IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jeners/v18y2025i17p4738-d1743305.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Decarbonization of the Power Sector with CCS: Case Study in Two Regions in the U.S., MISO North and SPP RTO West

Author

Listed:
  • Ivonne Pena Cabra

    (National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL), 626 Cochran Mill Road, Pittsburgh, PA 15236, USA
    NETL Support Contractor.)

  • Arun K. S. Iyengar

    (National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL), 626 Cochran Mill Road, Pittsburgh, PA 15236, USA
    NETL Support Contractor.)

  • Kirk Labarbara

    (National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL), 626 Cochran Mill Road, Pittsburgh, PA 15236, USA)

  • Robert Wallace

    (National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL), 626 Cochran Mill Road, Pittsburgh, PA 15236, USA
    NETL Support Contractor.)

  • John Brewer

    (National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL), 626 Cochran Mill Road, Pittsburgh, PA 15236, USA)

Abstract

This paper estimates potential changes in the total system cost (TSC) of decarbonization of two regional transmission organizations (RTOs) in the United States (U.S.)—Midcontinent Independent System Operator-North (MISO-N) and Southwest Power Pool (SPP) RTO West. In particular, the study serves to highlight potential differences in technology costs between two decarbonization pathways at carbon reduction rates close to 100% (relative to 2019 levels) while maintaining system reliability. In Pathway A, decarbonization is achieved by replacing fossil energy (FE)-fired thermal power plants with variable renewable energy (VRE) technologies coupled with energy storage (ES). Pathway B considers retrofitting fossil fuel-fired units with carbon capture and storage (CCS) and the addition of VRE and ES. The results show that including CCS technologies in the path to decarbonization has a significant benefit from a system cost perspective. When summing up all system costs and avoided emissions over 30 years of operation of the decarbonized systems, the pathway that includes CCS is significantly more cost-effective. TSCs for MISO-N are at least USD 1279 billion (B) and at most USD 910 B under Pathways A and B, respectively. For SPP RTO West, Pathway A TSCs are at least USD 230 B, and Pathway B TSCs are at most USD 153 B. TSCs of Pathway A are 1.4–8 times larger than the total system costs of Pathway B. When CCS is not included, the cost per ton of carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) avoided is estimated to be USD 124–489/ton for MISO-N and USD 248–552/ton for SPP RTO West. When CCS is included, the cost of avoided CO 2 is projected to decrease by 29–87% (mid-point estimate of 73%) with values varying between USD 64 and 114/ton and USD 74 and 164/ton for MISO-N and SPP RTO West, respectively. These differences highlight the need for consideration of all low-carbon-intensive technology options in cost-optimal approaches to deep decarbonization and the value of CCS technologies in the energy transition.

