The following HTML text is provided to enhance online
readability. Many aspects of typography translate only awkwardly to HTML.
Please use the page image
as the authoritative form to ensure accuracy.
Evaluation of Future Strategic and Energy Efficient Options for the U.S. Capitol Power Plant
carbon and hazardous air pollutant emissions aspects of the options.
The committee held its second meeting on March 12 and 13, 2009. To aid in its evaluation, the committee invited additional experts to participate in a 1-day workshop focused on the revised set of consultant-generated options, including an analysis of carbon and hazardous air pollutant emissions for each CPP option. (Appendix B contains biosketches of the participants invited, and Appendix C includes the meeting dates and agendas.)
The committee’s report is based on the AOC’s and consultants’ presentations at the two committee meetings, including the workshop; the report entitled Strategic Long Term EnergyPlan 70% Report (hereinafter referred to as the 70% Report) (AOC, 2009) covering the background information and the CPP and tunnel options; and a brieforal presentation of the utility service distribution options. No additional studies were available to the committee.8 The committee’s report also benefits from the discussions at the workshop and the committee members’ own expertise. Finally, the report was peer-reviewed in accord with NRC procedures.
The 70% Report is an interim report that is still subject to revisions. It includes the background information on the existing CPP and its operations and presents 17 options for the CPP and its tunnel distribution system. The options analyzed for the CPP included the existing configuration with three options for fuel mix; combine d heat and power (co-generation); construction of a new plant; and the use of a range of technologies, including fuel cells, coal gasification, heat recovery chillers, waste-to-energy, and high temperature water.9
The committee’s findings and recommendations are presented in Chapters 2 and 3. Chapter 2 responds to the charge to the committee to “evaluate publicly available, consultant-generated options for the delivery of utility services to the U.S. Capitol Complex.” It addresses the options presented to the committee in terms of (a) the strengths identified; (b) the shortcomings identified; and (c) the additional work that the committee recommends for the completion of the final or 100 percent Strategic Long Term Energy Plan.
Chapter 3 responds to the more global charge of “recommend[ing] how the Capitol Power Plant can be best positioned to meet the future strategic and energy efficiency requirements of the U.S. Capitol Complex.” To that effect, it presents the committees recommendations for work that could be undertaken to correct and update the key energy infrastructure of the U.S. Capitol Complex, seizing the opportunity for setting an example for the entire country in energy reliability, efficiency, cost effectiveness, security, and for environmental stewardship.
Although the committee also received copies of the “Capitol Complex Master Plan, Sustainability Framework Plan,” there was insufficient time available to review or discuss it in the meetings.
Committee members expressed an interest in informally reviewing the final report.