWh 2.52 $/MWh
O&M Cost Notes
1. Fixed O&M costs include labor, materials and contracted services, and G&A costs. O&M costs exclude property taxes and
insurance.
2. Variable O&M costs include water, water discharge treatment cost, chemicals, and consumables. Fuel is not included.

9.4. ENVIRONMENTAL AND EMISSIONS INFORMATION

Nuclear power plants do not produce regulated environmental air emissions. While other environmental
compliance requirements may apply, only air emissions were considered for this report. Therefore, the
emissions of NOX, SO2, and CO2 are 0.00 lb/MMBtu.

Capital Cost and Performance Characteristic Estimates for Utility Scale Electric
Power Generating Technologies
65
 SL-018001
U.S. Energy Information Administration and Z Federal
Final – Rev A
Project 14987.001
December 6, 2023

CASE 10. SMALL MODULAR REACTOR NUCLEAR

P O W E R P L A N T , 6 X 8 0 MW U N I T S , 4 8 0 M W N E T

10.1. CASE DESCRIPTION

Small modular reactors (SMRs) are a class of advanced nuclear reactors that are typically sized to deliver
300 MW(e) or less per unit. Besides this distinction in size which is about one third the capacity of traditional
nuclear power stations, SMRs are designed with modular building blocks which allow key systems and
components to be factory-assembled and shipped to site for improved quality control and a more
streamlined installation.

This case is based on 6 small reactor modules. Each module has a net capacity of 80 MW for a net plant
capacity of 480 MW. The SMR case is not based on a particular OEM but rather is a representative SMR
plant.

10.1.1. Mechanical Equipment and Systems

The mechanical systems are similar to those of an advanced nuclear power plant. Each reactor module is
comprised of a nuclear core and steam generator within a reactor vessel, which is enclosed within a
containment vessel in a vertical orientation. The nuclear core is located at the base of the module with the
steam generator located in the upper half of the module. Feedwater enters and steam exits through the top
of the vessel towards the steam turbine. The entire containment vessel sits within a water-filled pool that
provides cooling and passive protection in a loss of power event. All 6 reactor modules sit within the same
water-filled pool housed within a common reactor building.

Each SMR module uses a pressurized water reactor design to achieve a high level of safety and reduce
the number of components required. To improve on licensing and construction times, each reactor is
prefabricated at the OEM’s facility and shipped to site for assembly. The compact integral design allows
each reactor to be shipped by rail, truck, or barge.

Each module has a dedicated balance-of-plant (BOP) system for power generation. Steam from the reactor
module is pumped through a steam turbine connected to a generator for electrical generation. Each BOP
system is fully independent, containing a steam turbine and all necessary pumps, tanks, heat exchangers,
electrical equipment, and controls for operation. This allows for independent operation of each reactor
module. The independent operation of each reactor module allows for greater efficiencies at lower operating
loads when dispatched capacity is reduced.

Capital Cost and Performance Characteristic Estimates for Utility Scale Electric
Power Generating Technologies
66
 SL-018001
U.S. Energy Information Administration and Z Federal
Final – Rev A
Project 14987.001
December 6, 2023

Additionally, the modular design of the reactors allows for refueling and maintenance of the individual
reactors without requiring an outage of the entire facility. An extra reactor bay is included in the pool housed
within the reactor building. This extra bay allows for removal of individual reactors for maintenance without
impacting the remaining reactors.

10.1.2. Electrical and Control Systems

Each SMR has its own generator, which is a 60-Hz machine rated at approximately 80 MVA with an output
voltage of 13.8 kV. The steam turbine electric generator is connected through a generator circuit breaker
to a generator step-up transformer (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 13.8 kV to interconnected transmission system high voltage.

The SMR facility is controlled using a distributed control system (DCS). The DCS provides centralized
control of the facility by integrating the control systems provided with the reactor, steam turbine, and
associated electric generator and the control of BOP systems and equipment.

10.1.3. Offsite Requirements

Water for all processes at the SMR nuclear power plant is obtained from a nearby river or lake. The SMR
power plant uses a water treatment system to produce the high-quality process water required as well as
service and potable water. The electrical interconnection from the SMR nuclear power plant onsite
switchyard is connected to the transmission line through a nearby substation.

10.2. CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE

Table 10-1 summarizes the cost components for this case.

Table 10-1 — Case 10 Capital Cost Estimate

Case 10
EIA – Capital Cost Estimates – 2023 $ USD
Small Modular Reactor Nuclear
Configuration Power Plant
6 x 80 MW Small Modular Reactor
Units
Plant Characteristics
Net Plant Capacity (60°F, 60% RH) MW 480
Net Plant Heat Rate Btu/kWh 10046
Capital Cost Assumptions
Engineering, Procurement, and
% of Direct and Indirect
Construction (EPC) Contracting 10%
Costs
Fee

Capital Cost and Performance Characteristic Estimates for Utility Scale Electric
Power Generating Technologies
67
 SL-018001
U.S. Energy Information Administration and Z Federal
Final – Rev A
Project 14987.001
December 6, 2023

Case 10
EIA – Capital Cost Estimates – 2023 $ USD
Small Modular Reactor Nuclear
Configuration Power Plant
6 x 80 MW Small Modular Reactor
Units
EPC Contingency % of EPC Costs 12%
Owner's Services % of EPC Costs 7.5%
Owner’s Contingency % of Owner’s Costs 12%
Estimated Land Requirement acres 35
Estimated Land Cost $/acre 52,000
Interconnection Costs
Electrical Transmission Line Costs
Transmission Line Cost $/mile 3,040,000
Miles miles 1.00
Substation Expansion $ 0
Gas Interconnection Costs
Pipeline Cost $/mile 0
Miles miles 0.00
Metering Station $ 0
Typical Project Timelines
Development, Permitting,
months 24
Engineering
Plant Construction Time months 42
Total Lead Time Before
months 66
Commercial Operation Date (COD)
Operating Life years 40
EPC Cost Components (Note 1)
Civil/Structural/Architectural $ 656,126,000
Nuclear Island $ 729,029,000
Conventional Island $ 473,869,000
Balance of Plant $ 729,029,000
Indirect Costs $ 619,555,000
EPC Fee $ 320,761,000
EPC Contingency $ 423,404,000
EPC Subtotal $ 3,951,773,000
Owner's Cost Components (Note 2)
Owner's Services $ 296,383,000
Land $ 1,820,000
Electrical Interconnection $ 3,040,000
Gas Interconnection $ 0
Owner’s Contingency $ 36,149,000
Owner's Cost Subtotal $ 337,392,000
Total Capital Cost $ 4,289,165,000
$/kW net 8,936
Capital Cost Notes
1. Costs based on EPC contracting approach. Direct costs include equipment, material, and labor to construct the
civil/structural, mechanical, and electrical/I&C components of the facility. Indirect costs include distributable
material and labor costs, cranes, scaffolding, engineering, construction management, start-up and commissioning,
and contractor overhead. EPC fees are applied to the sum of direct and indirect costs.

Capital Cost and Performance Characteristic Estimates for Utility Scale Electric
Power Generating Technologies
68
 SL-018001
U.S. Energy Information Administration and Z Federal
Final – Rev A
Project 14987.001
December 6, 2023

Case 10
EIA – Capital Cost Estimates – 2023 $ USD
Small Modular Reactor Nuclear
Configuration Power Plant
6 x 80 MW Small Modular Reactor
Units
2. Owner’s costs include project development, studies, permitting, legal, owner’s project management, owner’s
engineering, and owner’s start-up and commissioning costs. Other owner’s costs include electrical interconnection
costs, gas interconnection costs (if applicable), and land acquisition costs.

Owner’s costs include owner’s services, land, and utility interconnection costs. Specifically, the
transmission line for the SMR nuclear power plant is expected to operate at a high voltage to be capable of
exporting the full plant output. The SMR costs also take into account cost efficiencies including industry
learning that would be expected to be realized by a nth-of-a-kind facility. The indicated costs do not include
the full burden of design, licensing, and manufacturing facility development required to bring a new SMR
design to market. These costs are expected to make first-of-a-kind capital expenses greater than nth-of-a-
kind capital expenses but may be somewhat offset by financial incentives such as tax credits or cost sharing
arrangements through public-private partnerships.

10.3. OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE COST ESTIMATE

The operating and maintenance (O&M) cost estimates for SMR nuclear power were informed by the Nuclear
Energy Institute’s (NEI) Nuclear Costs in Context (NEI 2022) which summarizes operating and maintenance
data collected by the EUCG from operating nuclear power generation facilities. Adjustments were made to
reflect assumed differentials in fixed and variable O&M attributable to the nuances of SMR plant design and
operation. Cost basis values were escalated to 2023 dollars using Handy Whitman’s Total Nuclear
Production Plant index.

Capital Cost and Performance Characteristic Estimates for Utility Scale Electric
Power Generating Technologies
69
 SL-018001
U.S. Energy Information Administration and Z Federal
Final – Rev A
Project 14987.001
December 6, 2023

Table 10-2 — Case 10 Operational Cost Estimate

Case 10
EIA – Non-Fuel O&M Costs – 2023 $ USD
Small Modular Reactor Nuclear Power Plant
Fixed O&M – Plant (Note 1) Units Value
Subtotal Fixed O&M $/kW-year 121.99 $/kW-year
Variable O&M (Note 2) $/MWh 3.19 $/MWh
O&M Cost Notes
1. Fixed O&M costs include labor, materials and contracted services, and G&A costs. O&M costs exclude property taxes and
insurance.
2. Variable O&M costs include water, water discharge treatment cost, chemicals, and consumables. Fuel is not included.

10.4. ENVIRONMENTAL AND EMISSIONS INFORMATION

Small modular reactor nuclear power plants do not produce regulated environmental air emissions. While
other environmental compliance requirements may apply, only air emissions were considered for this report.
Therefore, the emissions of NOX, SO2, and CO2 are 0.00 lb/MMBtu.

Capital Cost and Performance Characteristic Estimates for Utility Scale Electric
Power Generating Technologies
70
 SL-018001
U.S. Energy Information Administration and Z Federal
Final – Rev A
Project 14987.001
December 6, 2023

CASE 11. GEOTHERMAL PLANT, 50 MW NET

11.1. CASE DESCRIPTION

This case is a 50 MW (net) geothermal power plant accessing a hydrothermal reservoir to generate power
via a binary cycle. Geothermal power can be generated either from hydrothermal reservoirs or an enhanced
geothermal system (EGS). Hydrothermal reservoirs are underground reservoirs of high temperature,
pressurized water. The hot water can be used to generate power through dry steam generators, flash steam
generators, or binary cycles, as used in this case. Dry and flash steam generators convert the pumped
water into steam to directly turn steam turbines. While these plants have lower capital costs per kW of
capacity, they are restricted to very hot (>390°F) aquifers and the dissolved minerals and gases in the water
lead to greater wear on the turbines and therefore higher maintenance costs.

Figure 11-1 — Geothermal Plant Configurations for Hydrothermal Reservoirs

Source: DOE, “GeoVision: Harnessing the Heat Beneath Our Feet”, 2019

Binary cycle geothermal power plants use the hydrothermal reservoir to power an Organic Rankine Cycle
(ORC) generator. ORC power generation uses an organic working fluid that is vaporized in a heat
exchanger to power a conventional steam turbine. The low boiling-point of the working fluid allows power
generation from lower temperature hydrothermal resources, typically 300–375°F. Binary cycle plants
comprise the majority of new geothermal power plants built in the United States in the last five years. They
are typically located near existing geothermal resources to utilize the aquifer’s generation potential more
fully. Additionally, binary cycle plants are often built to repower older power plants whose hydrothermal
reservoirs have cooled down too much to be effective for steam power generation. Both of these scenarios
significantly reduce the costs associated with resource exploration and well drilling, which can account for

Capital Cost and Performance Characteristic Estimates for Utility Scale Electric
Power Generating Technologies
71
 SL-018001
U.S. Energy Information Administration and Z Federal
Final – Rev A
Project 14987.001
December 6, 2023

over 50% of the cost of a new geothermal plant. Likewise, this case presents a brownfield site, in which a
hot aquifer (350°F) has been identified with production and injection wells already drilled. This analysis
isolates the costs of building and maintaining the geothermal plant itself and is a realistic starting point for
a new geothermal plant built in the United States today.

While hydrothermal reservoirs are naturally occurring geologic features, EGS reservoirs are human-made
reservoirs where additional fluid has been injected into underground rock to increase permeability and fluid
flow. They are less geographically restricted than conventional hydrothermal plants. EGS power plants are
the subject of active research and development, but at this time there are no commercial examples in the
United States on which to base a cost estimate.

11.1.1. Mechanical Equipment and Systems

A binary cycle geothermal power plant requires power generation equipment and a gathering system to
convey geothermal fluid between the power plant and the reservoir wells.

The ORC power generation equipment for this case includes two 30 MW turbine generators, heat
exchangers, and the associated fluid pumps. Each turbine generator requires three heat exchangers. Two
of the heat exchangers are used to preheat and vaporize the organic working fluid by contacting it with the
hot geothermal fluid, and the remaining heat exchanger uses an air blower to cool and condense the organic
working fluid after expansion in the turbine. Unlike steam geothermal plants, the geothermal fluid never
contacts air, as it cycles from the production wells through the heat exchangers and back into the reservoirs
at injection wells.

The field gathering equipment includes pumps associated with production and injection wells, which are
assumed to be already drilled to the depth of the hydrothermal reservoir. The number of wells required
depends strongly on the characteristics of the hydrothermal reservoir, and this modeled case assumes 8
production and 8 injection wells. Pipes to transfer the fluid from the wells to the power plant equipment are
also include in the field gathering system.

Operating the pumps and cooling equipment requires electricity that reduces the net output of the power
plant. To obtain 50 MW of net output, the turbine generators require a gross output of about 58 MW.

11.1.2. Electrical and Control Systems

Each generator has its own step-up transformer and circuit breaker. After the circuit breaker, each electrical
connection is combined via a high-voltage bus into a high-voltage circuit breaker before being fed into the
grid.

Capital Cost and Performance Characteristic Estimates for Utility Scale Electric
Power Generating Technologies
72
 SL-018001
U.S. Energy Information Administration and Z Federal
Final – Rev A
Project 14987.001
December 6, 2023

11.1.3. Offsite Requirements

Geothermal plants must be located near drilled wells that tap into reservoirs of hot geothermal fluid. This
case also assumes a one-mile transmission line.

11.2. CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE

Table 11-1 summarizes the cost components for this case.

Table 11-1 — Case 11 Capital Cost Estimate

Case 11
EIA – Capital Cost Estimates – 2023 $ USD
Geothermal
Configuration
50 MW
Binary Cycle
Units
Plant Characteristics
Net Plant Capacity MW 50
Capital Cost Assumptions (Note 1)
Engineering, Procurement, and % of Direct and
10%
Construction (EPC) Contracting Fee Indirect Costs
EPC Contingency % of EPC Costs 4%
Owner's Services % of EPC Costs 12%
% of Owner’s
Owner's Contingency 4%
Costs
Estimated Land Requirements (Support
acres 200
buildings only)
Estimated Land Cost $/acre 30,000
Electric Interconnection Costs
Transmission Line Cost $/mile 2,076,000
Miles miles 1.00
Typical Project Timelines
Development, Permitting, Engineering months 18
Plant Construction Time months 18
Total Lead Time Before Commercial
months 36
Operation Date (COD)
Operating Life years 40
EPC Cost Components
Civil Structural Material and Installation $ 39,670,000
Mechanical – Power generating
$ 56,672,000
Equipment
Mechanical – Field Gathering,
20,654,000
Production / Injection Pumps
Electrical – Balance of Plant (BOP) and
$ 8,213,000
I&C

Capital Cost and Performance Characteristic Estimates for Utility Scale Electric
Power Generating Technologies
73
 SL-018001
U.S. Energy Information Administration and Z Federal
Final – Rev A
Project 14987.001
December 6, 2023

Case 11
EIA – Capital Cost Estimates – 2023 $ USD
Geothermal
Configuration
50 MW
Binary Cycle
Units
Electrical – Substation and Switchyard 6,453,000
Indirect Costs $ 15,799,000
EPC Fee $ 14,746,000
EPC Contingency $ 6,488,000
EPC Subtotal $ 168,695,000
Owner's Cost Components (Note 2)
Owner's Services $ 20,243,000
Land $ 6,000,000
Electrical Interconnection $ 2,076,000
Owner's Contingency $ 1,133,000
Owner's Cost Subtotal $ 29,452,000
Total Capital Cost $ 198,147,000
$/kW net 3,963
Capital Cost Notes
1. Costs based on EPC contracting approach. Direct costs include equipment, material, and labor to construct the
civil/structural, mechanical, and electrical/I&C components of the facility. Indirect costs include distributable
material and labor costs, cranes, scaffolding, engineering, construction management, start-up and commissioning,
and contractor overhead. EPC fees are applied to the sum of direct and indirect costs.
2. Owner’s costs include project development, studies, permitting, legal, owner’s project management, owner’s
engineering, and owner’s start-up and commissioning costs. Other owner’s costs include electrical interconnection
costs and land acquisition costs.

Capital Cost and Performance Characteristic Estimates for Utility Scale Electric
Power Generating Technologies
74
 SL-018001
U.S. Energy Information Administration and Z Federal
Final – Rev A
Project 14987.001
December 6, 2023

11.3. OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE COST ESTIMATE

Table 11-2 — Case 11 Operating and Maintenance (O&M) Cost Estimates

Case 11
EIA – Non-Fuel O&M Costs – 2023 $ USD
Geothermal
Fixed O&M – Plant (Note 1) Units Value
Labor $/year 2,019,000
Plant Maintenance $/year 2,994,000
Field Maintenance $/year 1,258,000
Geothermal Pump Maintenance $/year 1,259,000
Subtotal Fixed O&M $/year 7,530,000
$/kW-year $/kW-year 150.60 $/kW-year
Variable O&M $/MWh 0.00 $/MWh
O&M Cost Notes
1. Fixed O&M costs include labor, materials and contracted services, and general and administrative (G&A) costs.
O&M costs exclude property taxes and insurance.

11.4. ENVIRONMENTAL AND EMISSIONS INFORMATION

Binary geothermal power plants do not burn fuel, and the geothermal fluid extracted from the ground does
not contact the air, so there is no release of dissolved gases from the hydrothermal reservoir. However, a
small amount of the organic working fluid used in the ORC generator, typically isobutane or n-pentane,
leaks through valves and seals during normal operation. For a 50 MW plant, this is expected to be limited
to 125 tons of isobutane or n-pentane per year (0.167 lbs / MMBtu).

Capital Cost and Performance Characteristic Estimates for Utility Scale Electric
Power Generating Technologies
75
 SL-018001
U.S. Energy Information Administration and Z Federal
Final – Rev A
Project 14987.001
December 6, 2023

CASE 12. HYDROELECTRIC PLANT, 100 MW NET

12.1. CASE DESCRIPTION

This case is based on a “New Stream Reach Development” 100 MW hydroelectric power plant with 30 feet
of available head. There are several types of hydroelectric power plants including run-of-river, storage, and
pumped storage. This case is based on a storage type hydropower plant that includes a dam to store water
in a reservoir where water is released through tunnels to a powerhouse to spin a turbine.

Figure 12-1 — Dam of a Hydroelectric Power Plant

Source: Alan Cressler, Marshall County, AL. Digital Image.

Retrieved from Guntersville Dam - Encyclopedia of Alabama (accessed Aug 1, 2023)

Figure 12-2 show a diagram of the major components of a storage-type hydroelectric power plant. The dam
structure holds water in a reservoir. Water passes through an intake in the reservoir through the penstock.
The penstock consists of concrete ‘power tunnels’ that direct water to a turbine that spins a generator that
distributes electric power to the grid.

Capital Cost and Performance Characteristic Estimates for Utility Scale Electric
Power Generating Technologies
76
 SL-018001
U.S. Energy Information Administration and Z Federal
Final – Rev A
Project 14987.001
December 6, 2023

Figure 12-2 — Storage-Type Hydroelectric Power Plant

Source: Tennessee Valley Authority, Licensed by GFDL and CC-BY-2.6, Wikimedia Commons (Accessed Aug 2
2023)

The costs for this case include a concrete dam with a spillway and diversion tunnel to control the water
level in the reservoir. There are four identical penstocks, approximately 4.5 meters in diameter. Each
penstock leads to a Kaplan-type hydro-turbine, which is suitable for modeled stream head. Each of the four
turbine-generators is rated for 25 MW. Power is stepped up from 13.8 kV to 154 kV for distribution.

Capital Cost and Performance Characteristic Estimates for Utility Scale Electric
Power Generating Technologies
77
 SL-018001
U.S. Energy Information Administration and Z Federal
Final – Rev A
Project 14987.001
December 6, 2023

Figure 12-3 — Typical Hydroelectric Power Turbine Hall

Source: Sargent & Lundy project site photo archive.

12.2. CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE

Table 12-1 summarizes the cost components for this case.

Table 12-1 — Case 12 Capital Cost Estimates

Case 12
EIA – Capital Cost Estimates – 2023 $ USD
Configuration Hydroelectric Power Plant
New Stream Reach
Development
Units
Plant Characteristics
Net Plant Capacity MW 100

Capital Cost and Performance Characteristic Estimates for Utility Scale Electric
Power Generating Technologies
78
 SL-018001
U.S. Energy Information Administration and Z Federal
Final – Rev A
Project 14987.001
December 6, 2023

Case 12
EIA – Capital Cost Estimates – 2023 $ USD
Configuration Hydroelectric Power Plant
New Stream Reach
Development
Units
Head ft 30
Capital Cost Assumptions (Note 1)
Engineering, Procurement, and % of Direct and
10%
Construction (EPC) Contracting Fee Indirect Costs
EPC Contingency % of EPC Costs 5%
Owner’s Services % of EPC Costs 7%
% of Owner’s
Owner’s Contingency 5%
Costs
Estimated Land Requirements (Support
acres 2
buildings only)
Estimated Land Cost $/acre 128,000
Electric Interconnection Costs
Transmission Line Cost $/mile 2,412,000
Miles miles 1.00
Substation Expansion $ 0
Typical Project Timelines
Development, Permitting, Engineering months 36
Plant Construction Time months 36
Total Lead Time Before COD months 72
Operating Life years 50
EPC Cost Components
Civil Structural Material and Installation $ 371,101,000
Mechanical Equipment Supply and
$ 93,933,000
Installation
Electrical / I&C Supply and Installation $ 42,248,000
Indirect Costs $ 60,874,000
EPC Fee $ 56,816,000
EPC Contingency $ 31,249,000
EPC Subtotal $ 656,221,000
Owner's Cost Components (Note 2)
Owner's Services $ 45,935,000
Land $ 256,000
Electrical Interconnection $ 2,412,000
Owner's Contingency $ 2,430,000
Owner's Cost Subtotal $ 51,033,000
Total Capital Cost $ 707,254,000

Capital Cost and Performance Characteristic Estimates for Utility Scale Electric
Power Generating Technologies
79
 SL-018001
U.S. Energy Information Administration and Z Federal
Final – Rev A
Project 14987.001
December 6, 2023

Case 12
EIA – Capital Cost Estimates – 2023 $ USD
Configuration Hydroelectric Power Plant
New Stream Reach
Development
Units
$/kW net 7,073
Capital Cost Notes
1. Costs based on EPC contracting approach. Direct costs include equipment, material, and labor to construct the
civil/structural, mechanical, and electrical/I&C components of the facility. Indirect costs include distributable
material and labor costs, cranes, scaffolding, engineering, construction management, startup and commissioning,
and contractor overhead. EPC fees are applied to the sum of direct and indirect costs.
2. Owner’s costs include project development, studies, permitting, legal, owner's project management, owner's
engineering, and owner's start-up and commissioning costs. Other owner’s costs include electrical interconnection
costs and land acquisition costs.