Suggested Citation

  • Ivonne Pena Cabra & Arun K. S. Iyengar & Kirk Labarbara & Robert Wallace & John Brewer, 2025. "Decarbonization of the Power Sector with CCS: Case Study in Two Regions in the U.S., MISO North and SPP RTO West," Energies, MDPI, vol. 18(17), pages 1-43, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:18:y:2025:i:17:p:4738-:d:1743305
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/18/17/4738/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/18/17/4738/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jacobson, Mark Z. & Delucchi, Mark A. & Ingraffea, Anthony R. & Howarth, Robert W. & Bazouin, Guillaume & Bridgeland, Brett & Burkart, Karl & Chang, Martin & Chowdhury, Navid & Cook, Roy & Escher, Giu, 2014. "A roadmap for repowering California for all purposes with wind, water, and sunlight," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 875-889.
    2. Mileva, Ana & Johnston, Josiah & Nelson, James H. & Kammen, Daniel M., 2016. "Power system balancing for deep decarbonization of the electricity sector," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 162(C), pages 1001-1009.
    3. Barbara Koelbl & Machteld Broek & André Faaij & Detlef Vuuren, 2014. "Uncertainty in Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) deployment projections: a cross-model comparison exercise," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 123(3), pages 461-476, April.
    4. Hirth, Lion & Ueckerdt, Falko & Edenhofer, Ottmar, 2015. "Integration costs revisited – An economic framework for wind and solar variability," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 925-939.
    5. Carlo Mari, 2020. "Stochastic NPV Based vs Stochastic LCOE Based Power Portfolio Selection Under Uncertainty," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(14), pages 1-18, July.
    6. Gorman, Will & Mills, Andrew & Wiser, Ryan, 2019. "Improving estimates of transmission capital costs for utility-scale wind and solar projects to inform renewable energy policy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 135(C).
    7. Heuberger, Clara F. & Rubin, Edward S. & Staffell, Iain & Shah, Nilay & Mac Dowell, Niall, 2017. "Power capacity expansion planning considering endogenous technology cost learning," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 204(C), pages 831-845.
    8. de Sisternes, Fernando J. & Jenkins, Jesse D. & Botterud, Audun, 2016. "The value of energy storage in decarbonizing the electricity sector," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 175(C), pages 368-379.
    9. Osamu Akashi & Tatsuya Hanaoka & Toshihiko Masui & Mikiko Kainuma, 2014. "Halving global GHG emissions by 2050 without depending on nuclear and CCS," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 123(3), pages 611-622, April.
    10. Daniel L. Sanchez & Daniel M. Kammen, 2016. "A commercialization strategy for carbon-negative energy," Nature Energy, Nature, vol. 1(1), pages 1-4, January.
    11. Pattupara, Rajesh & Kannan, Ramachandran, 2016. "Alternative low-carbon electricity pathways in Switzerland and it’s neighbouring countries under a nuclear phase-out scenario," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 172(C), pages 152-168.
    12. Frew, Bethany A. & Becker, Sarah & Dvorak, Michael J. & Andresen, Gorm B. & Jacobson, Mark Z., 2016. "Flexibility mechanisms and pathways to a highly renewable US electricity future," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 65-78.
    13. Sithole, H. & Cockerill, T.T. & Hughes, K.J. & Ingham, D.B. & Ma, L. & Porter, R.T.J. & Pourkashanian, M., 2016. "Developing an optimal electricity generation mix for the UK 2050 future," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 363-373.
    14. Steele, Amanda Harker & Sharma, Smriti & Pena Cabra, Ivonne & Clahane, Luke & Iyengar, Arun, 2023. "A tool for measuring the system cost of replacement energy," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 275(C).
    15. Elliston, Ben & MacGill, Iain & Diesendorf, Mark, 2014. "Comparing least cost scenarios for 100% renewable electricity with low emission fossil fuel scenarios in the Australian National Electricity Market," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 196-204.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Cole, Wesley & Antonysamy, Adithya & Brown, Patrick & Sergi, Brian & Mai, Trieu & Denholm, Paul, 2023. "How much might it cost to decarbonize the power sector? It depends on the metric," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 276(C).
    2. Reichenberg, Lina & Hedenus, Fredrik & Odenberger, Mikael & Johnsson, Filip, 2018. "The marginal system LCOE of variable renewables – Evaluating high penetration levels of wind and solar in Europe," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 152(C), pages 914-924.
    3. Heard, B.P. & Brook, B.W. & Wigley, T.M.L. & Bradshaw, C.J.A., 2017. "Burden of proof: A comprehensive review of the feasibility of 100% renewable-electricity systems," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 1122-1133.
    4. Jacobson, Mark Z. & von Krauland, Anna-Katharina & Coughlin, Stephen J. & Palmer, Frances C. & Smith, Miles M., 2022. "Zero air pollution and zero carbon from all energy at low cost and without blackouts in variable weather throughout the U.S. with 100% wind-water-solar and storage," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 184(C), pages 430-442.
    5. Hansen, Kenneth & Breyer, Christian & Lund, Henrik, 2019. "Status and perspectives on 100% renewable energy systems," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 175(C), pages 471-480.
    6. Virguez, Edgar & Wang, Xianxun & Patiño-Echeverri, Dalia, 2021. "Utility-scale photovoltaics and storage: Decarbonizing and reducing greenhouse gases abatement costs," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 282(PA).
    7. Bistline, John & Blanford, Geoffrey & Mai, Trieu & Merrick, James, 2021. "Modeling variable renewable energy and storage in the power sector," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 156(C).
    8. Mallapragada, Dharik S. & Sepulveda, Nestor A. & Jenkins, Jesse D., 2020. "Long-run system value of battery energy storage in future grids with increasing wind and solar generation," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 275(C).
    9. Koltsaklis, Nikolaos E. & Nazos, Konstantinos, 2017. "A stochastic MILP energy planning model incorporating power market dynamics," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 205(C), pages 1364-1383.
    10. Jenkins, J.D. & Zhou, Z. & Ponciroli, R. & Vilim, R.B. & Ganda, F. & de Sisternes, F. & Botterud, A., 2018. "The benefits of nuclear flexibility in power system operations with renewable energy," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 222(C), pages 872-884.
    11. Niina Helistö & Juha Kiviluoma & Hannele Holttinen & Jose Daniel Lara & Bri‐Mathias Hodge, 2019. "Including operational aspects in the planning of power systems with large amounts of variable generation: A review of modeling approaches," Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Energy and Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 8(5), September.
    12. Matsuo, Yuhji & Endo, Seiya & Nagatomi, Yu & Shibata, Yoshiaki & Komiyama, Ryoichi & Fujii, Yasumasa, 2018. "A quantitative analysis of Japan's optimal power generation mix in 2050 and the role of CO2-free hydrogen," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 165(PB), pages 1200-1219.
    13. Wu, Yunyang & Reedman, Luke J. & Barrett, Mark A. & Spataru, Catalina, 2018. "Comparison of CST with different hours of storage in the Australian National Electricity Market," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 487-496.
    14. Herath, N. & Tyner, W.E., 2019. "Intended and unintended consequences of US renewable energy policies," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 115(C).
    15. Connolly, D. & Lund, H. & Mathiesen, B.V., 2016. "Smart Energy Europe: The technical and economic impact of one potential 100% renewable energy scenario for the European Union," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 1634-1653.
    16. Matthias Weitzel, 2017. "The role of uncertainty in future costs of key CO2 abatement technologies: a sensitivity analysis with a global computable general equilibrium model," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 22(1), pages 153-173, January.
    17. Soria, Rafael & Portugal-Pereira, Joana & Szklo, Alexandre & Milani, Rodrigo & Schaeffer, Roberto, 2015. "Hybrid concentrated solar power (CSP)–biomass plants in a semiarid region: A strategy for CSP deployment in Brazil," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 57-72.
    18. Bistline, John E.T. & Young, David T., 2020. "Emissions impacts of future battery storage deployment on regional power systems," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 264(C).
    19. Boza, Pal & Evgeniou, Theodoros, 2021. "Artificial intelligence to support the integration of variable renewable energy sources to the power system," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 290(C).
    20. Jafari, Mehdi & Korpås, Magnus & Botterud, Audun, 2020. "Power system decarbonization: Impacts of energy storage duration and interannual renewables variability," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 1171-1185.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:18:y:2025:i:17:p:4738-:d:1743305. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.