12.3. OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE COST ESTIMATE

Table 12-2 summarizes the operating and maintenance cost components for this case.

Table 12-2 — Case 12 Operating and Maintenance (O&M) Cost Estimates

Case 12
EIA – Non-Fuel O&M Costs – 2023 $ USD
Hydroelectric Power Plant
Fixed O&M – Plant (Note 1) Units Value
Subtotal Fixed O&M $/year 3,354,000
$/kW-year $/kW-year 33.54 $/kW-year
Variable O&M $/MWh 0.00 $/MWh
O&M Cost Notes
1. Fixed O&M costs include labor, materials, and contracted services, and general and administrative (G&A) costs.
O&M costs exclude property taxes and insurance.

12.4. ENVIRONMENTAL AND EMISSIONS INFORMATION

Hydroelectric power does not produce regulated environmental air emissions. While other environmental
compliance requirements apply, only air emissions were considered for this report. Therefore, the emissions
of NOX, SO2, and CO2 are 0.00 lb/MMBtu. Academic research on the impact of dams on the carbon cycle
of their local waterways is ongoing.

Capital Cost and Performance Characteristic Estimates for Utility Scale Electric
Power Generating Technologies
80
 SL-018001
U.S. Energy Information Administration and Z Federal
Final – Rev A
Project 14987.001
December 6, 2023

CASE 13. ONSHORE WIND, LARGE PLANT

F O O T P R I N T ,2 0 0 M W N E T

13.1. CASE DESCRIPTION

This case is an onshore wind project in the Great Plains region that is based on a total project capacity of
200 MW. The region has an abundance of land that is suitable for onshore wind turbine siting and is not
subject to land constraints that would constraint project size. Parameters that affect project costs and
performance include turbine nameplate capacity, rotor diameter, and hub height. The case configuration
assumes wind turbines rated at 2.8 MW and 125-meter rotor diameters and 90-meter hub height. These
features reflect modern wind turbines which employ larger rotor diameter and greater hub heights. The
main advantage to taller hub heights and increased rotor diameters include access to better wind profiles
at higher altitudes and increased turbine swept area, allowing the turbine unit to capture more energy.

13.1.1. Mechanical Equipment and Systems

Wind turbine generators (WTGs) convert kinetic wind energy into electrical power. The most ubiquitous
type of wind turbine utilized for electric power generation are those of the horizontal-axis three-bladed
design. Lift is generated when wind flows around the turbine blades, resulting in rotation. The blades are
connected to a central hub and drivetrain which turns a generator located inside of the nacelle, the housing
positioned atop the wind turbine tower.

13.1.2 Electrical and Control Systems

Each WTG consists of a doubly fed induction generator. The low-voltage output from the generator is
stepped up to medium voltage through a transformer located either in the nacelle or at the tower base. A
medium-voltage collection system conveys the generated energy to an onsite substation, which further
steps up the voltage for interconnection with the transmission system with a voltage of 230 kV.

A supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) system is provided for communications and control of
the wind turbines and substation. The SCADA system allows the operations staff to remotely control and
monitor each wind turbine and the wind farm as a whole.

13.1.3 Offsite Requirements

Wind farms harness power from wind and thus, require no fuel or fuel infrastructure. The offsite
requirements are limited to construction of site and access roads to each wind turbine, operating and
maintenance (O&M) building and electrical interconnection to the transmission system.

Capital Cost and Performance Characteristic Estimates for Utility Scale Electric
Power Generating Technologies
81
 SL-018001
U.S. Energy Information Administration and Z Federal
Final – Rev A
Project 14987.001
December 6, 2023

13.2. CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE

Table 13-1 summarizes the cost components for this case. The capital cost estimate is based on an
engineering, procurement, and construction (EPC) contracting approach.

In addition to EPC contract costs, the capital cost estimate in Table 13-1 covers owner’s costs. Owner’s
costs include owner’s services which include project development, studies, permitting, legal, owner’s project
management, owner’s engineering, owner’s start-up and commissioning costs, project feasibility analyses,
wind resource assessments, geotechnical studies, contracting for land access, transmission access,
permitting, and electrical interconnection costs. The estimate is presented as an overnight cost in 2023
dollars and thus excludes allowance for funds used during construction or interest during construction.
Leasing costs are provided in the O&M.

Table 13-1 — Case 13 Capital Cost Estimate

Case 13
EIA – Capital Cost Estimates – 2023 $ USD
Onshore Wind – Large Plant
Configuration
Footprint: Great Plains Region
200 MW | 2.8 MW WTG
Hub Height (m) 90
Rotor Diameter (m) 125
Units
Plant Characteristics
Net Plant Capacity MW 200
Capital Cost Assumptions
% of Direct and
EPC Contracting Fee 8%
Indirect Costs
EPC Contingency % of EPC Costs 5%
Owner's Services % of EPC 7%
Owner's Contingency % of Owners Costs 5%
Electric Interconnection Costs
Transmission Line Cost $/mile 2,412,000
Miles miles 1.00
Typical Project Timelines
Development, Permitting, Engineering months 12
Plant Construction Time months 9
Total Lead Time Before Commercial
months 21
Operation Date (COD)
Operating Life years 25
EPC Cost Components (Note 1)
WTG Procurement and Supply $ 160,168,000

Capital Cost and Performance Characteristic Estimates for Utility Scale Electric
Power Generating Technologies
82
 SL-018001
U.S. Energy Information Administration and Z Federal
Final – Rev A
Project 14987.001
December 6, 2023

Case 13
EIA – Capital Cost Estimates – 2023 $ USD
Onshore Wind – Large Plant
Configuration
Footprint: Great Plains Region
200 MW | 2.8 MW WTG
Hub Height (m) 90
Rotor Diameter (m) 125
Units
WTG Civil Work $ 62,130,000
Electrical - Collection System $ 12,100,000
Indirect Costs $ 8,112,000
EPC Fee $ 19,401,000
EPC Contingency $ 13,096,000
EPC Subtotal $ 275,007,000
Owner's Cost Components (Note 2)
Owner's Services $ 19,250,000
Electrical Interconnection $ 2,412,000
Owner's Contingency $ 1,083,000
Owner's Cost Subtotal $ 22,745,000
Total Capital Cost $ 297,752,000
$/kW net 1,489
Capital Cost Notes
1. Costs based on EPC contracting approach. Direct costs include equipment, material, and labor
to construct the civil/structural, mechanical, and electrical/I&C components of the facility.
Indirect costs include distributable material and labor costs, cranes, scaffolding, engineering,
construction management, startup and commissioning, and contractor overhead. EPC fees are
applied to the sum of direct and indirect costs.
2. Owner’s costs include project development, studies, permitting, legal, owner’s project
management, owner’s engineering, and owner’s startup and commissioning costs. Other
owner’s costs include electrical interconnection costs.

13.3. OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE COST ESTIMATE

O&M cost estimates reflect a full-service agreement arrangement, under which an O&M contractor provides
labor, management, and parts replacement (including unscheduled parts replacement) for the WTGs,
collection system, and substation. Our cost estimates exclude site specific owner's costs such royalties,
property taxes and insurance. Table 13-2 summarizes the average annual O&M expenses projected for an
assumed 25-year project life.

Capital Cost and Performance Characteristic Estimates for Utility Scale Electric
Power Generating Technologies
83
 SL-018001
U.S. Energy Information Administration and Z Federal
Final – Rev A
Project 14987.001
December 6, 2023

Table 13-2 — Case 13 O&M Cost Estimate

Case 13
EIA – Non-Fuel O&M Costs – 2023 $ USD
Onshore Wind – Large Plant Footprint: Great Plains Region
Fixed O&M – Plant (Note 1) Units Value
WTG Scheduled Maintenance $/year 2,240,000
WTG Unscheduled Maintenance $/year 2,800,000
Leasing Costs $/year 996,000
Balance of Plant Maintenance $/year 575,200
Subtotal Fixed O&M $/year 6,611,200
$/kW-year $/kW-year 33.06 $/kW-year
Variable O&M (Note 2) $/MWh 0.00 $/MWh
O&M Cost Notes
1. Fixed O&M costs include labor, materials and contracted services, and general and administrative (G&A) costs.
2. O&M costs estimates reflect the Full Service Agreement, unscheduled maintenance, land lease, and BOP
maintenance, and exclude certain site-specific owner's costs such as royalties, property taxes, and insurance.
3. Average Full Service Agreement term considered: 25 years

13.4. ENVIRONMENTAL AND EMISSIONS INFORMATION

Wind power projects do not produce regulated environmental air emissions. While other environmental
compliance requirements may apply, only air emissions were considered for this report. Therefore, the
emissions of NOX, SO2, and CO2 are 0.00 lb/MMBtu.

Capital Cost and Performance Characteristic Estimates for Utility Scale Electric
Power Generating Technologies
84
 SL-018001
U.S. Energy Information Administration and Z Federal
Final – Rev A
Project 14987.001
December 6, 2023

CASE 14. ONSHORE WIND,

REPOWERING/RETROFIT, 150 MW NET

14.1. CASE DESCRIPTION

The onshore wind repower case is based on a total project capacity of 150 MW. The region is reflective of
the Midwest/Great Plains area in the center of the United States, which has an abundance of wind turbines
suitable for potential repower scenarios. Parameters that affect project cost and performance include
turbine nameplate capacity, rotor diameter and hub height. The case configuration assumes a partial
repower of wind turbines rated at 1.5 MW to wind turbines rated at 1.6 MW with 125-m rotor diameter and
90-m hub height. This will consist of the repowering of 94 wind turbine generators (WTGs) for a 150 MW
capacity. These features reflect modern wind turbine repowers which employ larger rotor diameter. The
primary advantage of larger rotor diameters is the increased turbine swept area, enabling the unit to capture
more energy. Wind project repowering can be categorized as either a partial repowering or a full repowering.
This case is assumed to be a partial repowering, which entails the replacement of certain high use WTG
components with upgraded equipment while other components of the initial WTG are reused. The partial
repower includes the replacement of blades, hub, nacelle components, main shaft, main bearing assembly,
gearbox, and flex coupling.

Figure 14-1 — Wind Repower Component Layout

Source: Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy, Wind Energy Technologies Office – U.S. Department of
Retrieved from [Link], [Link] (accessed May 31, 2019).

Capital Cost and Performance Characteristic Estimates for Utility Scale Electric
Power Generating Technologies
85
 SL-018001
U.S. Energy Information Administration and Z Federal
Final – Rev A
Project 14987.001
December 6, 2023

14.1.1. Mechanical Equipment and Systems

WTGs convert kinetic wind energy into electrical power. The most ubiquitous type of wind turbine utilized
for electric power generation are those of the horizontal-axis three-bladed design. Lift is generated when
wind flows around the turbine blades, resulting in rotation. The blades are connected to a central hub and
drivetrain which turns a generator located inside of the nacelle, the housing positioned atop the wind turbine
tower.

14.1.2. Electrical and Control Systems

Each WTG consists of a doubly fed induction generator. The low-voltage output from the generator is
stepped up to medium voltage through a transformer located either in the nacelle or at the tower base. A
medium-voltage collection system conveys the generated energy to an onsite substation, which further
steps up the voltage for interconnection with the transmission system with a voltage of 230 kV.

A supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) system is provided for communications and control of
the wind turbines and substation. The SCADA system allows the operations staff to remotely control and
monitor each wind turbine and the wind farm as a whole.

14.1.3. Offsite Requirements

Wind farms harness power from wind and thus, require no fuel or fuel infrastructure. The offsite
requirements are limited to construction of site and access roads to each wind turbine, operating and
maintenance (O&M) building and electrical interconnection to the transmission system.

14.2. CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE

Table 14-1 summarizes the cost components for this case. The capital cost estimate is based on an
engineering, procurement, and construction (EPC) contracting approach.

In addition to EPC contract costs, the capital cost estimate in Table 14-1 covers owner’s costs. Owner’s
costs include owner’s services which include project development, studies, permitting, legal, owner’s project
management, owner’s engineering, owner’s start-up and commissioning costs, project feasibility analyses,
wind resource assessments, geotechnical studies, contracting for land access, transmission access,
permitting, and electrical interconnection costs. The estimate is presented as an overnight cost in 2023
dollars and thus excludes allowance for funds used during construction or interest during construction.
Leasing Costs are provided in the O&M.

Capital Cost and Performance Characteristic Estimates for Utility Scale Electric
Power Generating Technologies
86
 SL-018001
U.S. Energy Information Administration and Z Federal
Final – Rev A
Project 14987.001
December 6, 2023

Table 14-1 — Case 14 Capital Cost Estimate

Case 14
EIA – Capital Cost Estimates – 2023 $ USD
Onshore Wind – Repower
Configuration
150 MW | 1.5-1.62 MW WTG
Hub Height (m) 90
Rotor Diameter (m) 125
Units
Plant Characteristics
Net Plant Capacity MW 150
Capital Cost Assumptions
% of Direct and
EPC Contracting Fee 8%
Indirect Costs
EPC Contingency % of EPC Costs 5%
Owner's Services % of EPC Costs 10%
Owner's Contingency % of Owner's Costs 5%
Electric Interconnection Costs
Transmission Line Cost $/mile 0
Miles miles 0
Typical Project Timelines
Development, Permitting, Engineering months 12
Plant Construction Time months 6
Total Lead Time Before Commercial
months 18
Operation Date (COD)
Operating Life years 20
EPC Cost Components (Notes 1)
WTG Components -Turbine Kit and Blade
$ 136,323,000
Kit
Component Removal $ 4,928,000
Installation/Repowering $ 12,017,000
Mobilization/Demobilization $ 4,739,000
Indirect Costs $ 7,900,000
EPC Fee $ 13,273,000
EPC Contingency $ 8,959,000
EPC Subtotal $ 188,139,000
Owner's Cost Components (Notes 2)
Owner's Services $ 18,814,000
Owner's Contingency $ 941,000
Owner's Costs Subtotal $ 19,755,000
Total Capital Cost $ 207,894,000
$/kW net 1,386
Capital Cost Notes
1. Costs based on EPC contracting approach. This is an estimate of a repower replacing the blades, hub,
nacelle, main shaft, main bearing assembly, gearbox, and flex coupling. WTG component costs consist of
1.62 MW components to replace 1.5 MW WTGs. Indirect costs include distributable material and labor

Capital Cost and Performance Characteristic Estimates for Utility Scale Electric
Power Generating Technologies
87
 SL-018001
U.S. Energy Information Administration and Z Federal
Final – Rev A
Project 14987.001
December 6, 2023

Case 14
EIA – Capital Cost Estimates – 2023 $ USD
Onshore Wind – Repower
Configuration
150 MW | 1.5-1.62 MW WTG
Hub Height (m) 90
Rotor Diameter (m) 125
Units
costs, cranes, scaffolding, engineering, construction management, startup and commissioning, and
contractor overhead. Component removal costs include dismantling of WTG, loading to vehicles,
grounding checks, and (gearbox) oil disposal. Installation/Repowering costs include road work, civil work,
and WTG installation.
2. Owner’s costs include project development, studies, permitting, legal, owner’s project management,
owner’s engineering, and owner’s startup and commissioning costs. Owner's contingency is applied to
owner's services costs only. Interconnection costs are not included as existing interconnection equipment
is assumed to be reused for the repowered facility.

14.3. OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE COST ESTIMATE

O&M cost estimates reflect a full-service agreement arrangement, under which an O&M contractor provides
labor, management, and parts replacement (including unscheduled parts replacement) for the WTGs,
collection system, and substation. Our cost estimates exclude site specific owner's costs such as property
taxes and insurance. Table 14-2 summarizes the average annual O&M expenses projected for an assumed
additional 20-year project life.

Table 14-2 — Case 14 O&M Cost Estimate

Case 14
EIA – Non-Fuel O&M Costs – 2023 $ USD
Onshore Wind – Large Plant Footprint: Great Plains Region
Fixed O&M – Plant (Note 1) Units Value
WTG Scheduled Maintenance $/year 1,808,000
WTG Unscheduled Maintenance $/year 2,260,000
Balance of Plant Maintenance $/year 452,000
Leasing Costs $/year 1,262,000
Subtotal Fixed O&M $/year 5,782,000
$/kW-year $/kW-year 38.55 $/kW-year
Variable O&M (Note 2) $/MWh 0.00 $/MWh
O&M Cost Notes
1. Fixed O&M costs include labor, materials and contracted services, and general and administrative (G&A) costs.
2. O&M costs estimates reflect the Full Service Agreement and exclude site-specific owner's costs, such as
royalties, property taxes, and insurance.
3. Average FSA term considered: 20 years

Capital Cost and Performance Characteristic Estimates for Utility Scale Electric
Power Generating Technologies
88
 SL-018001
U.S. Energy Information Administration and Z Federal
Final – Rev A
Project 14987.001
December 6, 2023

14.4. ENVIRONMENTAL AND EMISSIONS INFORMATION

Wind power projects do not produce regulated environmental air emissions. While other environmental
compliance requirements may apply, only air emissions were considered for this report. Therefore, the
emissions of NOX, SO2, and CO2 are 0.00 lb/MMBtu.

Capital Cost and Performance Characteristic Estimates for Utility Scale Electric
Power Generating Technologies
89
 SL-018001
U.S. Energy Information Administration and Z Federal
Final – Rev A
Project 14987.001
December 6, 2023

CASE 15. OFFSHORE WIND: FIXED-BOTTOM

MONOPILE FOUNDATIONS, 900 MW NET

15.1. CASE DESCRIPTION

The offshore wind project is based on a total project capacity of 900 MW. Parameters that affect project
cost and performance include project size, turbine nameplate capacity, water depth and distance to shore.
The case configuration assumes wind turbines rated at 15 MW each, located 30 miles offshore in waters
with a depth of 100 feet. An onshore cable run of 5 miles is also assumed.

For the purposes of this study, it has been assumed that wind turbines installed employ fixed-type
foundation structures. Generally, these are installed in relatively shallow waters, not exceeding 150 feet,
consistent with our assumption. Water depth and distance to shore has a significant impact on the cost of
fixed foundation structure due to the expenses being related to cable lengths and installation costs.

15.1.1. Mechanical Equipment and Systems

Wind turbine generators (WTGs) convert kinetic wind energy into electrical power. The most ubiquitous
type of wind turbine utilized for electric power generation are those of the horizontal-axis three-bladed
design. Lift is generated when wind flows around the turbine blades, resulting in rotation. The blades are
connected to a central hub and drivetrain which turns a generator located inside of the nacelle, the housing
positioned atop the wind turbine tower.

15.1.2 Electrical and Control Systems

Each wind turbine consists of a doubly fed induction generator with high-speed electrical slip rings, which
produces electricity from the rotational energy of wind. The converter converts DC to AC. The power
collection system collects energy from all the wind turbines and increases the voltage to 66 kV through a
dedicated transformer at the WTG. The electricity is transmitted via array cables, buried in the sea floor to
the offshore substation, where the voltage is increased to 138kV. It is then transmitted to an onshore
substation via export cables. The power from this substation is supplied for interconnection with the
transmission system.

A supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) system is provided for communications and control of
the wind turbines and substation. The SCADA system allows the operations staff to remotely control and
monitor each wind turbine and the wind farm as a whole.

Capital Cost and Performance Characteristic Estimates for Utility Scale Electric
Power Generating Technologies
90
 SL-018001
U.S. Energy Information Administration and Z Federal
Final – Rev A
Project 14987.001
December 6, 2023

15.1.3 Offsite Requirements

Since wind is a clean source of energy, the offsite requirements are very limited. These include construction
of offshore-to-shore submarine cables, port infrastructures, installation vessels (construction and cable
laying) and electrical interconnection to the transmission system.

15.2. CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE

Table 15-1 summarizes the cost components for this case. The capital cost estimate is based on an
engineering, procurement, and construction (EPC) contracting approach.

In addition to EPC contract costs, the capital cost estimate in Table 15-1 covers owner’s costs. Owner’s
costs include owner’s services which include project development, studies, permitting, legal, owner’s project
management, owner’s engineering, owner’s start-up and commissioning costs, project feasibility analyses,
wind resource assessments, geotechnical studies, contracting for land access, transmission access,
permitting, and electrical interconnection costs. The estimate is presented as an overnight cost in 2023
dollars and thus excludes allowance for funds used during construction or interest during construction.
Leasing Costs are provided in the operating and maintenance (O&M).

Table 15-1 — Case 15 Capital Cost Estimate

Case 15
EIA – Capital Cost Estimates – 2023 $ USD
Offshore Wind: Fixed-Bottom
Configuration Monopile Foundations
900 MW | 15 MW WTG
Offshore Cable Length (mi) 30
Onshore Cable Length (mi) 5
Water Depth (ft) 100
Plant Characteristics
Net Plant Capacity MW 900
Capital Cost Assumptions
% of Direct and Indirect
EPC Contracting Fee
Costs 10%
EPC Contingency % of EPC Costs 6%
Owner's Services % of EPC Costs 10%
Owner's Contingency % of Owner's Costs 7%
Typical Project Timelines
Development, Permitting, Engineering months 24
Plant Construction Time months 12
Total Lead Time Before Commercial
Operation Date (COD) months 36
Operating Life years 25
EPC Cost Components (Note 1-2)

Capital Cost and Performance Characteristic Estimates for Utility Scale Electric
Power Generating Technologies
91
 SL-018001
U.S. Energy Information Administration and Z Federal
Final – Rev A
Project 14987.001
December 6, 2023

Case 15
EIA – Capital Cost Estimates – 2023 $ USD
Offshore Wind: Fixed-Bottom
Configuration Monopile Foundations
900 MW | 15 MW WTG
Offshore Cable Length (mi) 30
Onshore Cable Length (mi) 5
Water Depth (ft) 100
WTG Procurement and Supply $ 1,172,322,000
WTG Fabrication/Assembly/Installation $ 688,635,000
Electrical Interconnection $ 385,623,000
Onshore Transmission $ 49,832,000
Offshore Transmission and Electrical
Balance of Plant (BOP) $ 152,010,000
Indirect Costs $ 123,678,000
EPC Fee $ 257,210,000
EPC Contingency $ 169,759,000
EPC Subtotal $ 2,999,069,000
Owner's Cost Components (Note 3) $
Owner's Services $ 299,907,000
Owner's Contingency $ 20,993,000
Owner's Costs Subtotal $ 320,900,000
Total Capital Cost $ 3,319,969,000
$/kW net 3,689
Capital Cost Notes
1. Costs based on EPC contracting approach. WTG assembly and installation costs include port staging, WTG and
offshore substation foundations, and installation costs of WTGs. Indirect costs include distributable material and
labor costs, cranes, scaffolding, engineering, construction management, startup and commissioning, and contractor
overhead. EPC fees are applied to the sum of direct and indirect costs.
2. Interconnection costs include interconnection surveys, application fees, and construction materials/contracting
costs with the necessary equipment. Onshore/Offshore transmission costs include onshore/offshore substation
costs and transmission line costs.
3. Owner’s costs include project development, studies, permitting, legal, owner’s project management, owner’s
engineering, and owner’s startup and commissioning costs. Other owner’s costs include electrical interconnection
costs.

15.3. OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE COST ESTIMATE

Operating expenditures cover all maintenance expenses during operations, including leasing,
management, labor, equipment and vessel rentals, parts, and consumables for both scheduled and
unscheduled maintenance of the WTGs and balance of plant systems, as well as operations monitoring.
Table 15-2 summarizes the average annual O&M expenses projected for an assumed 25-year project life.

Capital Cost and Performance Characteristic Estimates for Utility Scale Electric
Power Generating Technologies
92
 SL-018001
U.S. Energy Information Administration and Z Federal
Final – Rev A
Project 14987.001
December 6, 2023

Table 15-2 — Case 15 O&M Cost Estimate

Case 15
EIA – Non-Fuel O&M Costs – 2023 $ USD
Fixed-bottom Offshore Wind: Monopile Foundations
Fixed O&M – Plant (Notes 1-2) Units Value
Maintenance Costs $/year 109,800,000
Leasing Costs $/year 28,800,000
Subtotal Fixed O&M $/year 138,600,000
$/kW-year $/kW-year 154.00 $/kW-year
Variable O&M $/MWh 0.00 $/MWh
O&M Notes
1. Leasing numbers are based on projects on the east coast (New York, North Carolina, and South Carolina).
Leasing will fluctuate based on location.
2. Fixed O&M costs include labor, materials, and contracted services.

15.4. ENVIRONMENTAL AND EMISSIONS INFORMATION

Wind power projects do not produce regulated environmental air emissions. While other environmental
compliance requirements may apply, only air emissions were considered for this report. Therefore, the
emissions of NOX, SO2, and CO2 are 0.00 lb/MMBtu.

Capital Cost and Performance Characteristic Estimates for Utility Scale Electric
Power Generating Technologies
93
 SL-018001
U.S. Energy Information Administration and Z Federal
Final – Rev A
Project 14987.001
December 6, 2023

CASE 16. SOLAR PHOTOVOLTAIC WITH SINGLE

AXIS TRACKING, 150 MWAC

16.1. CASE DESCRIPTION

This case is a nominal 150 MWAC solar photovoltaic (PV) facility with single-axis tracking. While continued
advances in technical efficiency have resulted in lower module prices over the past decade, solar PV costs
have increased somewhat relative to 2019 pricing. This case uses 195 MWDC of monocrystalline passive
emitter and rear contact (PERC) bifacial modules connected in 1500-V strings with independent single-axis
tracker rows that are placed in a north-south orientation with east-west tracking. The case also uses 150
MWAC of central power conversion stations (inverters with integrated medium-voltage transformers),
resulting in a DC/AC ratio of 1.3 at the inverter. Solar PV projects are relatively simple since there is no fuel
or waste and limited moving parts; however, single-axis tracking systems require considerable land
commitments due to a low ground coverage ratio intended to limit self-shading as well as create room for
both tracking rotation and easy access for maintenance purposes. Many tracking companies offer advanced
backtracking software that help to optimize yield and ground coverage ratio, though this was not considered
in this estimate.

Figure 16-1 — Solar PV Project

Bifacial PV panels (left) and tracking systems (right).

Source: Sargent & Lundy project site photo archive.

Capital Cost and Performance Characteristic Estimates for Utility Scale Electric
Power Generating Technologies
94
 SL-018001
U.S. Energy Information Administration and Z Federal
Final – Rev A
Project 14987.001
December 6, 2023

16.1.1. Mechanical Equipment and Systems

Solar PV systems convert sunlight into electrical power. Solar PV modules convert incident solar radiation
into a potential difference within individual solar cells that produces DC electricity. The solar PV facility
assumed for this study is comprised of 390,000 individual 500-watt, 1500-V monocrystalline solar modules
with PERC architecture for increased efficiency. These modules are connected in series to each other in
strings. The exact number of modules in each string varies across the United States depending on site
specific conditions and module characteristics but typically range from 26 up to 32 modules per string. The
strings connect to each other in parallel to form large solar arrays, which make up the bulk of the facility.
Arrays are often grouped together into distinct blocks throughout the plant with each block having a single
designated inverter pad. Mechanical components of these arrays include the racking and solar tracking
equipment. This estimate assumes the racking uses a driven pile foundation; however, depending on the
site’s geotechnical characteristics, ground screws and concrete foundations can also be used.

The tracking system’s exact mechanics depend on the manufacturer. This system, and nearly all single-
axis tracking systems currently being manufactured, use a north-south oriented tracking axis that is
horizontally parallel with respect to the ground. This orientation allows the panels to track the sun as it
crosses the sky from east to west. One variation in tracking mechanics that can impact the overall cost is
linked versus unlinked row tracking. Linked row tracking connects multiple rows to a single tracker
mechanism, thereby requiring them all to rotate at the same angle throughout the day but significantly
reducing the number of tracker motors that need to be procured for the system. Unlinked row tracking allows
individual rows to track the sun at different angles but require a solar tracker mechanism on each row. This
case assumes an unlinked single-axis tracker technology.

Capital Cost and Performance Characteristic Estimates for Utility Scale Electric
Power Generating Technologies
95
 SL-018001
U.S. Energy Information Administration and Z Federal
Final – Rev A
Project 14987.001
December 6, 2023

Figure 16-2 — Single-Axis Tracking

16.1.2. Electrical and Control Systems

Each block within a PV is typically made up of identical components and functionality. Electrical components
include:

 DC and AC wiring

 Combiner boxes

 Inverters

 Step-up transformers

 Control system

 Switchyard with electrical interconnection to the grid

As previously explained, modules are combined in series to form series strings. These strings are combined
in parallel to form solar arrays. Arrays are then connected via combiner boxes to combine the current from
each string of each array before feeding the DC power into an inverter. The number of arrays combined
into each combiner box is dependent on the site layout, the current of each string, and the size of the
combiner box. This estimate assumes one combiner box for every thirty strings. After DC cables from the
combiner boxes are fed into the inverter, the inverter then converts the DC electricity from the combiner
boxes into AC electricity. Inverters are generally grouped into two different categories defined by their
capacity with smaller inverters that are spread around the array being referred to as string inverters and

Capital Cost and Performance Characteristic Estimates for Utility Scale Electric
Power Generating Technologies
96
 SL-018001
U.S. Energy Information Administration and Z Federal
Final – Rev A
Project 14987.001
December 6, 2023

larger inverters skidded at select central locations in the facility are referred to as central inverters. Central
inverters currently used in new projects are typically rated between 1,500 kW and 4000 kW. This system
uses one 2500-kW central inverter with one integrated 2.5 MVA medium-voltage transformer within each
PV block. Inverters that are skidded with a medium-voltage transformer (either via internal or external
integration) are referred to as power conversion stations and are typically sold as a cohesive unit from the
inverter manufacturer.

A solar facility’s nominal capacity is typically defined by either the net AC capacity of the inverters across
all blocks or the maximum allowable injection capacity into the electric grid as defined by the project’s
interconnection agreement. In general, there will always be more installed DC capacity from the modules
than AC capacity from the inverters. The ratio of DC to AC capacity (DC/AC ratio) is typically between 1.2
and 1.4; however, some projects increase the DC/AC ratio with the intention of harnessing the DC power
that is clipped by the inverter’s maximum capacity into battery storage energy. On the other side of the
spectrum, some projects will decrease the DC/AC ratio to allow for additional reactive compensation. This
estimate assumes a DC/AC ratio of 1.3.

16.1.3. Offsite Requirements

Solar PV facilities require no fuel and produce no waste. The offsite requirements are limited to an
interconnection between the PV facility and the transmission system. In the event the facility plans to have
the modules cleaned, offsite requirements will also include water for the purpose of cleaning the solar
modules. Water is not always a requirement because the necessity of cleaning is regionally dependent. In
regions with significant rainfall and limited dust accumulation, cleaning is often unnecessary because it
occurs naturally. In dust heavy and dry regions (which often have higher solar irradiance), cleaning occurs
proportionally to the dust accumulation from once or twice a year up to bi-monthly and typically uses offsite
water that is brought in on trucks. This analysis assumes one cleaning per year.

16.2. CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE

Table 16-1 summarizes the cost components for this case. Solar prices have been increasing due to rising
commodity pricing, delivery and manufacturing costs, and labor costs. As the solar PV industry has been
subject to volatile pricing, labor challenges, and being restricted to difficult land, the engineering,
procurement, and construction (EPC) contractors and developers have also been bearing more
contingency and overhead, further increasing a solar project’s overall cost.

Despite these cost increases, advancements in solar PV technology and construction continue to provide
downward pressure on the $/kW cost. As solar modeling and engineering software advances, projects are
able to optimize layouts and ground coverage for the lowest levelized cost of energy; however, in recent

Capital Cost and Performance Characteristic Estimates for Utility Scale Electric
Power Generating Technologies
97
 SL-018001
U.S. Energy Information Administration and Z Federal
Final – Rev A
Project 14987.001
December 6, 2023

years, this only serves to limit the cost increases rather than to cause a material decrease in total project
costs. Solar modules that are arriving on the market are rated to have a net string potential of 1500 V rather
than the previous 1000 V string that was common in the early and mid-2010s. This increased net potential
allows for lower wiring losses, which increases the net energy yield and lowers wiring material costs in the
electrical balance-of-plant.

Table 16-1 — Case 16 Capital Cost Estimate

Case 16
EIA – Capital Cost Estimates – 2023 $ USD
Solar PV with Single-Axis
Configuration Tracking
150 MW AC
DC / AC Ratio 1.3
Module Type Bifacial Monocrystalline
Units
Plant Characteristics
Net Plant Capacity MW_AC 150
Capital Cost Assumptions
% of Direct and
EPC Contracting Fee 5%
Indirect Costs
EPC Contingency % of EPC Costs 5%
Owner's Services % of EPC Costs 5%
Owner's Contingency % of Owner's Costs 10%
Estimated Land Requirement (Note 1) acres 1000
Interconnection Costs
Electrical Transmission Interconnection Costs
Transmission Line Cost $/mile 2,412,000
Miles miles 1.00
Typical Project Timelines
Development, Permitting, Engineering months 24
Plant Construction Time months 12
Total Lead Time Before Commercial
months 36
Operation Date (COD)
Operating Life years 35
EPC Cost Components (Note 2)
Module Supply $ 72,150,000
Inverter Supply $ 10,395,000
Racking, Tracker and Balance-of-Plant
$ 44,850,000
(BOP) Equipment Supply
Main Power Transformer and Substation $ 10,500,000
Construction / Installation Labor $ 26,325,000
Supervisory, Control, and Data Acquisition
$ 915,000
Subcontract
Civil/Structural/Architectural Subcontract $ 13,650,000
Indirect Costs $ 12,675,000
EPC Contracting Fee $ 9,573,000

Capital Cost and Performance Characteristic Estimates for Utility Scale Electric
Power Generating Technologies
98
 SL-018001
U.S. Energy Information Administration and Z Federal
Final – Rev A
Project 14987.001
December 6, 2023

Case 16
EIA – Capital Cost Estimates – 2023 $ USD
Solar PV with Single-Axis
Configuration Tracking
150 MW AC
DC / AC Ratio 1.3
Module Type Bifacial Monocrystalline
Units
EPC Contingency $ 10,052,000
EPC Subtotal $ 211,085,000
Owner's Cost Components (Note 3)
Owner's Services $ 10,554,000
Electrical Interconnection $ 2,412,000
Owner's Contingency $ 1,297,000
Owner's Costs Subtotal $ 14,263,000
Total Capital Cost $ 225,348,000
$/kW net 1,502
Capital Cost Notes
1. Land for this resource type is typically leased and not purchased. Minor costs for land acquisition and lease
during development and construction period is included in the owner's services costs. Annual lease costs are also
accounted for in the fixed operating and maintenance (O&M).
2. Costs based on EPC contracting approach. Direct costs include equipment, material, and labor to construct the
civil/structural, mechanical, and electrical/I&C components of the facility. Indirect costs include distributable
material and labor costs, cranes, scaffolding, engineering, construction management, start-up and
commissioning, contractor overhead, freight, and duties/sales taxes. EPC fees are applied to the sum of direct
and indirect costs.
3. Owner’s costs include project development, studies, permitting, legal, owner’s project management, owner’s
engineering, and owner’s start-up and commissioning costs. Other owner’s costs include electrical
interconnection costs.

16.3. OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE COST ESTIMATE

Operations and maintenance costs associated with 150-MWAC, single-axis tracking solar PV project have
increased slightly overall with a range of specific factors increasing and decreasing individually. There are
five main factors to solar PV O&M: preventative maintenance, unscheduled maintenance, module cleaning,
inverter maintenance reserve, and the land lease. As technological reliability increases and designs
become more focused on decreasing O&M costs, preventative maintenance gets less costly and
unscheduled maintenance occurs less frequently. Examples of O&M-focused designs are DC harnesses
for optimal wiring configurations, wireless communication and control systems, and central inverter
locations for ease of access. These increases in design and reliability savings are more than offset by the
increases in equipment and maintenance labor costs leading to an overall increase in both preventative
and unscheduled maintenance. Similarly, the inverter maintenance reserve is another factor that increased
overall in cost but is subject to competing impacts between higher inverter pricing but increasing inverter
reliability that drives the reserve down.

Capital Cost and Performance Characteristic Estimates for Utility Scale Electric
Power Generating Technologies
99
 SL-018001
U.S. Energy Information Administration and Z Federal
Final – Rev A
Project 14987.001
December 6, 2023

Module cleaning is the only cost component that decreased overall. Cleaning is typically less expensive for
PV fields with trackers using independent rows because a single truck can clean two rows at a time instead
of one. New coatings and design of PV modules have also resulted in slight decreases in the amount of
“typical” module cleanings in the United States from two on average down to one. The final annual expense
is the land lease. Solar PV projects typically rent, rather than purchase, the land for the project; therefore,
it is an operating expense and not a capital cost. As the increased demand for solar PV projects continues
throughout the country, there has been a material drop in ideal sites that are available and PV developers
have been forced to locate facilities on more expensive and unideal land. Additionally, landowners have
become more aware of the economic value of these facilities and have begun to charge more for leasing
their land.

Table 16-2 — Case 16 O&M Cost Estimate

Case 16
EIA – Non-Fuel O&M Costs – 2023 $ USD
Solar PV with Single-Axis Tracking
Fixed O&M – Plant (Note 1) Units Value
Preventative Maintenance $/year 1,500,000
Module Cleaning (Note 2) $/year 136,000
Unscheduled Maintenance $/year 225,000
Inverter Maintenance Reserve $/year 374,000
Land Lease (Note 3) $/year 800,000
Subtotal Fixed O&M $/year 3,035,000
$/kW-year $/kW-year 20.23 $/kW-yr
Variable O&M $/MWh 0.00 $/MWh
O&M Cost Notes
1. Fixed O&M costs include labor, materials and contracted services, and general and administrative (G&A) costs.
O&M costs exclude property taxes and insurance.
2. Assume one module cleaning per year.
3. Land for solar PV projects is typically leased rather than owned, this is considered to be a representative annual
expense but varies across projects.

16.4. ENVIRONMENTAL AND EMISSIONS INFORMATION

Solar PV does not produce regulated environmental air emissions. While other environmental compliance
requirements may apply, only air emissions were considered for this report. Therefore, the emissions of
NOX, SO2, and CO2 are 0.00 lb/MMBtu.

Capital Cost and Performance Characteristic Estimates for Utility Scale Electric
Power Generating Technologies
100
 SL-018001
U.S. Energy Information Administration and Z Federal
Final – Rev A
Project 14987.001
December 6, 2023

CASE 17. SOLAR PHOTOVOLTAIC WITH SINGLE

A X I S T R A C K I N G , AC - C O U P L E D B A T T E R Y
ENERGY STORAGE, 150 MWAC | 200 MWH

17.1. CASE DESCRIPTION

This case is based on a nominal 150 MWAC solar photovoltaic (PV) plant with 200 MWh of lithium-ion battery
storage that is AC-coupled. Solar PV has increasingly been coupled with battery storage in recent years
due to price reductions in lithium-ion batteries. The AC-coupling architecture refers to a design in which the
PV and battery components are coupled on AC side (grid side) of the inverter. The AC-coupled system
assumes a DC/AC ratio of 1.4, resulting in a DC size of 210 MW. AC-coupled systems are typically built at
a higher DC/AC ratio than standalone PV to maximize the amount of available energy to charge the battery
energy storage system (BESS) without sacrificing PV output while the BESS is charging or idle. The factors
driving cost increases of solar PV projects are shared with systems coupled with battery storage. Cost
increases are partially offset by modeling technology used to optimize design and reduce civil costs per
kW, higher power modules, lower priced inverters, and lower risk. Batteries can be either AC- or DC-coupled
to the solar array. AC-coupled systems have a simpler architecture that is easier to install and can be retrofit
to an existing solar plant with the batteries interconnected directly at the substation. AC-coupled systems
offer higher efficiency when used in power AC applications, but they also have slightly lower efficiencies
when charging the battery. The most common application for AC-coupled systems is peak shaving, or
energy arbitrage, where there is a limit on the power allowed into the grid and the peak of the solar
generation is stored in a battery to be sold during the highest demand peaks for optimal profit.

17.1.1. Mechanical Equipment and Systems

This case assumes a nominal 150 MWAC solar PV plant with 200 MWh of lithium-ion battery storage.
Batteries are typically sized by their output in kWh and not by their capacity in MW, which is defined by the
AC capacity of the battery’s inverters. The 200 MWh battery system in this estimate is comprised of four
hours of 50 MW output. The mechanical equipment for the solar portion is the same as a stand-alone solar
PV facility: 500-watt 1500-V monocrystalline modules, ground mounted racking with driven pile foundations,
and independent single-axis tracking equipment. The mechanical equipment associated with the battery
storage is the batteries themselves, the containers they are placed in, the fire suppression system, and the
concrete foundations for the battery containers. This estimate assumes the use of 80 containers, each 40
feet in length and containing 2.5 MWh of battery storage. Smaller 20-foot containers are sometimes used
depending on constraints with site availability and project size. Containers are often provided with
unpopulated racks to allow for periodic additions of more batteries (“augmentation”) to compensate for

Capital Cost and Performance Characteristic Estimates for Utility Scale Electric
Power Generating Technologies
101
 SL-018001
U.S. Energy Information Administration and Z Federal
Final – Rev A
Project 14987.001
December 6, 2023

energy capacity lost to battery degradation. Alternatively, battery augmentation may be performed by
adding entirely new battery containers to vacant footprints on a project site.

17.1.2. Electrical and Control Systems

When incorporating AC-coupled battery storage into a solar PV site, there is no change in the electrical
components of the solar array and solar inverters. The solar modules are connected in series with DC wiring
into solar strings. The solar strings are connected in parallel to combiner boxes that output the current into
the solar inverters. The output of the solar inverter then enters a switchgear that feeds the AC current into
either the grid or the battery inverter. It is also important to note that battery storage inverters are different
from solar inverters in that they are typically bi-directional inverters that can alternate between inverting AC
to DC and inverting DC to AC. Battery storage inverters also allow the batteries to be charged by either the
solar array or the grid. This facility uses 150 MW of solar inverters plus 50 MW of battery inverters. Battery
inverters are typically more expensive than solar inverters.

Figure 17-1 — AC-Coupled Solar PV and Battery Storage

Adapted from Clean Energy Reviews,

[Link] (accessed June 12,
2019).

Whether power is being used from the battery storage or the solar array, it passes through a switchyard
that contains the circuit breaker, step-up transformer, and electrical interconnection with the grid. A
supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) system is provided for communications and control of

Capital Cost and Performance Characteristic Estimates for Utility Scale Electric
Power Generating Technologies
102
 SL-018001
U.S. Energy Information Administration and Z Federal
Final – Rev A
Project 14987.001
December 6, 2023

the inverters and substation. The SCADA system allows the operations staff to remotely control and monitor
the solar PV farm as a whole.

17.1.3. Offsite Requirements

Solar PV and battery storage facilities require no fuel and produce no waste. The offsite requirements are
limited to an interconnection between the facility and the transmission system as well as water for the
purpose of cleaning the solar modules—if applicable since cleaning is regionally dependent. In regions with
significant rainfall and limited dust accumulation, cleaning is often unnecessary and occurs naturally. In
dust heavy and dry regions, cleaning typically occurs once or twice a year and uses offsite water that is
brought in on trucks. This analysis assumes two cleanings per year.

17.2. CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE

Table 17-1 summarizes the cost components for this case. It should be noted that the DC/AC ratio for this
paired technology is higher than that of a standalone PV system. This requires more panels, racking, etc.,
so the cost for these components will be higher than those of a standalone PV system with the same net
AC output. Solar prices have been increasing due to rising commodity pricing, delivery and manufacturing
costs, and labor costs. Facing volatile pricing, labor challenges, and being restricted to difficult land, EPC
contractors and developers have also been bearing more contingency and overhead, further increasing the
solar portion of the project’s overall price. The battery cost estimate also increased relative to the 2019
pricing due to inflation and the inclusion of substation costs.

Table 17-1 — Case 17 Capital Cost Estimate

Case 17
EIA – Capital Cost Estimates – 2023 $ USD
Solar PV with Single-
Configuration Axis Tracking and
Battery Storage
Battery Configuration AC Coupled
DC / AC Ratio 1.4
Bifacial
Module Type
Monocrystalline
Battery Type Lithium Ion
Units
Plant Characteristics
Net Solar Capacity MW_AC 150
Net Battery Capacity MW_AC 50
Battery Duration hour 4
Capital Cost Assumptions

Capital Cost and Performance Characteristic Estimates for Utility Scale Electric
Power Generating Technologies
103
 SL-018001
U.S. Energy Information Administration and Z Federal
Final – Rev A
Project 14987.001
December 6, 2023

Case 17
EIA – Capital Cost Estimates – 2023 $ USD
Solar PV with Single-
Configuration Axis Tracking and
Battery Storage
Battery Configuration AC Coupled
DC / AC Ratio 1.4
Bifacial
Module Type
Monocrystalline
Battery Type Lithium Ion
Units
EPC Contracting Fee % of Direct and Indirect Costs 5%
EPC Contingency % of Project Costs 5%
Owner's Services % of Project Costs 5%
Owner's Contingency % of Project Costs 10%
Estimated Land Requirement (Note 1) acres 1150
Interconnection Costs
Electrical Transmission Interconnection Costs
Transmission Line Cost $/mile 2,412,000
Miles miles 1.00
Typical Project Timelines
Development, Permitting, Engineering months 24
Plant Construction Time months 12
Total Lead Time Before
Commercial Operation Date (COD) months 36
35-Year PV; 20-Year
Operating Life years
BESS
EPC Cost Components (Note 2)
PV Module Supply $ 77,700,000
PV Inverter Supply $ 10,395,000
PV Racking, Tracker and Balance-of-Plant
$ 48,300,000
(BOP) Equipment Supply
BESS Container Supply $ 50,560,000
BESS BOP Equipment Supply (Note 3) $ 12,280,000
Main Power Transformer and Substation $ 10,500,000
PV Construction / Installation Labor $ 28,350,000
BESS Construction / Installation Labor $ 2,900,000
SCADA Subcontract $ 915,000
Civil/Structural/Architectural Subcontract $ 14,700,000
Indirect Costs $ 21,650,000
EPC Contracting Fee $ 13,913,000
EPC Contingency $ 14,608,000
EPC Subtotal $ 306,771,000

Capital Cost and Performance Characteristic Estimates for Utility Scale Electric
Power Generating Technologies
104
 SL-018001
U.S. Energy Information Administration and Z Federal
Final – Rev A
Project 14987.001
December 6, 2023

Case 17
EIA – Capital Cost Estimates – 2023 $ USD
Solar PV with Single-
Configuration Axis Tracking and
Battery Storage
Battery Configuration AC Coupled
DC / AC Ratio 1.4
Bifacial
Module Type
Monocrystalline
Battery Type Lithium Ion
Units
Owner's Cost Components (Note 4)
Owner's Services $ 15,339,000
Electrical Interconnection $ 2,412,000
Owner's Contingency $ 1,775,000
Owner's Cost Subtotal $ 19,526,000
Total Capital Cost $ 326,297,000
$/kW net 2,175
Capital Cost Notes

1. Land for this resource type is typically leased and not purchased. Minor costs for land acquisition and lease
during development and construction period is included in the owner's services costs. Annual lease costs are also
accounted for in the fixed operating and maintenance (O&M).
2. Costs based on EPC contracting approach. Direct costs include equipment, material, and labor to construct the
civil/structural, mechanical, and electrical/I&C components of the facility. Indirect costs include distributable
material and labor costs, cranes, scaffolding, engineering, construction management, start-up and commissioning,
contractor overhead, freight, and duties/sales taxes. EPC fees are applied to the sum of direct and indirect costs.
3. BESS BOP equipment supply is inclusive of all equipment and materials except for BESS units to provide
medium-voltage feeders to the substation. Including but not limited to auxiliary power equipment and transfer
switches; inverters; medium-voltage transformers; cabling and conduit; equipment foundations; and supervisory
control and data acquisition (SCADA).
4. Owner’s costs include project development, studies, permitting, legal, owner’s project management, owner’s
engineering, and owner’s start-up and commissioning costs. Other owner’s costs include electrical interconnection
costs.

17.3. OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE COST ESTIMATE

For this case, Sargent & Lundy grouped the O&M costs into the following categories: preventative
maintenance, unscheduled maintenance, module cleaning, inverter maintenance reserve, battery
augmentation, and the land lease. Descriptions of all the factors except the battery augmentation can be
found in Section 16.3. The typical lifetime of a battery is 7300 cycles, which yields a lifetime of roughly 20
years (based on approximately one cycle per day). Sargent & Lundy assumes periodic augmentation to
compensate for energy capacity lost to battery degradation for the first 20 years. More extensive
decommissioning of the original BESS equipment and rebuilding with entirely new batteries, may be
necessary in order to have storage of PV generation for the 35-year expected life of the PV technology.

Capital Cost and Performance Characteristic Estimates for Utility Scale Electric
Power Generating Technologies
105
 SL-018001
U.S. Energy Information Administration and Z Federal
Final – Rev A
Project 14987.001
December 6, 2023

Sargent & Lundy has modeled only augmentation through year 20, not any decommissioning or extensive
rebuild afterwards.

Table 17-2 — Case 17 O&M Cost Estimate

Case 17
EIA – Non-Fuel O&M Costs – 2023 $ USD
Solar PV with Single-Axis Tracking and Battery Storage
Fixed O&M – Plant (Note 1) Units Value
Preventative Maintenance $/year 2,700,000
Module Cleaning (Note 2) $/year 146,000
Unscheduled Maintenance $/year 525,000
Inverter Maintenance Reserve $/year 374,000
Battery Augmentation $/year 1,200,000
Land Lease (Note 3) $/year 814,200
Subtotal Fixed O&M $/year 5,759,200
$/kW-year $/kW-year 38.39 $/kW-year
Variable O&M $/MWh 0.00 $/MWh
O&M Cost Notes
1. Fixed O&M costs include labor, materials and contracted services, and general and administrative (G&A) costs.
O&M costs exclude property taxes and insurance.
2. Assume two module cleanings per year.
3. Solar PV projects typically rent land rather than purchase it, this is considered to be a representative annual
expense but varies across projects.

17.4. ENVIRONMENTAL AND EMISSIONS INFORMATION

Neither solar PV nor battery storage produce regulated environmental air emissions. While other
environmental compliance requirements may apply, only air emissions were considered for this report.
Therefore, the emissions of NOX, SO2, and CO2 are 0.00 lb/MMBtu.

Capital Cost and Performance Characteristic Estimates for Utility Scale Electric
Power Generating Technologies
106
 SL-018001
U.S. Energy Information Administration and Z Federal
Final – Rev A
Project 14987.001
December 6, 2023

CASE 18. SOLAR PHOTOVOLTAIC WITH SINGLE

AXIS TRACKING, DC-COUPLED BATTERY
ENERGY STORAGE, 150 MWAC | 200 MWH

18.1. CASE DESCRIPTION

This case is based on a nominal 150 MWAC solar photovoltaic (PV) plant with 200 MWh of lithium-ion battery
storage that is DC-coupled. The DC-coupling architecture refers to a design in which the PV and battery
components are coupled on DC side (plant side) of the inverter. The DC-coupled system assumes a DC/AC
ratio of 1.6, resulting in a DC size of 240 MW. DC-coupled systems often have the highest DC/AC ratio
because unlike most systems that experience increased clipping losses as the DC/AC ratio increases, DC-
coupled systems can capture energy that would have otherwise been clipped and use it to charge the
battery energy storage system (BESS). DC-coupled systems require no inversion of solar electricity from
DC to AC and back again before the electricity is stored in the battery and can thus achieve higher BESS
roundtrip efficiency than AC-coupled systems. But DC-coupled systems also have a more complex
arrangement and control architecture, are more difficult to install and retrofit with an existing solar system,
and require additional equipment such as DC to DC converters. DC-coupled systems may be used for the
same applications as AC-coupled systems such as peak shaving, or energy arbitrage, but they tend to be
more costly to install than AC-coupled designs and are less common in the industry.

18.1.1. Mechanical Equipment and Systems

This case assumes a nominal 150 MWAC solar PV plant with 200 MWh of lithium-ion battery storage.
Batteries are typically sized by their output in kWh and not by their capacity in MW, which is defined by the
AC capacity of the battery’s inverters. The 200 MWh battery system in this estimate is comprised of four
hours of 50 MW output. The mechanical equipment for the solar portion is the same as a stand-alone solar
PV facility: 500-watt 1500-V monocrystalline modules, ground mounted racking with driven pile foundations,
and independent single-axis tracking equipment. The mechanical equipment associated with the battery
storage is the batteries themselves, the containers they are placed in, the fire suppression system, and the
concrete foundations for the battery containers. This estimate assumes the use of 80 containers, each 40
feet in length and containing 2.5 MWh of battery storage. Smaller 20-foot containers are sometimes used
depending on constraints with site availability and project size. Containers are often provided with
unpopulated racks to allow for periodic battery augmentations to compensate for energy capacity lost to
battery degradation. Alternatively, battery augmentation may be performed by adding entirely new battery
containers to vacant footprints on a project site. For DC-coupled PV and BESS facilities, the former
augmentation strategy (using spare racks in original containers) has historically been preferred to allow for

Capital Cost and Performance Characteristic Estimates for Utility Scale Electric
Power Generating Technologies
107
 SL-018001
U.S. Energy Information Administration and Z Federal
Final – Rev A
Project 14987.001
December 6, 2023

more gradual augmentations at the distributed BESS locations on the site; but many modern suppliers offer
stand-alone modular options in smaller kWh increments to serve the same purpose.

18.1.2. Electrical and Control Systems

In a DC-coupled system, the PV and battery components share the same bidirectional inverters, and energy
used to charge the battery passes through a DC-to-DC converter. In such an architecture, the hardware
and controls allow charging the battery from the grid or directly from the PV without conversion to AC. In
this case, excess PV generation that exceeds the inverter capacity limit and would normally be clipped by
the inverter is instead used to charge the batteries. Like most PV arrangements, the PV modules are
connected in series with DC wiring to form strings which are in turn connected in parallel at combiner boxes.
In the DC-coupled architecture, the DC output from the PV combiner boxes may be sent through the DC/AC
inverters to the grid or directly to the BESS through the DC-to-DC converters. This facility uses 150 MW of
bidirectional inverters which covers both the PV and BESS capacities. Bidirectional inverters (sometimes
referred to as battery inverters) are typically more expensive than solar inverters.

Figure 18-1 — DC-Coupled Solar PV and Battery Storage

NREL
Source: ([Link]

Whether power is being used from the battery storage or the solar array, it passes through a switchyard
that contains the circuit breaker, step-up transformer, and electrical interconnection with the grid.

18.1.3. Offsite Requirements

Solar PV and battery storage facilities require no fuel and produce no waste. The offsite requirements are
limited to an interconnection between the facility and the transmission system as well as water for the
purpose of cleaning the solar modules. Cleaning is regionally dependent. In regions with significant rainfall
and limited dust accumulation, cleaning is often unnecessary and occurs naturally. In dust heavy and dry

Capital Cost and Performance Characteristic Estimates for Utility Scale Electric
Power Generating Technologies
108
 SL-018001
U.S. Energy Information Administration and Z Federal
Final – Rev A
Project 14987.001
December 6, 2023

regions, cleaning typically occurs once or twice a year and uses offsite water that is brought in on trucks.
This analysis assumes two cleanings per year.

18.2. CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE

Table 18-1 summarizes the cost components for this case. It should be noted that the DC/AC ratio for this
paired technology is higher than that of the AC-coupled and standalone PV systems. This requires more
panels, racking, etc., so the cost for these components will be higher than those of the AC-coupled and
standalone PV cases with the same net AC capacity ratings. Facing volatile pricing, labor challenges, and
being restricted to difficult land, EPC contractors and developers have also been bearing more contingency
and overhead, further increasing the solar portion of the project’s overall price. The battery cost estimate
also increased relative to the 2019 pricing due to inflation and the inclusion of substation costs in this
iteration of the estimate.

Table 18-1 — Case 18 Capital Cost Estimate

Case 18
EIA – Capital Cost Estimates – 2023 $ USD
Solar PV with Single-Axis
Configuration Tracking and
Battery Storage
Battery Configuration DC Coupled
DC / AC Ratio 1.6
Module Type Bifacial Monocrystalline
Battery Type Lithium Ion
Units
Plant Characteristics
Net Solar Capacity MW_AC 150
Net Battery Capacity MW_AC 50
Battery Duration hour 4
Capital Cost Assumptions
% of Direct and Indirect
EPC Contracting Fee 5%
Costs
EPC Contingency % of Project Costs 5%
Owner's Services % of Project Costs 5%
Owner's Contingency % of Project Costs 10%
Estimated Land Requirement (Note 1) acres 1300
Interconnection Costs
Electrical Transmission Interconnection Costs
Transmission Line Cost $/mile 2,412,000
Miles miles 1.00

Capital Cost and Performance Characteristic Estimates for Utility Scale Electric
Power Generating Technologies
109
 SL-018001
U.S. Energy Information Administration and Z Federal
Final – Rev A
Project 14987.001
December 6, 2023

Case 18
EIA – Capital Cost Estimates – 2023 $ USD
Solar PV with Single-Axis
Configuration Tracking and
Battery Storage
Battery Configuration DC Coupled
DC / AC Ratio 1.6
Module Type Bifacial Monocrystalline
Battery Type Lithium Ion
Units
Typical Project Timelines
Development, Permitting, Engineering months 24
Plant Construction Time months 12
Total Lead Time Before Commercial
months 36
Operation Date (COD)
Operating Life years 35-Year PV; 20-Year BESS
EPC Cost Components (Note 2)
PV Module Supply $ 88,800,000
Bidirectional Inverter Supply $ 11,205,000
PV Racking, Tracker and Balance-of-
Plant $ 55,200,000
(BOP) Equipment Supply
BESS Container Supply $ 50,560,000
BESS BOP Equipment Supply (Note 3) $ 30,700,000
Main Power Transformer & Substation $ 10,500,000
PV Construction / Installation Labor $ 32,400,000
BESS Construction / Installation Labor $ 7,250,000
Supervisory, Control, and Data
Acquisition Subcontract $ 915,000
Civil/Structural/Architectural
$ 16,800,000
Subcontractor
Indirect Costs $ 23,600,000
EPC Contracting Fee $ 16,397,000
EPC Contingency $ 17,216,000
EPC Subtotal $ 361,543,000
Owner's Cost Components (Note 4)
Owner's Services $ 18,077,000
Electrical Interconnection 2,412,000
Owner's Contingency $ 2,049,000
Owner's Cost Subtotal $ 22,538,000
Total Capital Cost $ 384,081,000
$/kW net 2,561
Capital Cost Notes

Capital Cost and Performance Characteristic Estimates for Utility Scale Electric
Power Generating Technologies
110
 SL-018001
U.S. Energy Information Administration and Z Federal
Final – Rev A
Project 14987.001
December 6, 2023

Case 18
EIA – Capital Cost Estimates – 2023 $ USD
Solar PV with Single-Axis
Configuration Tracking and
Battery Storage
Battery Configuration DC Coupled
DC / AC Ratio 1.6
Module Type Bifacial Monocrystalline
Battery Type Lithium Ion
Units
1. Land for this resource type is typically leased and not purchased. Minor costs for land acquisition and lease
during development and construction period is included in the owner's services costs. Annual lease costs are also
accounted for in the fixed operating and maintenance (O&M).
2. Costs based on EPC contracting approach. Direct costs include equipment, material, and labor to construct the
civil/structural, mechanical, and electrical/I&C components of the facility. Indirect costs include distributable
material and labor costs, cranes, scaffolding, engineering, construction management, start-up and commissioning,
contractor overhead, freight, and duties/sales taxes. EPC fees are applied to the sum of direct and indirect costs.
3. BESS BOP equipment supply is inclusive of all equipment and materials except for BESS units to provide
medium-voltage feeders to the substation, including, but not limited to, auxiliary power equipment and transfer
switches; DC-to-DC converters; medium-voltage transformers; cabling and conduit; equipment foundations; and
supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA).
4. Owner’s costs include project development, studies, permitting, legal, owner’s project management, owner’s
engineering, and owner’s start-up and commissioning costs. Other owner’s costs include electrical interconnection
costs.

18.3. OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE COST ESTIMATE

For this case, Sargent & Lundy grouped the O&M costs into the following categories: preventative
maintenance, unscheduled maintenance, module cleaning, inverter maintenance reserve, battery
augmentation, and the land lease. Descriptions of all the factors except the battery augmentation can be
found in Section 16.3. The typical lifetime of a battery is 7300 cycles, which yields a lifetime of roughly 20
years (based on approximately one cycle per day). Sargent & Lundy assumes periodic augmentation to
compensate for energy capacity lost to battery degradation for the first 20 years. More extensive
decommissioning of the original BESS equipment and rebuilding with entirely new batteries, may be
necessary in order to have storage of PV generation for the 35-year expected life of the PV technology.
Sargent & Lundy has modeled only augmentation through year 20, not any decommissioning or extensive
rebuild afterwards.

Table 18-2 — Case 18 O&M Cost Estimate

Case 18
EIA – Non-Fuel O&M Costs – 2023 $ USD
Solar PV with Single-Axis Tracking and Battery Storage

Capital Cost and Performance Characteristic Estimates for Utility Scale Electric
Power Generating Technologies
111
 SL-018001
U.S. Energy Information Administration and Z Federal
Final – Rev A
Project 14987.001
December 6, 2023

Fixed O&M – Plant (Note 1) Units Value

Preventative Maintenance $/year 2,700,000
Module Cleaning (Note 2) $/year 167,000
Unscheduled Maintenance $/year 525,000
Inverter Maintenance Reserve $/year 374,000
Battery Augmentation $/year 1,200,000
Land Lease (Note 3) $/year 920,400
Subtotal Fixed O&M $/year 5,886,400
$/kW-year $/kW-year 39.24 $/kW-year
Variable O&M $/MWh 0.00 $/MWh
O&M Cost Notes
1. Fixed O&M costs include labor, materials and contracted services, and general and administrative (G&A) costs.
O&M costs exclude property taxes and insurance.
2. Assume one module cleaning per year.
3. Land for solar PV projects is typically leased rather than owned, this is considered to be a representative annual
expense but varies across projects.

18.4. ENVIRONMENTAL AND EMISSIONS INFORMATION

Solar PV does not produce regulated environmental air emissions. While other environmental compliance
requirements may apply, only air emissions were considered for this report. Therefore, the emissions of
NOX, SO2, and CO2 are 0.00 lb/MMBtu.

Capital Cost and Performance Characteristic Estimates for Utility Scale Electric
Power Generating Technologies
112
 SL-018001
U.S. Energy Information Administration and Z Federal
Final – Rev A
Project 14987.001
December 6, 2023

CASE 19. BATTERY ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEM,

1 5 0 M W | 600 MWH

19.1. CASE DESCRIPTION

This case consists of a utility-scale, lithium-ion, battery energy storage system (BESS) with a 150 MW
power rating and 600 MWh energy rating; the system can provide 150 MW of power for a four-hour duration.
The cost estimate includes a substation consisting of a transformer to increase voltage from the BESS
system to the interconnection voltage (modeled as 138 kV), as well as associated switchgear.

The BESS consists of 240 modular, factory-integrated battery storage containers that house the batteries
and supporting systems (for example, battery management system, electrical protections, thermal
management system, fire protection, etc.). The battery containers modeled in Case 19 are of representative
size, 20 feet long x 10 feet wide x 8 feet high, however, industry offerings vary in size and modularity but
offer roughly the same energy density per acre and total cost. The BESS uses utility-scale lithium-ion
batteries. Approximately 1.5% of the initial battery capacity is assumed to degrade each year and require
augmentation by the addition of new batteries. (The augmentation cost is included with the annual O&M,
as discussed in Section 19.3). Battery containers are grouped together and connected with an associated
inverter-transformer skid, which is approximately 15 feet long x 10 feet wide x 8 feet high and is commonly
referred to as a Power Conditioning System (PCS). The PCS houses the inverters, transformer, and
associated electrical equipment (for example, fuses and breakers). There is one control building with
approximate dimension of 20 feet long x 10 feet wide x 8 feet high to support O&M activities. Each building
is set on a concrete slab foundation.

Figure 19-1 shows a typical utility-scale lithium-ion battery. Several battery cells make up a battery module,
also commonly referred to as a “battery pack”, which is independently monitored and controlled. Several
battery modules are contained within a battery rack, and there are several battery racks in a battery
container.

Capital Cost and Performance Characteristic Estimates for Utility Scale Electric
Power Generating Technologies
113
 SL-018001
U.S. Energy Information Administration and Z Federal
Final – Rev A
Project 14987.001
December 6, 2023

Figure 19-1 — Utility-Scale Lithium-Ion Batteries

Source: National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) “2018 U.S. Utility-Scale Photovoltaics-Plus-Energy Storage
System Costs Benchmark, Technical Report NREL/TP-6A20-71714, November 2018.
([Link] (accessed July 23, 2019)

The BESS is equipped with 600 MWh of lithium-ion batteries connected in strings and one hundred 1.5 MW
inverters. Batteries operate on DC power; however, most electric power generation on the grid is produced
and distributed as AC power. Standalone BESS are equipped with inverters to convert between AC power
from the grid to DC power for storage within the batteries. Sequentially, the grid or substation AC power is
converted by the main power transformer from high-voltage (138+ kV) to medium-voltage (34.5 kV),
medium-voltage power is converted to the operational voltage range of the inverters (480–700 VAC,
depending on design) by medium-voltage transformers, and inverters convert AC power to DC power
(1000–1500 VDC) for connection with the battery containers. AC-coupled and DC-coupled BESS are
discussed in Case 17 and Case 18, respectively, however it is noteworthy that the majority of existing and
near-term planned installations of BESS are either standalone or AC-coupled configurations.

Figure 19-2 — Standalone BESS Flow Diagram

Adapted from Clean Energy Reviews,

[Link] (accessed June 12,
2019).

Capital Cost and Performance Characteristic Estimates for Utility Scale Electric
Power Generating Technologies
114
 SL-018001
U.S. Energy Information Administration and Z Federal
Final – Rev A
Project 14987.001
December 6, 2023

19.2. CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE

Table 19-1 summarizes the cost components for this case. Both the $/kW and $/kWh are provided to clearly
describe the system estimate. The capital cost estimate is based on a BESS with a power rating of 150 MW
and energy rating of 600 MWh (equivalent to a four-hour duration system). The cost estimate includes civil
works, foundations, buildings, electrical equipment and related equipment, substation, switchyard,
transformers, transmission lines, cabling, controls, and instrumentation. The cost estimate increased
relative to the 2019 pricing due to inflation and the inclusion of substation costs in this iteration of the
estimate.

Table 19-1 — Case 19 Capital Cost Estimate

Case 19
EIA – Capital Cost Estimates – 2023 $ USD
Battery Energy Storage System
Configuration 150 MW | 600 MWh
Greenfield
Battery Type Lithium-Ion
Service Life 20 years
Total Charging Cycles in Service Life 7,300
Units
Plant Characteristics
Power Rating MW 150
Energy Rating MWh 600
Duration hour 4
Capital Cost Assumptions
Engineering, Procurement, and Construction % of Direct & Indirect
5%
(EPC) Contracting Fee Costs
EPC Contingency % of EPC Costs 5%
Owner's Services % of EPC Costs 4%
Owner's Contingency % of Owner's Costs 5%
Estimated Land Requirement acres 6
Estimated Land Cost $/acre 90,000
Interconnection Costs
Electrical Transmission Interconnection Costs
Transmission Line Cost $/mile 2,412,000
Miles miles 1.00
Typical Project Timelines
Development, Permitting, Engineering months
Plant Construction Time months 12
Total Lead Time Before Commercial
months 18
Operation Date (COD)
Operating Life years 20
EPC Cost Components (Note 1)
BESS Unit Supply $ 151,700,000

Capital Cost and Performance Characteristic Estimates for Utility Scale Electric
Power Generating Technologies
115
 SL-018001
U.S. Energy Information Administration and Z Federal
Final – Rev A
Project 14987.001
December 6, 2023

Case 19
EIA – Capital Cost Estimates – 2023 $ USD
Battery Energy Storage System
Configuration 150 MW | 600 MWh
Greenfield
Battery Type Lithium-Ion
Service Life 20 years
Total Charging Cycles in Service Life 7,300
Units
BESS Balance-of-Plant (BOP) Equipment
$ 36,857,000
Supply (Note 2)
BESS Installation $ 8,672,000
Main Power Transformer & Substation $ 10,500,000
Indirect Costs $ 17,345,000
EPC Contracting Fee $ 11,254,000
EPC Contingency $ 11,816,000
EPC Subtotal $ 248,144,000
Owner's Cost Components (Note 2)
Owner's Services $ 9,926,000
Land $ 540,000
Electrical Interconnection $ 2,412,000
Owner's Contingency $ 644,000
Owner's Cost Subtotal $ 13,522,000
Total Capital Cost $ 261,666,000
$/kW net 1,744
$/kWh 436
Capital Cost Notes
1. Costs based on EPC contracting approach. Direct costs include equipment, material, and labor to construct the
civil/structural, mechanical, and electrical/I&C components of the facility. Indirect costs include distributable
material and labor costs, cranes, scaffolding, engineering, construction management, start-up and
commissioning, contractor overhead, freight, and duties/sales taxes. EPC fees are applied to the sum of direct
and indirect costs.
2. BESS BOP equipment supply is inclusive of all equipment and materials except for BESS units to provide
medium-voltage feeders to the substation, including, but not limited to, auxiliary power equipment and transfer
switches; inverters; medium-voltage transformers; cabling and conduit; equipment foundations; and supervisory
control and data acquisition (SCADA).
3. Owner’s costs include project development, studies, permitting, legal, owner’s project management, owner’s
engineering, and owner’s start-up and commissioning costs. Other owner’s costs include electrical
interconnection costs, gas interconnection costs (if applicable), and land acquisition costs.

Capital Cost and Performance Characteristic Estimates for Utility Scale Electric
Power Generating Technologies
116
 SL-018001
U.S. Energy Information Administration and Z Federal
Final – Rev A
Project 14987.001
December 6, 2023

19.3. OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE COST ESTIMATE

The O&M cost estimate considers the ongoing O&M cost through the life of a BESS project. The service
life of a BESS depends on how it is used. This case assumes that the BESS will have a service life of 7300
equivalent cycles, which yields a lifetime of roughly 20 years (based on approximately one cycle per day)
representing a typical use case basis in the industry. A full charge-discharge cycle occurs when a battery
is at 0% usable state of charge, is then charged fully to 100% state of charge, and finally is discharged fully
back to 0% state of charge. An “equivalent cycle” can be understood as the sum of partial charges and
discharges equating to the same net energy throughput as a full charge-discharge cycle. BESS projects
that serve ancillary markets may not experience a full charge and discharge cycle every day or may
experience partial charge cycles, which is why the concept of “equivalent cycles” is useful. The 7300
equivalent-cycle service life is a typical industry basis to determine the cost and technical specifications for
an energy storage system. Capacity degradation of lithium-ion batteries is an inherent performance
characteristic of lithium-ion battery technology, occurring both due to age-alone and proportional to their
usage. Battery performance guarantees in the industry suggest approximately 1.5% average annual
capacity degradation associated with a one full-cycle per day use case for a four-hour duration lithium-ion
BESS. Battery degradation guarantees are tailored to the specific use case expected for the individual
BESS.

Many BESS projects engage a third-party contractor to conduct regular O&M activities. This cost estimate
considers the cost of such contracted services, which include remote monitoring of the system, periodic
onsite inspection of equipment conditions and cable connections, replacement of regular consumables (air
filters, coolant, etc.), and grounds maintenance. This O&M cost estimate uses the 1.5% battery degradation
factor and incorporates the equipment and labor cost of subsequent augmentations in the annual fixed
O&M cost. The O&M cost include an annual allowance for general and administrative (G&A) costs. The
fixed O&M costs are $40.00/kW-year or $10.00/kWh-year. Augmentation is included with fixed cost in this
case since the use case assumes the same number of charging cycles each year during the service life of
the project. Divergence from the use case could cause greater than expected degradation and voiding of
battery performance guarantees. The variable costs are $0.00/MWh, since there are no consumables linked
to energy output within the expected use case.

The O&M costs do not include the cost of energy to charge the system. No costs are included for
decommissioning.

Capital Cost and Performance Characteristic Estimates for Utility Scale Electric
Power Generating Technologies
117
 SL-018001
U.S. Energy Information Administration and Z Federal
Final – Rev A
Project 14987.001
December 6, 2023

Table 19-2 — Case 19 O&M Cost Estimate

Case 19
EIA – Non-Fuel O&M Costs – 2023 $ USD
BESS - 150 MW | 600 MWh - Greenfield
Fixed O&M – Plant (Note 1) Units Value
Battery Maintenance
$/year 2,400,000
(Preventative & Corrective)
Battery Augmentation $/year 3,600,000
Subtotal Fixed O&M $/year 6,000,000
$/kW-year $/kW-year 40.00 $/kW-year
Variable O&M (Note 2) $/MWh 0.00 $/MWh
O&M Cost Notes
1. Fixed O&M costs include labor, materials and contracted services, and G&A costs. O&M costs exclude
property taxes and insurance.
2. All costs tied to energy produced are covered in fixed cost.

19.4. ENVIRONMENTAL AND EMISSIONS INFORMATION

BESSs do not produce regulated environmental emission. While other environmental compliance
requirements may apply, only air emissions were considered for this report. Therefore, the emissions of
NOX, SO2, and CO2 are 0.00 lb/MMBtu.

Capital Cost and Performance Characteristic Estimates for Utility Scale Electric
Power Generating Technologies
118
 SL-018001
U.S. Energy Information Administration and Z Federal
Final – Rev A
Project 14987.001
December 6, 2023

APPENDIX A. LABOR LOCATION-BASED COST

ADJUSTMENTS

Capital Cost and Performance Characteristic Estimates for Utility Scale Electric
Power Generating Technologies

.
 Table 1‐1 — Location Adjustment for Ultra-Supercritical Coal w/o Carbon Capture – Greenfield
(2023 USD)
Case Configuration: 650 MW Net, 1 x 735 MW Gross

State City Base Project Cost ($/kW ) Location Variation Delta Cost Difference ($/kW) Total Location Project Cost ($/kW)
Alabama Huntsville 4,103 0.97 (132) 3971
Arizona Phoenix 4,103 1.09 383 4486
Arkansas Little Rock 4,103 0.97 (137) 3966
California Bakersfield 4,103 1.31 1,262 5365
California Los Angeles 4,103 1.33 1,366 5469
California Modesto 4,103 1.35 1,418 5521
California Sacramento 4,103 1.37 1,501 5604
California San Francisco 4,103 1.48 1,951 6054
Colorado Denver 4,103 1.03 141 4244
Connecticut Hartford 4,103 1.27 1,103 5206
Delaware Dover 4,103 1.24 991 5094
District of Columbia Washington 4,103 1.09 381 4484
Florida Tallahassee 4,103 0.94 (255) 3848
Florida Tampa 4,103 0.96 (184) 3919
Georgia Atlanta 4,103 1.02 84 4187
Idaho Boise 4,103 1.03 114 4217
Illinois Chicago 4,103 1.36 1,466 5569
Indiana Indianapolis 4,103 1.01 25 4128
Iowa Davenport 4,103 1.05 203 4306
Iowa Waterloo 4,103 0.99 (52) 4051
Kansas Wichita 4,103 0.99 (59) 4044
Kentucky Louisville 4,103 1.01 32 4135
Louisiana New Orleans 4,103 1.00 4 4107
Maine Portland 4,103 1.03 137 4240
Maryland Baltimore 4,103 1.03 111 4214
Massachusetts Boston 4,103 1.36 1,489 5592
Michigan Detroit 4,103 1.11 461 4564
Michigan Grand Rapids 4,103 1.02 62 4165
Minnesota Saint Paul 4,103 1.13 531 4634
Mississippi Biloxi 4,103 0.95 (209) 3894
Missouri St. Louis 4,103 1.13 525 4628
Missouri Kansas City 4,103 1.07 306 4409
Montana Great Falls 4,103 0.98 (76) 4027
Nebraska Omaha 4,103 0.99 (56) 4047
New Hampshire Manchester 4,103 1.11 466 4569
New Jersey Newark 4,103 1.30 1,249 5352
New Mexico Albuquerque 4,103 1.03 141 4244
New York New York 4,103 1.70 2,852 6955
New York Syracuse 4,103 1.14 573 4676
Nevada Las Vegas 4,103 1.17 681 4784
North Carolina Charlotte 4,103 0.98 (71) 4032
North Dakota Bismarck 4,103 1.04 183 4286
Ohio Cincinnati 4,103 0.98 (97) 4006
Oklahoma Oklahoma City 4,103 0.95 (217) 3886
Oregon Portland 4,103 1.21 866 4969
Pennsylvania Philadelphia 4,103 1.35 1,422 5525
Pennsylvania Scranton 4,103 1.13 538 4641
Rhode Island Providence 4,103 1.23 927 5030
South Carolina Charleston 4,103 0.95 (207) 3896
South Dakota Rapid City 4,103 1.00 (6) 4097
Tennessee Nashville 4,103 0.99 (54) 4049
Texas Houston 4,103 0.90 (406) 3697
Utah Salt Lake City 4,103 0.99 (30) 4073
Vermont Burlington 4,103 1.08 315 4418
Virginia Alexandria 4,103 1.07 304 4407
Virginia Roanoke 4,103 1.04 161 4264
Washington Seattle 4,103 1.21 843 4946
Washington Spokane 4,103 1.07 284 4387
West Virginia Charleston 4,103 1.02 100 4203
Wisconsin Green Bay 4,103 1.10 408 4511
Wyoming Cheyenne 4,103 1.00 (21) 4082
 Table 1‐2 — Location Adjustment for Ultra-Supercritical Coal 95% Carbon Capture
(2023 USD)
Case Configuration: 650 MW Net, 1 x 819 MW Gross

State City Base Project Cost ($/kW ) Location Variation Delta Cost Difference ($/kW) Total Location Project Cost ($/kW)
Alabama Huntsville 7,346 0.97 (246) 7100
Arizona Phoenix 7,346 1.03 210 7556
Arkansas Little Rock 7,346 0.97 (224) 7122
California Bakersfield 7,346 1.24 1,799 9145
California Los Angeles 7,346 1.27 1,977 9323
California Modesto 7,346 1.28 2,067 9413
California Sacramento 7,346 1.30 2,205 9551
California San Francisco 7,346 1.40 2,962 10308
Colorado Denver 7,346 0.98 (151) 7195
Connecticut Hartford 7,346 1.20 1,492 8838
Delaware Dover 7,346 1.17 1,260 8606
District of Columbia Washington 7,346 1.04 269 7615
Florida Tallahassee 7,346 0.93 (486) 6860
Florida Tampa 7,346 0.95 (354) 6992
Georgia Atlanta 7,346 1.02 136 7482
Idaho Boise 7,346 1.03 221 7567
Illinois Chicago 7,346 1.35 2,600 9946
Indiana Indianapolis 7,346 1.01 73 7419
Iowa Davenport 7,346 1.05 359 7705
Iowa Waterloo 7,346 0.99 (92) 7254
Kansas Wichita 7,346 0.99 (105) 7241
Kentucky Louisville 7,346 1.01 86 7432
Louisiana New Orleans 7,346 1.00 15 7361
Maine Portland 7,346 1.03 253 7599
Maryland Baltimore 7,346 1.03 204 7550
Massachusetts Boston 7,346 1.29 2,149 9495
Michigan Detroit 7,346 1.11 817 8163
Michigan Grand Rapids 7,346 1.01 109 7455
Minnesota Saint Paul 7,346 1.12 911 8257
Mississippi Biloxi 7,346 0.94 (408) 6938
Missouri St. Louis 7,346 1.14 1,002 8348
Missouri Kansas City 7,346 1.07 543 7889
Montana Great Falls 7,346 0.98 (141) 7205
Nebraska Omaha 7,346 0.99 (98) 7248
New Hampshire Manchester 7,346 1.06 451 7797
New Jersey Newark 7,346 1.30 2,228 9574
New Mexico Albuquerque 7,346 1.04 260 7606
New York New York 7,346 1.60 4,431 11777
New York Syracuse 7,346 1.08 584 7930
Nevada Las Vegas 7,346 1.17 1,263 8609
North Carolina Charlotte 7,346 0.98 (125) 7221
North Dakota Bismarck 7,346 1.04 293 7639
Ohio Cincinnati 7,346 0.98 (178) 7168
Oklahoma Oklahoma City 7,346 0.95 (387) 6959
Oregon Portland 7,346 1.15 1,132 8478
Pennsylvania Philadelphia 7,346 1.28 2,023 9369
Pennsylvania Scranton 7,346 1.07 530 7876
Rhode Island Providence 7,346 1.16 1,208 8554
South Carolina Charleston 7,346 0.96 (296) 7050
South Dakota Rapid City 7,346 0.99 (41) 7305
Tennessee Nashville 7,346 0.99 (38) 7308
Texas Houston 7,346 0.90 (715) 6631
Utah Salt Lake City 7,346 1.00 2 7348
Vermont Burlington 7,346 1.09 674 8020
Virginia Alexandria 7,346 1.02 140 7486
Virginia Roanoke 7,346 0.99 (109) 7237
Washington Seattle 7,346 1.21 1,560 8906
Washington Spokane 7,346 1.07 530 7876
West Virginia Charleston 7,346 1.02 174 7520
Wisconsin Green Bay 7,346 1.09 683 8029
Wyoming Cheyenne 7,346 0.99 (49) 7297
 Table 1‐3 — Location Adjustment for Combustion Turbine – Simple Cycle (Aeroderivative)
(2023 USD)
Case Configuration: 211 MW Net, 4 x 54 MW Gross Aeroderivative Simple Cycle

State City Base Project Cost ($/kW ) Location Variation Delta Cost Difference ($/kW) Total Location Project Cost ($/kW)
Alabama Huntsville 1,606 0.98 (31) 1575
Arizona Phoenix 1,606 1.01 10 1616
Arkansas Little Rock 1,606 0.99 (22) 1584
California Bakersfield 1,606 1.11 179 1785
California Los Angeles 1,606 1.13 208 1814
California Modesto 1,606 1.13 206 1812
California Sacramento 1,606 1.14 223 1829
California San Francisco 1,606 1.22 362 1968
Colorado Denver 1,606 0.98 (26) 1580
Connecticut Hartford 1,606 1.09 147 1753
Delaware Dover 1,606 1.08 136 1742
District of Columbia Washington 1,606 1.02 32 1638
Florida Tallahassee 1,606 0.97 (55) 1551
Florida Tampa 1,606 0.97 (41) 1565
Georgia Atlanta 1,606 1.00 8 1614
Idaho Boise 1,606 1.01 19 1625
Illinois Chicago 1,606 1.16 258 1864
Indiana Indianapolis 1,606 1.00 (1) 1605
Iowa Davenport 1,606 1.01 22 1628
Iowa Waterloo 1,606 0.99 (23) 1583
Kansas Wichita 1,606 0.98 (25) 1581
Kentucky Louisville 1,606 1.00 (0) 1606
Louisiana New Orleans 1,606 1.00 (3) 1603
Maine Portland 1,606 1.01 15 1621
Maryland Baltimore 1,606 1.01 15 1621
Massachusetts Boston 1,606 1.14 232 1838
Michigan Detroit 1,606 1.05 88 1694
Michigan Grand Rapids 1,606 1.00 3 1609
Minnesota Saint Paul 1,606 1.06 98 1704
Mississippi Biloxi 1,606 0.97 (47) 1559
Missouri St. Louis 1,606 1.07 105 1711
Missouri Kansas City 1,606 1.03 54 1660
Montana Great Falls 1,606 0.99 (20) 1586
Nebraska Omaha 1,606 0.99 (23) 1583
New Hampshire Manchester 1,606 1.02 35 1641
New Jersey Newark 1,606 1.15 246 1852
New Mexico Albuquerque 1,606 1.01 19 1625
New York New York 1,606 1.28 454 2060
New York Syracuse 1,606 1.04 57 1663
Nevada Las Vegas 1,606 1.08 135 1741
North Carolina Charlotte 1,606 0.99 (18) 1588
North Dakota Bismarck 1,606 1.01 19 1625
Ohio Cincinnati 1,606 0.98 (26) 1580
Oklahoma Oklahoma City 1,606 0.97 (45) 1561
Oregon Portland 1,606 1.08 126 1732
Pennsylvania Philadelphia 1,606 1.14 233 1839
Pennsylvania Scranton 1,606 1.03 41 1647
Rhode Island Providence 1,606 1.07 117 1723
South Carolina Charleston 1,606 0.98 (29) 1577
South Dakota Rapid City 1,606 0.99 (10) 1596
Tennessee Nashville 1,606 1.00 1 1607
Texas Houston 1,606 0.95 (80) 1526
Utah Salt Lake City 1,606 1.00 (5) 1601
Vermont Burlington 1,606 1.04 62 1668
Virginia Alexandria 1,606 1.01 15 1621
Virginia Roanoke 1,606 0.99 (20) 1586
Washington Seattle 1,606 1.12 189 1795
Washington Spokane 1,606 1.03 44 1650
West Virginia Charleston 1,606 1.01 14 1620
Wisconsin Green Bay 1,606 1.04 71 1677
Wyoming Cheyenne 1,606 0.99 (12) 1594
 Table 1‐4 — Location Adjustment for Combustion Turbine – Simple Cycle
(2023 USD)
Case Configuration: 419 MW Net, 1 x H Class Simple Cycle

State City Base Project Cost ($/kW ) Location Variation Delta Cost Difference ($/kW) Total Location Project Cost ($/kW)
Alabama Huntsville 836 0.97 (22) 814
Arizona Phoenix 836 1.01 6 842
Arkansas Little Rock 836 0.98 (18) 818
California Bakersfield 836 1.14 115 951
California Los Angeles 836 1.16 133 969
California Modesto 836 1.16 132 968
California Sacramento 836 1.17 144 980
California San Francisco 836 1.28 234 1070
Colorado Denver 836 0.98 (17) 819
Connecticut Hartford 836 1.11 95 931
Delaware Dover 836 1.11 90 926
District of Columbia Washington 836 1.02 20 856
Florida Tallahassee 836 0.96 (37) 799
Florida Tampa 836 0.97 (28) 808
Georgia Atlanta 836 1.00 3 839
Idaho Boise 836 1.01 11 847
Illinois Chicago 836 1.20 169 1005
Indiana Indianapolis 836 1.00 (3) 833
Iowa Davenport 836 1.02 14 850
Iowa Waterloo 836 0.98 (16) 820
Kansas Wichita 836 0.98 (17) 819
Kentucky Louisville 836 1.00 (2) 834
Louisiana New Orleans 836 0.99 (5) 831
Maine Portland 836 1.01 9 845
Maryland Baltimore 836 1.01 8 844
Massachusetts Boston 836 1.18 151 987
Michigan Detroit 836 1.07 57 893
Michigan Grand Rapids 836 1.00 1 837
Minnesota Saint Paul 836 1.08 65 901
Mississippi Biloxi 836 0.96 (32) 804
Missouri St. Louis 836 1.08 65 901
Missouri Kansas City 836 1.04 35 871
Montana Great Falls 836 0.98 (13) 823
Nebraska Omaha 836 0.98 (16) 820
New Hampshire Manchester 836 1.02 20 856
New Jersey Newark 836 1.19 160 996
New Mexico Albuquerque 836 1.01 9 845
New York New York 836 1.36 297 1133
New York Syracuse 836 1.04 37 873
Nevada Las Vegas 836 1.10 86 922
North Carolina Charlotte 836 0.99 (12) 824
North Dakota Bismarck 836 1.02 13 849
Ohio Cincinnati 836 0.98 (17) 819
Oklahoma Oklahoma City 836 0.96 (30) 806
Oregon Portland 836 1.10 79 915
Pennsylvania Philadelphia 836 1.18 152 988
Pennsylvania Scranton 836 1.03 26 862
Rhode Island Providence 836 1.09 75 911
South Carolina Charleston 836 0.97 (25) 811
South Dakota Rapid City 836 0.99 (6) 830
Tennessee Nashville 836 1.00 (3) 833
Texas Houston 836 0.94 (53) 783
Utah Salt Lake City 836 0.99 (7) 829
Vermont Burlington 836 1.04 35 871
Virginia Alexandria 836 1.01 9 845
Virginia Roanoke 836 0.98 (14) 822
Washington Seattle 836 1.15 121 957
Washington Spokane 836 1.03 27 863
West Virginia Charleston 836 1.01 9 845
Wisconsin Green Bay 836 1.06 48 884
Wyoming Cheyenne 836 0.99 (8) 828
 Table 1‐5 — Location Adjustment for Combined-Cycle 2x2x1
(2023 USD)
Case Configuration: 1227 MW Net, 2 x 1 H Class Combined Cycle

State City Base Project Cost ($/kW ) Location Variation Delta Cost Difference ($/kW) Total Location Project Cost ($/kW)
Alabama Huntsville 868 0.97 (26) 842
Arizona Phoenix 868 1.01 8 876
Arkansas Little Rock 868 0.97 (22) 846
California Bakersfield 868 1.15 131 999
California Los Angeles 868 1.18 152 1020
California Modesto 868 1.17 151 1019
California Sacramento 868 1.19 164 1032
California San Francisco 868 1.31 268 1136
Colorado Denver 868 0.98 (20) 848
Connecticut Hartford 868 1.13 109 977
Delaware Dover 868 1.12 104 972
District of Columbia Washington 868 1.03 23 891
Florida Tallahassee 868 0.95 (42) 826
Florida Tampa 868 0.96 (32) 836
Georgia Atlanta 868 1.00 3 871
Idaho Boise 868 1.01 12 880
Illinois Chicago 868 1.22 194 1062
Indiana Indianapolis 868 1.00 (4) 864
Iowa Davenport 868 1.02 16 884
Iowa Waterloo 868 0.98 (18) 850
Kansas Wichita 868 0.98 (19) 849
Kentucky Louisville 868 1.00 (3) 865
Louisiana New Orleans 868 0.99 (7) 861
Maine Portland 868 1.01 10 878
Maryland Baltimore 868 1.01 10 878
Massachusetts Boston 868 1.20 173 1041
Michigan Detroit 868 1.08 66 934
Michigan Grand Rapids 868 1.00 2 870
Minnesota Saint Paul 868 1.09 76 944
Mississippi Biloxi 868 0.96 (36) 832
Missouri St. Louis 868 1.08 73 941
Missouri Kansas City 868 1.05 40 908
Montana Great Falls 868 0.98 (15) 853
Nebraska Omaha 868 0.98 (18) 850
New Hampshire Manchester 868 1.03 22 890
New Jersey Newark 868 1.21 184 1052
New Mexico Albuquerque 868 1.01 10 878
New York New York 868 1.39 341 1209
New York Syracuse 868 1.05 42 910
Nevada Las Vegas 868 1.11 97 965
North Carolina Charlotte 868 0.98 (14) 854
North Dakota Bismarck 868 1.02 16 884
Ohio Cincinnati 868 0.98 (20) 848
Oklahoma Oklahoma City 868 0.96 (34) 834
Oregon Portland 868 1.10 90 958
Pennsylvania Philadelphia 868 1.20 174 1042
Pennsylvania Scranton 868 1.04 30 898
Rhode Island Providence 868 1.10 85 953
South Carolina Charleston 868 0.96 (32) 836
South Dakota Rapid City 868 0.99 (6) 862
Tennessee Nashville 868 0.99 (5) 863
Texas Houston 868 0.93 (61) 807
Utah Salt Lake City 868 0.99 (9) 859
Vermont Burlington 868 1.04 37 905
Virginia Alexandria 868 1.01 10 878
Virginia Roanoke 868 0.98 (16) 852
Washington Seattle 868 1.16 138 1006
Washington Spokane 868 1.04 31 899
West Virginia Charleston 868 1.01 10 878
Wisconsin Green Bay 868 1.07 56 924
Wyoming Cheyenne 868 0.99 (9) 859
 Table 1‐6 — Location Adjustment for Combined-Cycle 1x1x1, Single Shaft
(2023 USD)
Case Configuration: 627 MW Net, 1 x 1 H Class Combined Cycle

State City Base Project Cost ($/kW ) Location Variation Delta Cost Difference ($/kW) Total Location Project Cost ($/kW)
Alabama Huntsville 921 0.97 (29) 892
Arizona Phoenix 921 1.01 10 931
Arkansas Little Rock 921 0.97 (27) 894
California Bakersfield 921 1.14 133 1054
California Los Angeles 921 1.17 156 1077
California Modesto 921 1.17 154 1075
California Sacramento 921 1.18 168 1089
California San Francisco 921 1.30 277 1198
Colorado Denver 921 0.98 (20) 901
Connecticut Hartford 921 1.12 113 1034
Delaware Dover 921 1.12 111 1032
District of Columbia Washington 921 1.03 24 945
Florida Tallahassee 921 0.95 (44) 877
Florida Tampa 921 0.96 (34) 887
Georgia Atlanta 921 1.00 1 922
Idaho Boise 921 1.01 12 933
Illinois Chicago 921 1.22 204 1125
Indiana Indianapolis 921 0.99 (6) 915
Iowa Davenport 921 1.02 18 939
Iowa Waterloo 921 0.98 (19) 902
Kansas Wichita 921 0.98 (20) 901
Kentucky Louisville 921 1.00 (5) 916
Louisiana New Orleans 921 0.99 (10) 911
Maine Portland 921 1.01 10 931
Maryland Baltimore 921 1.01 10 931
Massachusetts Boston 921 1.20 180 1101
Michigan Detroit 921 1.08 69 990
Michigan Grand Rapids 921 1.00 2 923
Minnesota Saint Paul 921 1.09 82 1003
Mississippi Biloxi 921 0.96 (37) 884
Missouri St. Louis 921 1.08 72 993
Missouri Kansas City 921 1.05 42 963
Montana Great Falls 921 0.98 (15) 906
Nebraska Omaha 921 0.98 (19) 902
New Hampshire Manchester 921 1.02 20 941
New Jersey Newark 921 1.21 193 1114
New Mexico Albuquerque 921 1.01 7 928
New York New York 921 1.39 356 1277
New York Syracuse 921 1.05 44 965
Nevada Las Vegas 921 1.11 98 1019
North Carolina Charlotte 921 0.98 (14) 907
North Dakota Bismarck 921 1.02 20 941
Ohio Cincinnati 921 0.98 (20) 901
Oklahoma Oklahoma City 921 0.96 (35) 886
Oregon Portland 921 1.10 91 1012
Pennsylvania Philadelphia 921 1.20 182 1103
Pennsylvania Scranton 921 1.03 32 953
Rhode Island Providence 921 1.10 88 1009
South Carolina Charleston 921 0.96 (41) 880
South Dakota Rapid City 921 1.00 (4) 917
Tennessee Nashville 921 0.99 (9) 912
Texas Houston 921 0.93 (64) 857
Utah Salt Lake City 921 0.99 (13) 908
Vermont Burlington 921 1.03 31 952
Virginia Alexandria 921 1.01 10 931
Virginia Roanoke 921 0.98 (16) 905
Washington Seattle 921 1.15 140 1061
Washington Spokane 921 1.03 31 952
West Virginia Charleston 921 1.01 11 932
Wisconsin Green Bay 921 1.07 62 983
Wyoming Cheyenne 921 0.99 (8) 913
 Table 1‐7 — Location Adjustment for Combined Cycle 1x1x1, Single Shaft 95% Carbon Capture
(2023 USD)
Case Configuration: 543 MW Net, 1 x 1 H Class Combined Cycle

State City Base Project Cost ($/kW ) Location Variation Delta Cost Difference ($/kW) Total Location Project Cost ($/kW)
Alabama Huntsville 2,365 0.96 (92) 2273
Arizona Phoenix 2,365 1.01 32 2397
Arkansas Little Rock 2,365 0.96 (90) 2275
California Bakersfield 2,365 1.18 417 2782
California Los Angeles 2,365 1.21 488 2853
California Modesto 2,365 1.20 481 2846
California Sacramento 2,365 1.22 526 2891
California San Francisco 2,365 1.37 870 3235
Colorado Denver 2,365 0.97 (60) 2305
Connecticut Hartford 2,365 1.15 357 2722
Delaware Dover 2,365 1.15 352 2717
District of Columbia Washington 2,365 1.03 75 2440
Florida Tallahassee 2,365 0.94 (138) 2227
Florida Tampa 2,365 0.95 (107) 2258
Georgia Atlanta 2,365 1.00 3 2368
Idaho Boise 2,365 1.02 37 2402
Illinois Chicago 2,365 1.27 643 3008
Indiana Indianapolis 2,365 0.99 (20) 2345
Iowa Davenport 2,365 1.02 56 2421
Iowa Waterloo 2,365 0.98 (58) 2307
Kansas Wichita 2,365 0.97 (61) 2304
Kentucky Louisville 2,365 0.99 (16) 2349
Louisiana New Orleans 2,365 0.99 (35) 2330
Maine Portland 2,365 1.01 32 2397
Maryland Baltimore 2,365 1.01 32 2397
Massachusetts Boston 2,365 1.24 566 2931
Michigan Detroit 2,365 1.09 219 2584
Michigan Grand Rapids 2,365 1.00 8 2373
Minnesota Saint Paul 2,365 1.11 262 2627
Mississippi Biloxi 2,365 0.95 (117) 2248
Missouri St. Louis 2,365 1.09 222 2587
Missouri Kansas City 2,365 1.06 135 2500
Montana Great Falls 2,365 0.98 (46) 2319
Nebraska Omaha 2,365 0.97 (60) 2305
New Hampshire Manchester 2,365 1.03 60 2425
New Jersey Newark 2,365 1.26 607 2972
New Mexico Albuquerque 2,365 1.01 18 2383
New York New York 2,365 1.47 1,123 3488
New York Syracuse 2,365 1.06 141 2506
Nevada Las Vegas 2,365 1.13 307 2672
North Carolina Charlotte 2,365 0.98 (45) 2320
North Dakota Bismarck 2,365 1.03 65 2430
Ohio Cincinnati 2,365 0.97 (61) 2304
Oklahoma Oklahoma City 2,365 0.95 (109) 2256
Oregon Portland 2,365 1.12 283 2648
Pennsylvania Philadelphia 2,365 1.24 573 2938
Pennsylvania Scranton 2,365 1.04 100 2465
Rhode Island Providence 2,365 1.12 275 2640
South Carolina Charleston 2,365 0.94 (140) 2225
South Dakota Rapid City 2,365 1.00 (8) 2357
Tennessee Nashville 2,365 0.99 (34) 2331
Texas Houston 2,365 0.91 (202) 2163
Utah Salt Lake City 2,365 0.98 (45) 2320
Vermont Burlington 2,365 1.04 89 2454
Virginia Alexandria 2,365 1.01 32 2397
Virginia Roanoke 2,365 0.98 (51) 2314
Washington Seattle 2,365 1.18 437 2802
Washington Spokane 2,365 1.04 95 2460
West Virginia Charleston 2,365 1.02 37 2402
Wisconsin Green Bay 2,365 1.08 199 2564
Wyoming Cheyenne 2,365 0.99 (22) 2343
 Table 1‐8 — Location Adjustment for Bio Energy 95% Carbon Capture
(2023 USD)
Case Configuration: 50 MW Net, 1 x 65.5 MW Gross Woody Biomass Bubbling Fluidized Bed

State City Base Project Cost ($/kW ) Location Variation Delta Cost Difference ($/kW) Total Location Project Cost ($/kW)
Alabama Huntsville 12,631 0.96 (527) 12104
Arizona Phoenix 12,631 1.01 161 12792
Arkansas Little Rock 12,631 0.96 (492) 12139
California Bakersfield 12,631 1.19 2,375 15006
California Los Angeles 12,631 1.23 2,903 15534
California Modesto 12,631 1.21 2,639 15270
California Sacramento 12,631 1.24 2,986 15617
California San Francisco 12,631 1.40 5,046 17677
Colorado Denver 12,631 0.98 (294) 12337
Connecticut Hartford 12,631 1.17 2,165 14796
Delaware Dover 12,631 1.16 1,961 14592
District of Columbia Washington 12,631 1.05 588 13219
Florida Tallahassee 12,631 0.94 (814) 11817
Florida Tampa 12,631 0.95 (686) 11945
Georgia Atlanta 12,631 1.00 (32) 12599
Idaho Boise 12,631 1.02 293 12924
Illinois Chicago 12,631 1.29 3,679 16310
Indiana Indianapolis 12,631 1.00 41 12672
Iowa Davenport 12,631 1.03 354 12985
Iowa Waterloo 12,631 0.99 (167) 12464
Kansas Wichita 12,631 0.99 (148) 12483
Kentucky Louisville 12,631 1.00 (50) 12581
Louisiana New Orleans 12,631 0.99 (152) 12479
Maine Portland 12,631 1.01 165 12796
Maryland Baltimore 12,631 1.03 386 13017
Massachusetts Boston 12,631 1.26 3,259 15890
Michigan Detroit 12,631 1.10 1,203 13834
Michigan Grand Rapids 12,631 1.01 93 12724
Minnesota Saint Paul 12,631 1.11 1,433 14064
Mississippi Biloxi 12,631 0.94 (725) 11906
Missouri St. Louis 12,631 1.11 1,450 14081
Missouri Kansas City 12,631 1.06 801 13432
Montana Great Falls 12,631 0.98 (256) 12375
Nebraska Omaha 12,631 0.99 (170) 12461
New Hampshire Manchester 12,631 1.04 471 13102
New Jersey Newark 12,631 1.27 3,456 16087
New Mexico Albuquerque 12,631 1.01 164 12795
New York New York 12,631 1.52 6,576 19207
New York Syracuse 12,631 1.07 858 13489
Nevada Las Vegas 12,631 1.13 1,695 14326
North Carolina Charlotte 12,631 0.98 (306) 12325
North Dakota Bismarck 12,631 1.03 365 12996
Ohio Cincinnati 12,631 0.97 (357) 12274
Oklahoma Oklahoma City 12,631 0.95 (664) 11967
Oregon Portland 12,631 1.13 1,700 14331
Pennsylvania Philadelphia 12,631 1.27 3,356 15987
Pennsylvania Scranton 12,631 1.06 776 13407
Rhode Island Providence 12,631 1.13 1,589 14220
South Carolina Charleston 12,631 0.94 (747) 11884
South Dakota Rapid City 12,631 0.99 (74) 12557
Tennessee Nashville 12,631 0.99 (178) 12453
Texas Houston 12,631 0.90 (1,202) 11429
Utah Salt Lake City 12,631 0.99 (184) 12447
Vermont Burlington 12,631 1.06 757 13388
Virginia Alexandria 12,631 1.02 310 12941
Virginia Roanoke 12,631 0.98 (262) 12369
Washington Seattle 12,631 1.20 2,499 15130
Washington Spokane 12,631 1.05 575 13206
West Virginia Charleston 12,631 1.01 171 12802
Wisconsin Green Bay 12,631 1.09 1,090 13721
Wyoming Cheyenne 12,631 0.99 (153) 12478
 Table 1‐9 — Location Adjustment for Advanced Nuclear (Brownfield)
(2023 USD)
Case Configuration: 2156 MW Net, 2 x AP1000

State City Base Project Cost ($/kW ) Location Variation Delta Cost Difference ($/kW) Total Location Project Cost ($/kW)
Alabama Huntsville 7,861 1.01 68 7929
Arizona Phoenix 7,861 1.00 (18) 7843
Arkansas Little Rock 7,861 1.04 328 8189
California Bakersfield 7,861 1.18 1,384 9245
California Los Angeles 7,861 1.19 1,499 9360
California Modesto 7,861 1.20 1,567 9428
California Sacramento 7,861 1.21 1,628 9489
California San Francisco 7,861 1.26 2,053 9914
Colorado Denver 7,861 0.98 (191) 7670
Connecticut Hartford 7,861 1.12 926 8787
Delaware Dover 7,861 1.06 488 8349
District of Columbia Washington 7,861 1.02 179 8040
Florida Tallahassee 7,861 0.97 (253) 7608
Florida Tampa 7,861 0.98 (129) 7732
Georgia Atlanta 7,861 1.04 287 8148
Idaho Boise 7,861 1.03 272 8133
Illinois Chicago 7,861 1.19 1,464 9325
Indiana Indianapolis 7,861 1.03 265 8126
Iowa Davenport 7,861 1.02 189 8050
Iowa Waterloo 7,861 0.99 (48) 7813
Kansas Wichita 7,861 0.99 (74) 7787
Kentucky Louisville 7,861 1.03 271 8132
Louisiana New Orleans 7,861 1.05 376 8237
Maine Portland 7,861 1.03 219 8080
Maryland Baltimore 7,861 1.02 169 8030
Massachusetts Boston 7,861 1.17 1,352 9213
Michigan Detroit 7,861 1.06 452 8313
Michigan Grand Rapids 7,861 1.01 49 7910
Minnesota Saint Paul 7,861 1.04 279 8140
Mississippi Biloxi 7,861 0.97 (241) 7620
Missouri St. Louis 7,861 1.14 1,099 8960
Missouri Kansas City 7,861 1.04 310 8171
Montana Great Falls 7,861 0.98 (134) 7727
Nebraska Omaha 7,861 0.99 (44) 7817
New Hampshire Manchester 7,861 1.07 581 8442
New Jersey Newark 7,861 1.17 1,344 9205
New Mexico Albuquerque 7,861 1.07 546 8407
New York New York 7,861 1.33 2,567 10428
New York Syracuse 7,861 1.04 304 8165
Nevada Las Vegas 7,861 1.14 1,118 8979
North Carolina Charlotte 7,861 0.99 (72) 7789
North Dakota Bismarck 7,861 0.99 (83) 7778
Ohio Cincinnati 7,861 0.98 (152) 7709
Oklahoma Oklahoma City 7,861 0.97 (248) 7613
Oregon Portland 7,861 1.13 1,013 8874
Pennsylvania Philadelphia 7,861 1.15 1,193 9054
Pennsylvania Scranton 7,861 1.04 300 8161
Rhode Island Providence 7,861 1.11 861 8722
South Carolina Charleston 7,861 1.09 728 8589
South Dakota Rapid City 7,861 0.97 (271) 7590
Tennessee Nashville 7,861 1.06 444 8305
Texas Houston 7,861 0.95 (371) 7490
Utah Salt Lake City 7,861 1.06 435 8296
Vermont Burlington 7,861 1.16 1,262 9123
Virginia Alexandria 7,861 1.01 105 7966
Virginia Roanoke 7,861 0.99 (97) 7764
Washington Seattle 7,861 1.17 1,344 9205
Washington Spokane 7,861 1.06 501 8362
West Virginia Charleston 7,861 1.01 76 7937
Wisconsin Green Bay 7,861 1.01 86 7947
Wyoming Cheyenne 7,861 0.98 (132) 7729
 Table 1‐10 — Location Adjustment for Small Modular Reactor Nuclear Power Plant
(2023 USD)
Case Configuration: 480 MW Net, 6 x 80 MW Small Modular Reactor

State City Base Project Cost ($/kW ) Location Variation Delta Cost Difference ($/kW) Total Location Project Cost ($/kW)
Alabama Huntsville 8,936 0.99 (76) 8860
Arizona Phoenix 8,936 1.01 60 8996
Arkansas Little Rock 8,936 1.00 26 8962
California Bakersfield 8,936 1.13 1,193 10129
California Los Angeles 8,936 1.15 1,305 10241
California Modesto 8,936 1.15 1,364 10300
California Sacramento 8,936 1.16 1,442 10378
California San Francisco 8,936 1.21 1,897 10833
Colorado Denver 8,936 0.98 (148) 8788
Connecticut Hartford 8,936 1.10 912 9848
Delaware Dover 8,936 1.07 668 9604
District of Columbia Washington 8,936 1.02 153 9089
Florida Tallahassee 8,936 0.97 (288) 8648
Florida Tampa 8,936 0.98 (190) 8746
Georgia Atlanta 8,936 1.02 157 9093
Idaho Boise 8,936 1.02 186 9122
Illinois Chicago 8,936 1.18 1,579 10515
Indiana Indianapolis 8,936 1.01 123 9059
Iowa Davenport 8,936 1.02 213 9149
Iowa Waterloo 8,936 0.99 (55) 8881
Kansas Wichita 8,936 0.99 (69) 8867
Kentucky Louisville 8,936 1.01 130 9066
Louisiana New Orleans 8,936 1.02 139 9075
Maine Portland 8,936 1.02 180 9116
Maryland Baltimore 8,936 1.02 143 9079
Massachusetts Boston 8,936 1.15 1,327 10263
Michigan Detroit 8,936 1.06 493 9429
Michigan Grand Rapids 8,936 1.01 62 8998
Minnesota Saint Paul 8,936 1.05 474 9410
Mississippi Biloxi 8,936 0.97 (252) 8684
Missouri St. Louis 8,936 1.09 792 9728
Missouri Kansas City 8,936 1.04 331 9267
Montana Great Falls 8,936 0.99 (105) 8831
Nebraska Omaha 8,936 0.99 (56) 8880
New Hampshire Manchester 8,936 1.04 368 9304
New Jersey Newark 8,936 1.15 1,383 10319
New Mexico Albuquerque 8,936 1.03 298 9234
New York New York 8,936 1.30 2,683 11619
New York Syracuse 8,936 1.04 326 9262
Nevada Las Vegas 8,936 1.10 905 9841
North Carolina Charlotte 8,936 0.99 (76) 8860
North Dakota Bismarck 8,936 1.01 92 9028
Ohio Cincinnati 8,936 0.99 (126) 8810
Oklahoma Oklahoma City 8,936 0.97 (246) 8690
Oregon Portland 8,936 1.09 794 9730
Pennsylvania Philadelphia 8,936 1.14 1,222 10158
Pennsylvania Scranton 8,936 1.03 302 9238
Rhode Island Providence 8,936 1.09 773 9709
South Carolina Charleston 8,936 1.02 143 9079
South Dakota Rapid City 8,936 0.99 (112) 8824
Tennessee Nashville 8,936 1.02 142 9078
Texas Houston 8,936 0.95 (423) 8513
Utah Salt Lake City 8,936 1.02 155 9091
Vermont Burlington 8,936 1.08 717 9653
Virginia Alexandria 8,936 1.01 75 9011
Virginia Roanoke 8,936 0.99 (98) 8838
Washington Seattle 8,936 1.12 1,104 10040
Washington Spokane 8,936 1.04 392 9328
West Virginia Charleston 8,936 1.01 98 9034
Wisconsin Green Bay 8,936 1.03 312 9248
Wyoming Cheyenne 8,936 0.99 (67) 8869
 Table 1‐11 — Location Adjustment for Geothermal
(2023 USD)
Case Configuration: 50 MW Net, Binary Cycle

State City Base Project Cost ($/kW ) Location Variation Delta Cost Difference ($/kW) Total Location Project Cost ($/kW)
Alabama Huntsville N/A N/A N/A N/A
Arizona Phoenix N/A N/A N/A N/A
Arkansas Little Rock N/A N/A N/A N/A
California Bakersfield 3,963 1.14 535 4,498
California Los Angeles 3,963 1.16 625 4,588
California Modesto 3,963 1.15 606 4,569
California Sacramento 3,963 1.17 656 4,619
California San Francisco 3,963 1.24 934 4,897
Colorado Denver N/A N/A N/A N/A
Connecticut Hartford N/A N/A N/A N/A
Delaware Dover N/A N/A N/A N/A
District of Columbia Washington N/A N/A N/A N/A
Florida Tallahassee N/A N/A N/A N/A
Florida Tampa N/A N/A N/A N/A
Georgia Atlanta N/A N/A N/A N/A
Idaho Boise 3,963 1.02 82 4,045
Illinois Chicago N/A N/A N/A N/A
Indiana Indianapolis N/A N/A N/A N/A
Iowa Davenport N/A N/A N/A N/A
Iowa Waterloo N/A N/A N/A N/A
Kansas Wichita N/A N/A N/A N/A
Kentucky Louisville N/A N/A N/A N/A
Louisiana New Orleans N/A N/A N/A N/A
Maine Portland N/A N/A N/A N/A
Maryland Baltimore N/A N/A N/A N/A
Massachusetts Boston N/A N/A N/A N/A
Michigan Detroit N/A N/A N/A N/A
Michigan Grand Rapids N/A N/A N/A N/A
Minnesota Saint Paul N/A N/A N/A N/A
Mississippi Biloxi N/A N/A N/A N/A
Missouri St. Louis N/A N/A N/A N/A
Missouri Kansas City N/A N/A N/A N/A
Montana Great Falls N/A N/A N/A N/A
Nebraska Omaha N/A N/A N/A N/A
New Hampshire Manchester N/A N/A N/A N/A
New Jersey Newark N/A N/A N/A N/A
New Mexico Albuquerque N/A N/A N/A N/A
New York New York N/A N/A N/A N/A
New York Syracuse N/A N/A N/A N/A
Nevada Las Vegas 3,963 1.10 395 4,358
North Carolina Charlotte N/A N/A N/A N/A
North Dakota Bismarck N/A N/A N/A N/A
Ohio Cincinnati N/A N/A N/A N/A
Oklahoma Oklahoma City N/A N/A N/A N/A
Oregon Portland 3,963 1.09 353 4,316
Pennsylvania Philadelphia N/A N/A N/A N/A
Pennsylvania Scranton N/A N/A N/A N/A
Rhode Island Providence N/A N/A N/A N/A
South Carolina Charleston N/A N/A N/A N/A
South Dakota Rapid City N/A N/A N/A N/A
Tennessee Nashville N/A N/A N/A N/A
Texas Houston N/A N/A N/A N/A
Utah Salt Lake City N/A N/A N/A N/A
Vermont Burlington N/A N/A N/A N/A
Virginia Alexandria N/A N/A N/A N/A
Virginia Roanoke N/A N/A N/A N/A
Washington Seattle 3,963 1.13 512 4,475
Washington Spokane 3,963 1.03 138 4,101
West Virginia Charleston N/A N/A N/A N/A
Wisconsin Green Bay N/A N/A N/A N/A
Wyoming Cheyenne N/A N/A N/A N/A
 Table 1‐12 — Location Adjustment for Hydroelectric Power Plant
(2023 USD)
Case Configuration: 100 MW Net, New Stream Reach Development

State City Base Project Cost ($/kW ) Location Variation Delta Cost Difference ($/kW) Total Location Project Cost ($/kW)
Alabama Huntsville N/A N/A N/A N/A
Arizona Phoenix N/A N/A N/A N/A
Arkansas Little Rock N/A N/A N/A N/A
California Bakersfield 7,073 1.18 1,254 8327
California Los Angeles 7,073 1.19 1,366 8439
California Modesto 7,073 1.20 1,428 8501
California Sacramento 7,073 1.21 1,498 8571
California San Francisco 7,073 1.27 1,937 9010
Colorado Denver 7,073 0.98 (162) 6911
Connecticut Hartford 7,073 1.13 904 7977
Delaware Dover N/A N/A N/A N/A
District of Columbia Washington N/A N/A N/A N/A
Florida Tallahassee N/A N/A N/A N/A
Florida Tampa N/A N/A N/A N/A
Georgia Atlanta N/A N/A N/A N/A
Idaho Boise 7,073 1.03 216 7289
Illinois Chicago N/A N/A N/A N/A
Indiana Indianapolis N/A N/A N/A N/A
Iowa Davenport N/A N/A N/A N/A
Iowa Waterloo N/A N/A N/A N/A
Kansas Wichita N/A N/A N/A N/A
Kentucky Louisville N/A N/A N/A N/A
Louisiana New Orleans N/A N/A N/A N/A
Maine Portland 7,073 1.03 192 7265
Maryland Baltimore N/A N/A N/A N/A
Massachusetts Boston N/A N/A N/A N/A
Michigan Detroit N/A N/A N/A N/A
Michigan Grand Rapids N/A N/A N/A N/A
Minnesota Saint Paul N/A N/A N/A N/A
Mississippi Biloxi N/A N/A N/A N/A
Missouri St. Louis 7,073 1.13 903 7976
Missouri Kansas City 7,073 1.04 318 7391
Montana Great Falls 7,073 0.98 (115) 6958
Nebraska Omaha N/A N/A N/A N/A
New Hampshire Manchester N/A N/A N/A N/A
New Jersey Newark N/A N/A N/A N/A
New Mexico Albuquerque N/A N/A N/A N/A
New York New York N/A N/A N/A N/A
New York Syracuse N/A N/A N/A N/A
Nevada Las Vegas 7,073 1.14 978 8051
North Carolina Charlotte N/A N/A N/A N/A
North Dakota Bismarck N/A N/A N/A N/A
Ohio Cincinnati 7,073 0.98 (134) 6939
Oklahoma Oklahoma City N/A N/A N/A N/A
Oregon Portland 7,073 1.12 870 7943
Pennsylvania Philadelphia N/A N/A N/A N/A
Pennsylvania Scranton N/A N/A N/A N/A
Rhode Island Providence N/A N/A N/A N/A
South Carolina Charleston N/A N/A N/A N/A
South Dakota Rapid City 7,073 0.98 (173) 6900
Tennessee Nashville N/A N/A N/A N/A
Texas Houston N/A N/A N/A N/A
Utah Salt Lake City N/A N/A N/A N/A
Vermont Burlington N/A N/A N/A N/A
Virginia Alexandria N/A N/A N/A N/A
Virginia Roanoke N/A N/A N/A N/A
Washington Seattle 7,073 1.17 1,186 8259
Washington Spokane 7,073 1.06 429 7502
West Virginia Charleston N/A N/A N/A N/A
Wisconsin Green Bay N/A N/A N/A N/A
Wyoming Cheyenne N/A N/A N/A N/A
 Table 1‐13 — Location Adjustment for Onshore Wind – Large Plant Footprint: Great Plains Region
(2023 USD)
Case Configuration: 200 MW Net, 200 MW | 2.82 MW WTG

State City Base Project Cost ($/kW ) Location Variation Delta Cost Difference ($/kW) Total Location Project Cost ($/kW)
Alabama Huntsville 1,489 0.99 (18) 1471
Arizona Phoenix 1,489 1.00 (8) 1481
Arkansas Little Rock 1,489 1.00 5 1494
California Bakersfield 1,489 1.15 218 1707
California Los Angeles 1,489 1.18 274 1763
California Modesto 1,489 1.16 244 1733
California Sacramento 1,489 1.18 268 1757
California San Francisco 1,489 1.28 420 1909
Colorado Denver 1,489 0.98 (31) 1458
Connecticut Hartford 1,489 1.11 167 1656
Delaware Dover 1,489 1.07 102 1591
District of Columbia Washington 1,489 1.03 38 1527
Florida Tallahassee 1,489 0.96 (54) 1435
Florida Tampa 1,489 0.97 (38) 1451
Georgia Atlanta 1,489 1.01 16 1505
Idaho Boise 1,489 1.02 34 1523
Illinois Chicago 1,489 1.20 304 1793
Indiana Indianapolis 1,489 1.02 26 1515
Iowa Davenport 1,489 1.02 24 1513
Iowa Waterloo 1,489 0.98 (24) 1465
Kansas Wichita 1,489 0.98 (27) 1462
Kentucky Louisville 1,489 1.01 12 1501
Louisiana New Orleans 1,489 1.02 23 1512
Maine Portland 1,489 1.01 17 1506
Maryland Baltimore 1,489 1.01 15 1504
Massachusetts Boston 1,489 1.18 273 1762
Michigan Detroit 1,489 1.06 92 1581
Michigan Grand Rapids 1,489 1.00 1 1490
Minnesota Saint Paul 1,489 1.07 104 1593
Mississippi Biloxi 1,489 0.97 (51) 1438
Missouri St. Louis 1,489 1.10 152 1641
Missouri Kansas City 1,489 1.04 60 1549
Montana Great Falls 1,489 0.98 (25) 1464
Nebraska Omaha 1,489 0.98 (26) 1463
New Hampshire Manchester 1,489 1.04 54 1543
New Jersey Newark 1,489 1.19 284 1773
New Mexico Albuquerque 1,489 1.02 33 1522
New York New York 1,489 1.34 501 1990
New York Syracuse 1,489 1.05 78 1567
Nevada Las Vegas 1,489 1.12 181 1670
North Carolina Charlotte 1,489 0.99 (21) 1468
North Dakota Bismarck 1,489 1.00 2 1491
Ohio Cincinnati 1,489 0.98 (34) 1455
Oklahoma Oklahoma City 1,489 0.97 (47) 1442
Oregon Portland 1,489 1.11 161 1650
Pennsylvania Philadelphia 1,489 1.18 265 1754
Pennsylvania Scranton 1,489 1.03 41 1530
Rhode Island Providence 1,489 1.09 140 1629
South Carolina Charleston 1,489 1.01 20 1509
South Dakota Rapid City 1,489 0.99 (21) 1468
Tennessee Nashville 1,489 1.02 23 1512
Texas Houston 1,489 0.95 (81) 1408
Utah Salt Lake City 1,489 1.01 14 1503
Vermont Burlington 1,489 1.07 105 1594
Virginia Alexandria 1,489 1.02 25 1514
Virginia Roanoke 1,489 0.98 (24) 1465
Washington Seattle 1,489 1.16 238 1727
Washington Spokane 1,489 1.04 56 1545
West Virginia Charleston 1,489 1.00 6 1495
Wisconsin Green Bay 1,489 1.05 76 1565
Wyoming Cheyenne 1,489 0.98 (26) 1463
 Table 1‐14 — Location Adjustment for Onshore Wind Repowering/Retrofit
(2023 USD)
Case Configuration: 150 MW Net, 150 MW | 1.5-1.62 MW WTG

State City Base Project Cost ($/kW ) Location Variation Delta Cost Difference ($/kW) Total Location Project Cost ($/kW)
Alabama Huntsville 1,386 1.00 (3) 1383
Arizona Phoenix 1,386 0.99 (9) 1377
Arkansas Little Rock 1,386 1.01 21 1407
California Bakersfield 1,386 1.11 148 1534
California Los Angeles 1,386 1.13 182 1568
California Modesto 1,386 1.12 165 1551
California Sacramento 1,386 1.13 179 1565
California San Francisco 1,386 1.20 271 1657
Colorado Denver 1,386 0.98 (22) 1364
Connecticut Hartford 1,386 1.08 106 1492
Delaware Dover 1,386 1.04 56 1442
District of Columbia Washington 1,386 1.02 25 1411
Florida Tallahassee 1,386 0.98 (32) 1354
Florida Tampa 1,386 0.99 (20) 1366
Georgia Atlanta 1,386 1.01 18 1404
Idaho Boise 1,386 1.02 27 1413
Illinois Chicago 1,386 1.13 186 1572
Indiana Indianapolis 1,386 1.02 24 1410
Iowa Davenport 1,386 1.01 15 1401
Iowa Waterloo 1,386 0.99 (15) 1371
Kansas Wichita 1,386 0.99 (17) 1369
Kentucky Louisville 1,386 1.01 16 1402
Louisiana New Orleans 1,386 1.02 28 1414
Maine Portland 1,386 1.01 13 1399
Maryland Baltimore 1,386 1.01 11 1397
Massachusetts Boston 1,386 1.12 173 1559
Michigan Detroit 1,386 1.04 56 1442
Michigan Grand Rapids 1,386 1.00 0 1386
Minnesota Saint Paul 1,386 1.04 55 1441
Mississippi Biloxi 1,386 0.98 (32) 1354
Missouri St. Louis 1,386 1.08 113 1499
Missouri Kansas City 1,386 1.03 37 1423
Montana Great Falls 1,386 0.99 (17) 1369
Nebraska Omaha 1,386 0.99 (16) 1370
New Hampshire Manchester 1,386 1.03 46 1432
New Jersey Newark 1,386 1.13 177 1563
New Mexico Albuquerque 1,386 1.03 35 1421
New York New York 1,386 1.22 310 1696
New York Syracuse 1,386 1.03 48 1434
Nevada Las Vegas 1,386 1.09 125 1511
North Carolina Charlotte 1,386 0.99 (13) 1373
North Dakota Bismarck 1,386 0.99 (8) 1378
Ohio Cincinnati 1,386 0.98 (22) 1364
Oklahoma Oklahoma City 1,386 0.98 (30) 1356
Oregon Portland 1,386 1.08 114 1500
Pennsylvania Philadelphia 1,386 1.12 165 1551
Pennsylvania Scranton 1,386 1.02 26 1412
Rhode Island Providence 1,386 1.07 93 1479
South Carolina Charleston 1,386 1.03 48 1434
South Dakota Rapid City 1,386 0.98 (22) 1364
Tennessee Nashville 1,386 1.02 32 1418
Texas Houston 1,386 0.97 (48) 1338
Utah Salt Lake City 1,386 1.02 25 1411
Vermont Burlington 1,386 1.07 97 1483
Virginia Alexandria 1,386 1.01 18 1404
Virginia Roanoke 1,386 0.99 (15) 1371
Washington Seattle 1,386 1.12 162 1548
Washington Spokane 1,386 1.03 42 1428
West Virginia Charleston 1,386 1.00 3 1389
Wisconsin Green Bay 1,386 1.03 36 1422
Wyoming Cheyenne 1,386 0.99 (20) 1366
 Table 1‐15 — Location Adjustment for Fixed-bottom Offshore Wind:
Monopile Foundations
Case Configuration: 900 MW Net, 900 MW | 15 MW WTG

State City Base Project Cost ($/kW ) Location Variation Delta Cost Difference ($/kW) Total Location Project Cost ($/kW)
Alabama Huntsville N/A N/A N/A N/A
Arizona Phoenix N/A N/A N/A N/A
Arkansas Little Rock N/A N/A N/A N/A
California Bakersfield 3,689 1.15 542 4231
California Los Angeles 3,689 1.18 674 4363
California Modesto 3,689 1.16 606 4295
California Sacramento 3,689 1.18 660 4349
California San Francisco 3,689 1.27 1,012 4701
Colorado Denver N/A N/A N/A N/A
Connecticut Hartford 3,689 1.11 397 4086
Delaware Dover 3,689 1.06 218 3907
District of Columbia Washington N/A N/A N/A N/A
Florida Tallahassee N/A N/A N/A N/A
Florida Tampa N/A N/A N/A N/A
Georgia Atlanta 3,689 1.02 57 3746
Idaho Boise N/A N/A N/A N/A
Illinois Chicago 3,689 1.19 703 4392
Indiana Indianapolis N/A N/A N/A N/A
Iowa Davenport N/A N/A N/A N/A
Iowa Waterloo N/A N/A N/A N/A
Kansas Wichita N/A N/A N/A N/A
Kentucky Louisville N/A N/A N/A N/A
Louisiana New Orleans N/A N/A N/A N/A
Maine Portland 3,689 1.01 47 3736
Maryland Baltimore 3,689 1.01 41 3730
Massachusetts Boston 3,689 1.18 647 4336
Michigan Detroit 3,689 1.06 212 3901
Michigan Grand Rapids 3,689 1.00 1 3690
Minnesota Saint Paul 3,689 1.06 218 3907
Mississippi Biloxi N/A N/A N/A N/A
Missouri St. Louis N/A N/A N/A N/A
Missouri Kansas City N/A N/A N/A N/A
Montana Great Falls N/A N/A N/A N/A
Nebraska Omaha N/A N/A N/A N/A
New Hampshire Manchester N/A N/A N/A N/A
New Jersey Newark 3,689 1.18 664 4353
New Mexico Albuquerque N/A N/A N/A N/A
New York New York 3,689 1.32 1,168 4857
New York Syracuse 3,689 1.05 181 3870
Nevada Las Vegas N/A N/A N/A N/A
North Carolina Charlotte 3,689 0.99 (48) 3641
North Dakota Bismarck N/A N/A N/A N/A
Ohio Cincinnati N/A N/A N/A N/A
Oklahoma Oklahoma City N/A N/A N/A N/A
Oregon Portland 3,689 1.11 412 4101
Pennsylvania Philadelphia N/A N/A N/A N/A
Pennsylvania Scranton N/A N/A N/A N/A
Rhode Island Providence 3,689 1.09 344 4033
South Carolina Charleston 3,689 1.04 134 3823
South Dakota Rapid City N/A N/A N/A N/A
Tennessee Nashville N/A N/A N/A N/A
Texas Houston 3,689 0.95 (185) 3504
Utah Salt Lake City N/A N/A N/A N/A
Vermont Burlington N/A N/A N/A N/A
Virginia Alexandria 3,689 1.02 64 3753
Virginia Roanoke 3,689 0.98 (56) 3633
Washington Seattle 3,689 1.16 595 4284
Washington Spokane 3,689 1.04 150 3839
West Virginia Charleston N/A N/A N/A N/A
Wisconsin Green Bay 3,689 1.04 147 3836
Wyoming Cheyenne N/A N/A N/A N/A
 Table 1‐16 — Location Adjustment for Solar PV w/ Single Axis Tracking
(2023 USD)
Case Configuration: 150 MW Net, 150 MWAC

State City Base Project Cost ($/kW ) Location Variation Delta Cost Difference ($/kW) Total Location Project Cost ($/kW)
Alabama Huntsville 1,502 0.98 (22) 1480
Arizona Phoenix 1,502 1.01 11 1513
Arkansas Little Rock 1,502 0.99 (20) 1482
California Bakersfield 1,502 1.09 136 1638
California Los Angeles 1,502 1.10 150 1652
California Modesto 1,502 1.10 155 1657
California Sacramento 1,502 1.11 165 1667
California San Francisco 1,502 1.16 247 1749
Colorado Denver 1,502 0.99 (18) 1484
Connecticut Hartford 1,502 1.07 112 1614
Delaware Dover 1,502 1.07 104 1606
District of Columbia Washington 1,502 1.01 19 1521
Florida Tallahassee 1,502 0.97 (40) 1462
Florida Tampa 1,502 0.98 (29) 1473
Georgia Atlanta 1,502 1.00 7 1509
Idaho Boise 1,502 1.01 14 1516
Illinois Chicago 1,502 1.13 201 1703
Indiana Indianapolis 1,502 1.00 (2) 1500
Iowa Davenport 1,502 1.01 23 1525
Iowa Waterloo 1,502 0.99 (15) 1487
Kansas Wichita 1,502 0.99 (15) 1487
Kentucky Louisville 1,502 1.00 2 1504
Louisiana New Orleans 1,502 1.00 (3) 1499
Maine Portland 1,502 1.01 14 1516
Maryland Baltimore 1,502 1.01 11 1513
Massachusetts Boston 1,502 1.11 171 1673
Michigan Detroit 1,502 1.04 65 1567
Michigan Grand Rapids 1,502 1.00 4 1506
Minnesota Saint Paul 1,502 1.05 77 1579
Mississippi Biloxi 1,502 0.98 (33) 1469
Missouri St. Louis 1,502 1.05 74 1576
Missouri Kansas City 1,502 1.03 42 1544
Montana Great Falls 1,502 0.99 (12) 1490
Nebraska Omaha 1,502 0.99 (15) 1487
New Hampshire Manchester 1,502 1.02 24 1526
New Jersey Newark 1,502 1.12 181 1683
New Mexico Albuquerque 1,502 1.01 14 1516
New York New York 1,502 1.23 341 1843
New York Syracuse 1,502 1.03 42 1544
Nevada Las Vegas 1,502 1.07 101 1603
North Carolina Charlotte 1,502 0.99 (12) 1490
North Dakota Bismarck 1,502 1.01 21 1523
Ohio Cincinnati 1,502 0.99 (16) 1486
Oklahoma Oklahoma City 1,502 0.98 (32) 1470
Oregon Portland 1,502 1.06 87 1589
Pennsylvania Philadelphia 1,502 1.11 165 1667
Pennsylvania Scranton 1,502 1.02 32 1534
Rhode Island Providence 1,502 1.06 89 1591
South Carolina Charleston 1,502 0.98 (28) 1474
South Dakota Rapid City 1,502 1.00 (4) 1498
Tennessee Nashville 1,502 1.00 (3) 1499
Texas Houston 1,502 0.96 (58) 1444
Utah Salt Lake City 1,502 1.00 (5) 1497
Vermont Burlington 1,502 1.03 41 1543
Virginia Alexandria 1,502 1.00 7 1509
Virginia Roanoke 1,502 0.99 (14) 1488
Washington Seattle 1,502 1.09 132 1634
Washington Spokane 1,502 1.02 35 1537
West Virginia Charleston 1,502 1.01 13 1515
Wisconsin Green Bay 1,502 1.04 55 1557
Wyoming Cheyenne 1,502 1.00 (6) 1496
 Table 1‐17 — Location Adjustment for Solar PV w/ Single Axis Tracking + AC Coupled Battery Storage
(2023 USD)
Case Configuration: 150 MW Net, 150 MWAC Solar
50 MW | 200 MWh Storage

State City Base Project Cost ($/kW ) Location Variation Delta Cost Difference ($/kW) Total Location Project Cost ($/kW)
Alabama Huntsville 2,175 0.99 (18) 2157
Arizona Phoenix 2,175 1.00 8 2183
Arkansas Little Rock 2,175 1.00 (2) 2173
California Bakersfield 2,175 1.09 191 2366
California Los Angeles 2,175 1.10 209 2384
California Modesto 2,175 1.10 216 2391
California Sacramento 2,175 1.10 227 2402
California San Francisco 2,175 1.15 331 2506
Colorado Denver 2,175 0.99 (27) 2148
Connecticut Hartford 2,175 1.07 146 2321
Delaware Dover 2,175 1.06 120 2295
District of Columbia Washington 2,175 1.01 27 2202
Florida Tallahassee 2,175 0.98 (49) 2126
Florida Tampa 2,175 0.98 (33) 2142
Georgia Atlanta 2,175 1.01 19 2194
Idaho Boise 2,175 1.01 26 2201
Illinois Chicago 2,175 1.12 251 2426
Indiana Indianapolis 2,175 1.00 9 2184
Iowa Davenport 2,175 1.01 27 2202
Iowa Waterloo 2,175 0.99 (19) 2156
Kansas Wichita 2,175 0.99 (20) 2155
Kentucky Louisville 2,175 1.01 13 2188
Louisiana New Orleans 2,175 1.01 15 2190
Maine Portland 2,175 1.01 21 2196
Maryland Baltimore 2,175 1.01 17 2192
Massachusetts Boston 2,175 1.10 222 2397
Michigan Detroit 2,175 1.04 82 2257
Michigan Grand Rapids 2,175 1.00 4 2179
Minnesota Saint Paul 2,175 1.04 84 2259
Mississippi Biloxi 2,175 0.98 (42) 2133
Missouri St. Louis 2,175 1.06 120 2295
Missouri Kansas City 2,175 1.02 53 2228
Montana Great Falls 2,175 0.99 (19) 2156
Nebraska Omaha 2,175 0.99 (18) 2157
New Hampshire Manchester 2,175 1.02 48 2223
New Jersey Newark 2,175 1.11 231 2406
New Mexico Albuquerque 2,175 1.02 37 2212
New York New York 2,175 1.20 433 2608
New York Syracuse 2,175 1.02 53 2228
Nevada Las Vegas 2,175 1.07 147 2322
North Carolina Charlotte 2,175 0.99 (15) 2160
North Dakota Bismarck 2,175 1.01 13 2188
Ohio Cincinnati 2,175 0.99 (23) 2152
Oklahoma Oklahoma City 2,175 0.98 (41) 2134
Oregon Portland 2,175 1.06 130 2305
Pennsylvania Philadelphia 2,175 1.10 211 2386
Pennsylvania Scranton 2,175 1.02 42 2217
Rhode Island Providence 2,175 1.06 122 2297
South Carolina Charleston 2,175 1.01 11 2186
South Dakota Rapid City 2,175 0.99 (18) 2157
Tennessee Nashville 2,175 1.01 20 2195
Texas Houston 2,175 0.97 (71) 2104
Utah Salt Lake City 2,175 1.01 15 2190
Vermont Burlington 2,175 1.04 97 2272
Virginia Alexandria 2,175 1.01 12 2187
Virginia Roanoke 2,175 0.99 (18) 2157
Washington Seattle 2,175 1.09 188 2363
Washington Spokane 2,175 1.02 54 2229
West Virginia Charleston 2,175 1.01 15 2190
Wisconsin Green Bay 2,175 1.02 54 2229
Wyoming Cheyenne 2,175 0.99 (13) 2162
 Table 1‐18 — Location Adjustment for Solar Photovoltaic, Single-Axis Tracking (with 1.6 Inverter Loading Ratio) with Battery Hybrid
(2023 USD)
Case Configuration: 150 MW PV DC Coupled to 50 MW/200 MWh BESS

State City Base Project Cost ($/kW ) Location Variation Delta Cost Difference ($/kW) Total Location Project Cost ($/kW)
Alabama Huntsville 2,561 0.99 (23) 2538
Arizona Phoenix 2,561 1.00 9 2570
Arkansas Little Rock 2,561 1.00 (4) 2557
California Bakersfield 2,561 1.09 230 2791
California Los Angeles 2,561 1.10 252 2813
California Modesto 2,561 1.10 261 2822
California Sacramento 2,561 1.11 274 2835
California San Francisco 2,561 1.16 400 2961
Colorado Denver 2,561 0.99 (34) 2527
Connecticut Hartford 2,561 1.07 177 2738
Delaware Dover 2,561 1.06 146 2707
District of Columbia Washington 2,561 1.01 31 2592
Florida Tallahassee 2,561 0.98 (60) 2501
Florida Tampa 2,561 0.98 (41) 2520
Georgia Atlanta 2,561 1.01 22 2583
Idaho Boise 2,561 1.01 30 2591
Illinois Chicago 2,561 1.12 305 2866
Indiana Indianapolis 2,561 1.00 9 2570
Iowa Davenport 2,561 1.01 33 2594
Iowa Waterloo 2,561 0.99 (23) 2538
Kansas Wichita 2,561 0.99 (25) 2536
Kentucky Louisville 2,561 1.01 15 2576
Louisiana New Orleans 2,561 1.01 16 2577
Maine Portland 2,561 1.01 25 2586
Maryland Baltimore 2,561 1.01 19 2580
Massachusetts Boston 2,561 1.11 269 2830
Michigan Detroit 2,561 1.04 98 2659
Michigan Grand Rapids 2,561 1.00 4 2565
Minnesota Saint Paul 2,561 1.04 102 2663
Mississippi Biloxi 2,561 0.98 (52) 2509
Missouri St. Louis 2,561 1.06 144 2705
Missouri Kansas City 2,561 1.02 63 2624
Montana Great Falls 2,561 0.99 (23) 2538
Nebraska Omaha 2,561 0.99 (23) 2538
New Hampshire Manchester 2,561 1.02 57 2618
New Jersey Newark 2,561 1.11 280 2841
New Mexico Albuquerque 2,561 1.02 43 2604
New York New York 2,561 1.21 526 3087
New York Syracuse 2,561 1.03 64 2625
Nevada Las Vegas 2,561 1.07 177 2738
North Carolina Charlotte 2,561 0.99 (19) 2542
North Dakota Bismarck 2,561 1.01 16 2577
Ohio Cincinnati 2,561 0.99 (29) 2532
Oklahoma Oklahoma City 2,561 0.98 (51) 2510
Oregon Portland 2,561 1.06 156 2717
Pennsylvania Philadelphia 2,561 1.10 256 2817
Pennsylvania Scranton 2,561 1.02 50 2611
Rhode Island Providence 2,561 1.06 147 2708
South Carolina Charleston 2,561 1.00 10 2571
South Dakota Rapid City 2,561 0.99 (22) 2539
Tennessee Nashville 2,561 1.01 22 2583
Texas Houston 2,561 0.97 (87) 2474
Utah Salt Lake City 2,561 1.01 17 2578
Vermont Burlington 2,561 1.04 114 2675
Virginia Alexandria 2,561 1.01 13 2574
Virginia Roanoke 2,561 0.99 (23) 2538
Washington Seattle 2,561 1.09 227 2788
Washington Spokane 2,561 1.03 65 2626
West Virginia Charleston 2,561 1.01 18 2579
Wisconsin Green Bay 2,561 1.03 65 2626
Wyoming Cheyenne 2,561 0.99 (16) 2545
 Table 1‐19 — Location Adjustment for Battery Storage: 4 hours
(2023 USD)
Case Configuration: 150 MW / 600 MWh

State City Base Project Cost ($/kW ) Location Variation Delta Cost Difference ($/kW) Total Location Project Cost ($/kW)
Alabama Huntsville 1,744 1.01 21 1765
Arizona Phoenix 1,744 0.99 (17) 1727
Arkansas Little Rock 1,744 1.03 58 1802
California Bakersfield 1,744 1.07 126 1870
California Los Angeles 1,744 1.09 149 1893
California Modesto 1,744 1.07 130 1874
California Sacramento 1,744 1.08 136 1880
California San Francisco 1,744 1.11 187 1931
Colorado Denver 1,744 0.99 (18) 1726
Connecticut Hartford 1,744 1.05 83 1827
Delaware Dover 1,744 1.01 22 1766
District of Columbia Washington 1,744 1.01 24 1768
Florida Tallahassee 1,744 0.99 (15) 1729
Florida Tampa 1,744 1.00 (4) 1740
Georgia Atlanta 1,744 1.02 34 1778
Idaho Boise 1,744 1.02 31 1775
Illinois Chicago 1,744 1.07 121 1865
Indiana Indianapolis 1,744 1.02 37 1781
Iowa Davenport 1,744 1.01 13 1757
Iowa Waterloo 1,744 1.00 (5) 1739
Kansas Wichita 1,744 1.00 (4) 1740
Kentucky Louisville 1,744 1.02 35 1779
Louisiana New Orleans 1,744 1.03 56 1800
Maine Portland 1,744 1.01 19 1763
Maryland Baltimore 1,744 1.01 19 1763
Massachusetts Boston 1,744 1.07 123 1867
Michigan Detroit 1,744 1.02 32 1776
Michigan Grand Rapids 1,744 1.00 1 1745
Minnesota Saint Paul 1,744 1.01 15 1759
Mississippi Biloxi 1,744 0.99 (17) 1727
Missouri St. Louis 1,744 1.07 121 1865
Missouri Kansas City 1,744 1.01 25 1769
Montana Great Falls 1,744 0.99 (13) 1731
Nebraska Omaha 1,744 1.00 (4) 1740
New Hampshire Manchester 1,744 1.03 60 1804
New Jersey Newark 1,744 1.06 112 1856
New Mexico Albuquerque 1,744 1.03 61 1805
New York New York 1,744 1.12 204 1948
New York Syracuse 1,744 1.02 34 1778
Nevada Las Vegas 1,744 1.07 116 1860
North Carolina Charlotte 1,744 1.00 (5) 1739
North Dakota Bismarck 1,744 0.99 (22) 1722
Ohio Cincinnati 1,744 0.99 (17) 1727
Oklahoma Oklahoma City 1,744 0.99 (19) 1725
Oregon Portland 1,744 1.06 107 1851
Pennsylvania Philadelphia 1,744 1.06 105 1849
Pennsylvania Scranton 1,744 1.01 23 1767
Rhode Island Providence 1,744 1.04 75 1819
South Carolina Charleston 1,744 1.07 119 1863
South Dakota Rapid City 1,744 0.98 (35) 1709
Tennessee Nashville 1,744 1.04 66 1810
Texas Houston 1,744 0.99 (23) 1721
Utah Salt Lake City 1,744 1.03 60 1804
Vermont Burlington 1,744 1.08 143 1887
Virginia Alexandria 1,744 1.01 21 1765
Virginia Roanoke 1,744 1.00 (8) 1736
Washington Seattle 1,744 1.08 138 1882
Washington Spokane 1,744 1.03 44 1788
West Virginia Charleston 1,744 1.00 (1) 1743
Wisconsin Green Bay 1,744 0.99 (8) 1736
Wyoming Cheyenne 1,744 0.99 (22) 1722
 SL-018001
U.S. Energy Information Administration and Z Federal Final – Rev A
Project 14987.001 December 6, 2023

APPENDIX B. COMBUSTION TURBINE CAPACITY

ADJUSTMENTS

Capital Cost and Performance Characteristic Estimates for Utility Scale Electric
Power Generating Technologies
 Gas Turbine Based Capacity and Heat Rate Adjustments
LOCATION Adjustment Basis Simple Cycle Combined Cyle 4 x LM6000PF+ 1 x 7HA.03 2 x 7HA.03 WCT 2 x 7HA.03 ACC 1 x 9000HL WCT 1 x 9000HL ACC
State City ASHRAE Station Alt (ft) Ave T (F) MW adj SC HR adj SC MW adj CC HR adj CC MW net HR net MW net HR net MW net HR net MW net HR net MW net HR net MW net HR net
ISO ISO ‐ 0 59.0 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 210.7 8,511 419.4 8,236 1,227.3 5,660 1,211.5 5,734 626.7 5,645 616.2 5,742
Alabama Huntsville 723230 624 62.2 96.6% 100.3% 97.0% 100.3% 203.5 8,538 405.0 8,262 1,190.9 5,676 1,175.6 5,750 608.2 5,661 597.9 5,758
Arizona Phoenix 722780 1,107 75.5 89.8% 101.7% 92.2% 101.0% 189.2 8,651 376.6 8,372 1,131.1 5,719 1,116.6 5,794 577.6 5,705 567.9 5,802
Arkansas Little Rock 723400 563 61.7 97.0% 100.3% 97.4% 100.2% 204.3 8,534 406.7 8,258 1,195.0 5,674 1,179.7 5,748 610.2 5,659 600.0 5,756
California Los Angeles 722950 97 63.4 97.9% 100.4% 98.6% 100.2% 206.3 8,548 410.6 8,272 1,209.7 5,673 1,194.1 5,747 617.7 5,659 607.4 5,756
California Bakersfield 723840 489 66.2 95.5% 100.7% 96.5% 100.5% 201.2 8,572 400.4 8,295 1,184.6 5,686 1,169.4 5,760 604.9 5,671 594.8 5,768
California Sacramento 724839 23 61.9 98.8% 100.3% 99.2% 100.1% 208.1 8,536 414.2 8,260 1,217.4 5,668 1,201.8 5,742 621.7 5,654 611.2 5,750
California Modesto 724926 73 63.4 98.0% 100.4% 98.6% 100.2% 206.5 8,548 411.0 8,272 1,210.7 5,673 1,195.2 5,747 618.3 5,659 607.9 5,755
California San Francisco 724940 8 58.3 100.3% 99.9% 100.1% 100.0% 211.3 8,505 420.5 8,230 1,229.1 5,658 1,213.3 5,732 627.7 5,643 617.1 5,740
California Redding 725920 497 63.2 96.6% 100.4% 97.2% 100.3% 203.6 8,547 405.2 8,271 1,193.3 5,677 1,178.0 5,751 609.4 5,663 599.1 5,760
Colorado Denver 725650 5,414 51.2 83.6% 99.2% 82.6% 100.7% 176.1 8,444 350.5 8,172 1,014.1 5,699 1,001.1 5,773 517.9 5,684 509.2 5,781
Connecticut Hartford 725087 19 52.5 102.5% 99.4% 101.6% 99.7% 216.1 8,456 430.0 8,182 1,246.4 5,642 1,230.4 5,715 636.5 5,627 625.8 5,723
DC Washington 745940 282 56.7 99.9% 99.8% 99.6% 99.9% 210.6 8,491 419.1 8,217 1,222.2 5,657 1,206.5 5,730 624.1 5,642 613.6 5,739
Delaware Dover 724088 28 56.3 101.0% 99.7% 100.6% 99.9% 212.8 8,488 423.5 8,214 1,234.4 5,653 1,218.5 5,726 630.4 5,638 619.8 5,734
Florida Tampa 722110 19 73.9 94.0% 101.5% 96.2% 100.7% 198.0 8,638 394.2 8,359 1,180.8 5,702 1,165.6 5,776 603.0 5,688 592.9 5,785
Florida Tallahassee 722140 55 68.6 96.0% 101.0% 97.4% 100.5% 202.2 8,593 402.5 8,315 1,195.5 5,688 1,180.2 5,762 610.5 5,673 600.3 5,770
Georgia Atlanta 722190 1,027 63.3 94.7% 100.4% 95.4% 100.4% 199.7 8,547 397.4 8,271 1,170.5 5,684 1,155.4 5,758 597.7 5,669 587.7 5,766
Idaho Boise 726810 2,814 53.4 92.2% 99.4% 91.4% 100.3% 194.2 8,463 386.6 8,190 1,121.9 5,676 1,107.5 5,750 572.9 5,661 563.3 5,758
Illinois Chicago 997338 663 50.1 101.2% 99.1% 99.9% 99.7% 213.2 8,435 424.3 8,163 1,225.5 5,642 1,209.8 5,716 625.8 5,628 615.3 5,724
Indiana Indianapolis 724380 790 53.9 99.2% 99.5% 98.5% 99.9% 209.1 8,467 416.1 8,194 1,208.6 5,654 1,193.1 5,728 617.2 5,640 606.8 5,736
Iowa Davenport 725349 753 49.7 101.0% 99.1% 99.6% 99.7% 212.8 8,432 423.5 8,159 1,222.7 5,642 1,207.0 5,715 624.4 5,628 613.9 5,724
Iowa Waterloo 725480 686 48.0 101.9% 98.9% 100.3% 99.6% 214.7 8,417 427.4 8,145 1,230.8 5,637 1,215.0 5,710 628.5 5,622 617.9 5,718
Kansas Wichita 724500 1,321 57.9 95.8% 99.9% 95.6% 100.2% 201.9 8,501 401.8 8,227 1,173.8 5,672 1,158.7 5,746 599.4 5,657 589.3 5,754
Kentucky Louisville 724230 488 58.6 98.4% 100.0% 98.4% 100.1% 207.5 8,507 412.9 8,233 1,207.5 5,664 1,192.0 5,738 616.7 5,650 606.3 5,746
Louisiana New Orleans 722316 2 69.1 96.0% 101.0% 97.5% 100.5% 202.2 8,597 402.4 8,319 1,196.2 5,689 1,180.9 5,763 610.9 5,674 600.6 5,771
Maine Portland 726060 45 47.2 104.6% 98.8% 102.8% 99.4% 220.3 8,410 438.5 8,139 1,261.5 5,627 1,245.3 5,700 644.2 5,613 633.4 5,709
Maryland Baltimore 724060 56 56.3 100.9% 99.7% 100.5% 99.9% 212.6 8,488 423.1 8,214 1,233.2 5,653 1,217.3 5,726 629.7 5,638 619.1 5,735
Massachusetts Boston 725090 12 52.2 102.7% 99.3% 101.7% 99.7% 216.4 8,453 430.6 8,180 1,247.6 5,641 1,231.6 5,714 637.1 5,626 626.4 5,722
Michigan Detroit 725375 626 51.1 100.9% 99.2% 99.7% 99.7% 212.6 8,444 423.2 8,171 1,224.1 5,645 1,208.4 5,718 625.1 5,630 614.6 5,726
Michigan Grand Rapids 726350 803 49.1 101.0% 99.0% 99.6% 99.7% 212.9 8,427 423.8 8,154 1,222.3 5,641 1,206.6 5,714 624.2 5,626 613.7 5,723
Minnesota Saint Paul 726584 700 46.9 102.3% 98.8% 100.5% 99.5% 215.5 8,408 428.9 8,136 1,233.4 5,634 1,217.6 5,707 629.9 5,619 619.3 5,715
Mississippi Jackson 722350 330 65.5 96.3% 100.7% 97.2% 100.4% 202.9 8,566 403.8 8,290 1,193.4 5,682 1,178.1 5,756 609.4 5,667 599.2 5,764
Missouri St. Louis 724340 531 57.8 98.6% 99.9% 98.4% 100.0% 207.8 8,501 413.6 8,226 1,208.1 5,663 1,192.6 5,736 616.9 5,648 606.6 5,745
Missouri Kansas City 724463 742 57.4 98.0% 99.8% 97.8% 100.1% 206.6 8,497 411.1 8,223 1,200.2 5,664 1,184.8 5,737 612.9 5,649 602.6 5,746
Montana Great Falls 727750 3,364 45.2 93.1% 98.6% 91.3% 100.0% 196.2 8,393 390.5 8,122 1,120.2 5,659 1,105.8 5,732 572.0 5,644 562.4 5,741
Nebraska Omaha 725530 1,332 51.6 98.2% 99.3% 97.1% 99.9% 206.8 8,448 411.7 8,175 1,191.7 5,654 1,176.4 5,728 608.6 5,639 598.3 5,736
Nevada Las Vegas 724846 2,203 69.4 88.5% 101.0% 89.9% 101.0% 186.4 8,599 371.0 8,322 1,103.2 5,714 1,089.1 5,789 563.4 5,700 553.9 5,797
New Hampshire Concord 726050 346 47.2 103.5% 98.8% 101.7% 99.5% 218.0 8,410 433.9 8,139 1,248.2 5,630 1,232.2 5,704 637.4 5,616 626.7 5,712
New Jersey Newark 725020 7 55.8 101.3% 99.7% 100.8% 99.8% 213.4 8,484 424.7 8,210 1,236.8 5,651 1,220.9 5,724 631.6 5,636 621.0 5,733
New Mexico Albuquerque 723650 5,310 58.5 81.6% 100.0% 81.5% 101.0% 171.9 8,507 342.1 8,232 1,000.5 5,719 987.6 5,793 510.9 5,704 502.3 5,801
New York New York 725053 130 55.3 101.0% 99.6% 100.5% 99.8% 212.9 8,479 423.7 8,206 1,233.0 5,651 1,217.2 5,724 629.7 5,636 619.1 5,733
New York Syracuse 725190 413 48.9 102.5% 99.0% 101.0% 99.6% 216.1 8,425 430.0 8,153 1,240.1 5,636 1,224.2 5,709 633.3 5,621 622.6 5,718
North Carolina Charlotte 723140 728 61.5 96.5% 100.3% 96.8% 100.3% 203.3 8,532 404.6 8,257 1,188.6 5,675 1,173.3 5,749 607.0 5,661 596.8 5,757
North Carolina Asheville 723150 2,117 56.5 93.5% 99.8% 93.2% 100.3% 197.1 8,490 392.2 8,215 1,143.5 5,677 1,128.8 5,751 583.9 5,662 574.1 5,759
North Dakota Bismarck 727640 1,651 43.5 100.1% 98.5% 97.9% 99.6% 210.9 8,379 419.7 8,108 1,201.2 5,635 1,185.8 5,708 613.4 5,620 603.1 5,716
Ohio Cincinnati 724297 490 55.0 99.9% 99.6% 99.3% 99.9% 210.4 8,477 418.8 8,203 1,218.3 5,654 1,202.7 5,728 622.2 5,640 611.7 5,736
 Gas Turbine Based Capacity and Heat Rate Adjustments
LOCATION Adjustment Basis Simple Cycle Combined Cyle 4 x LM6000PF+ 1 x 7HA.03 2 x 7HA.03 WCT 2 x 7HA.03 ACC 1 x 9000HL WCT 1 x 9000HL ACC
State City ASHRAE Station Alt (ft) Ave T (F) MW adj SC HR adj SC MW adj CC HR adj CC MW net HR net MW net HR net MW net HR net MW net HR net MW net HR net MW net HR net
ISO ISO ‐ 0 59.0 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 210.7 8,511 419.4 8,236 1,227.3 5,660 1,211.5 5,734 626.7 5,645 616.2 5,742
Oklahoma Oklahoma City 723530 1,285 61.3 94.6% 100.2% 95.0% 100.4% 199.4 8,530 396.9 8,255 1,165.4 5,681 1,150.4 5,755 595.1 5,666 585.1 5,763
Oklahoma Tulsa 723560 650 61.6 96.7% 100.3% 97.1% 100.3% 203.8 8,533 405.6 8,257 1,191.6 5,675 1,176.3 5,748 608.5 5,660 598.3 5,757
Oregon Portland 726980 19 54.9 101.6% 99.6% 101.0% 99.8% 214.0 8,476 426.0 8,202 1,239.1 5,649 1,223.1 5,722 632.7 5,634 622.1 5,730
Pennsylvania Philadelphia 724080 10 56.8 100.8% 99.8% 100.5% 99.9% 212.5 8,492 423.0 8,218 1,233.6 5,654 1,217.8 5,727 630.0 5,639 619.4 5,736
Pennsylvania Wilkes‐Barre 725130 930 50.5 100.0% 99.2% 98.8% 99.8% 210.8 8,439 419.6 8,166 1,212.6 5,646 1,197.0 5,720 619.2 5,632 608.8 5,728
Rhode Island Providence 997278 33 53.0 102.3% 99.4% 101.4% 99.7% 215.5 8,460 429.0 8,187 1,244.3 5,643 1,228.3 5,717 635.4 5,629 624.7 5,725
South Carolina Charleston 722080 40 66.7 96.8% 100.8% 97.9% 100.4% 203.9 8,576 405.9 8,299 1,202.0 5,682 1,186.6 5,756 613.8 5,668 603.5 5,764
South Carolina Spartanburg 723120 943 61.6 95.7% 100.3% 96.1% 100.3% 201.6 8,533 401.4 8,257 1,179.1 5,678 1,163.9 5,752 602.1 5,663 592.0 5,760
South Dakota Rapid City 726620 3,160 47.3 93.1% 98.8% 91.5% 100.0% 196.2 8,411 390.5 8,140 1,123.5 5,662 1,109.1 5,736 573.7 5,648 564.1 5,744
Tennessee Knoxville 723260 962 59.8 96.3% 100.1% 96.4% 100.2% 203.0 8,518 404.0 8,243 1,183.6 5,673 1,168.4 5,747 604.4 5,658 594.3 5,755
Tennessee Nashville 723270 600 60.5 97.3% 100.2% 97.5% 100.2% 205.1 8,524 408.1 8,248 1,197.0 5,671 1,181.7 5,745 611.3 5,656 601.0 5,753
Texas Houston 722436 32 70.7 95.2% 101.2% 97.0% 100.6% 200.6 8,610 399.3 8,332 1,190.1 5,693 1,174.8 5,767 607.7 5,679 597.5 5,776
Utah Salt Lake City 725720 4,225 54.1 86.9% 99.5% 86.3% 100.6% 183.1 8,469 364.4 8,196 1,058.6 5,694 1,045.0 5,768 540.6 5,679 531.5 5,776
Vermont Burlington 726170 330 47.0 103.6% 98.8% 101.8% 99.5% 218.3 8,409 434.5 8,137 1,249.5 5,630 1,233.5 5,703 638.1 5,615 627.4 5,711
Virginia Alexandria 724050 10 59.0 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 210.6 8,511 419.3 8,236 1,226.9 5,660 1,211.1 5,734 626.5 5,645 616.0 5,742
Virginia Lynchburg 724100 940 56.5 97.7% 99.8% 97.3% 100.1% 205.8 8,490 409.7 8,215 1,194.3 5,663 1,179.0 5,737 609.9 5,649 599.7 5,745
Washington Spokane 727850 2,353 48.5 95.6% 99.0% 94.2% 99.9% 201.5 8,421 401.0 8,150 1,155.8 5,657 1,140.9 5,730 590.2 5,642 580.3 5,739
Washington Seattle 994014 7 53.5 102.2% 99.5% 101.4% 99.7% 215.3 8,464 428.5 8,191 1,243.9 5,644 1,227.9 5,718 635.2 5,630 624.5 5,726
West Virginia Charleston 724140 910 56.0 98.0% 99.7% 97.5% 100.0% 206.5 8,485 410.9 8,211 1,197.1 5,662 1,181.8 5,735 611.3 5,647 601.1 5,744
Wisconsin Green Bay 726450 687 45.8 102.7% 98.7% 100.8% 99.5% 216.5 8,399 430.9 8,127 1,237.3 5,630 1,221.4 5,704 631.9 5,616 621.2 5,712
Wyoming Cheyenne 725640 6,130 47.0 82.3% 98.8% 80.9% 100.6% 173.5 8,409 345.2 8,137 992.9 5,695 980.2 5,769 507.0 5,680 498.5 5,777