2065 Summit Packet

1

Year of Planning Summit Table of Contents Page 3 4 5 11

53

72

78

110

Material Agenda Welcome Letter Speaker Bios Energy Section • Team Leader – Terry Naulty • Greater Owensboro Energy Issues • KY Energy Issues Education Section • Team Leader – Dr. Jim Klauber • Daviess County profile • Owensboro Independent Schools Profile • Daviess County Schools Profile • Chronicle of Higher Education Article Health Section • Team Leader – Philip Patterson • Community Needs Assessment Indicators Transportation Section • Team Leader – Suzanne Blazar • Owensboro’s Interstate • Palmer Study – I-67 Corridor Executive Summary • Palmer Study – Parkways Executive Summary Notes Pages

2

Year of Planning Summit July 17, 2014 10 am – 4 pm Owensboro Health Regional Hospital Auditorium 10 am

Welcome

EDC Chairman Scott McCain Chamber Chairman Darrell Higginbotham Chamber President Amy Jackson

10:10 am

Goals and Objectives of Summit

EDC President Madison Silvert

10:20 am

Thinking About the Future

Kris Kimel, President of the Kentucky Science and Technology Corporation

10:50 am

Challenges of Energy

Dr. Leonard Peters, Secretary of the Kentucky Energy and Environment Cabinet

11:30 am

Workforce Health and Wellness

12 noon

Lunch Break (Boxed Lunches)

Courtesy of Owensboro Health

12:30 pm

Keynote Address: Federal Reserve Economic Outlook

James B. Bullard, Chief Executive Officer and President of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

1:30 pm

Planning Transportation for the Future

Kevin McClearn, Chief District Engineer, Kentucky Transportation Cabinet

2:10 pm

The Future of Education and Workforce Development

Dr. Nick Brake, Superintendent of Owensboro Public Schools

2:50 pm

Break – Move to Planning Sessions

3 pm

Planning Sessions • Introductions & create 10month planning calendar

Team Leaders

3:45 pm

Wrap-Up and Send-Off

Madison Silvert

3

4

SPEAKER BIOS 5

Kris Kimel, President of the Kentucky Science and Technology Corporation Kris Kimel is President and a founder of the Kentucky Science and Technology Corporation (KSTC), an independent non-profit company with a reputation for designing and executing ambitious and diverse initiatives in science, technology, entrepreneurship and disruptive innovation. He is the founder of two subsidiary companies...Kentucky Space (nonprofit company) and Space Tango LLC (for-profit enterprise); both focus on the design and development of small high-value satellites and applications and novel space platforms and experiments (particularly in the field of exomedicine) for the International Space Station (ISS). Kris is also the founder of the IdeaFestival an international event centering on innovation, discovery and creative thinking across different disciplines. Kris, originally from Miami, Florida, holds Bachelor's and Master's degrees from the University of Kentucky and was the 1974 recipient of the University of Kentucky's Sullivan Medallion.

6

Len Peters, Cabinet Secretary of Commonwealth of Kentucky, Energy and Environment Appointed by Gov. Steve Beshear in 2008 to oversee Kentucky’s energy, environmental protection and natural resources programs, Dr. Len Peters has developed and implemented Kentucky’s first comprehensive strategic energy plan to address the state’s growing demands for energy in an environmentally sustainable and economically effective manner. He also has been instrumental in creating a unique partnership opportunity among the Argonne National Laboratory, the Commonwealth of Kentucky, and two of the state’s leading research institutions, the University of Kentucky and the University of Louisville, to advance lithium battery manufacturing research and development.

Dr. Peters is a recognized leader in research, academia and management. He served at the Battelle Memorial Institute, a leading nonprofit applied science and technology development company, where he was senior vice president and director of the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. From 2003-2006, Dr. Peters led the Department of Energy’s Pacific Northwest National Laboratory’s 4,200 staff at the multi-program national laboratory to apply their broad scientific and technical capabilities, not only to the mission of DOE’s Office of Science, but also to those of DOE’s National Nuclear Security Administration, the Department of Homeland Defense, the Department of Defense, and other agencies.

Dr. Peters realigned the Laboratory’s research priorities to meet the needs of the Laboratory’s diverse customer base. He directed the PNNL community in articulating a strategy for interdisciplinary science bringing together physics, chemistry and biology to undertake the grand challenges that are transforming the way society deals with issues of energy, health, national security, and the environment. PNNL’s business volume was the highest in Laboratory history.

Under Dr. Peters’ leadership, the Laboratory achieved a major milestone when it received the first investment of strategic funding for a shared facility, the PNNL/Washington State University Bioproducts Sciences and Engineering Laboratory. He also guided the Laboratory to many other successes, including an improved safety and security culture, and enhanced relationships with regional research universities.

Dr. Peters has held senior academic and administrative positions at leading universities, including the University of Kentucky and Virginia Tech.

He holds a doctorate in chemical engineering from the University of Pittsburgh and has been recognized as a distinguished alumnus by that university. He has been recognized for his achievements with honors ranging from the National Science Foundation Award for contributions in science and technology, to the Oak Ridge Associated Universities' Outstanding Leadership Award

7

James Bullard, President & Chief Executive Officer of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis James Bullard, as president and chief executive officer of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, participates in the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) and directs the activities of the Bank’s head office in St. Louis and of its branches in Little Rock, Ark., Louisville, Ky., and Memphis, Tenn.

An economist, Dr. Bullard joined the Bank in 1990. His research has appeared in numerous professional journals, including the American Economic Review, the Journal of Monetary Economics, Macroeconomic Dynamics and the Journal of Money, Credit and Banking. A peer reviewer for many periodicals, he currently serves as co-editor of the Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control.

Since becoming president in 2008, Bullard has called for the FOMC to adopt state-contingent policy and to give greater consideration to headline inflation than core inflation when deciding monetary policy. In the wake of the financial crisis, he supported quantitative easing and warned about the possibility of the United States’ falling into a Japanese-style deflationary trap. He has also argued that the U.S. output gap may not be as large as many estimates suggest.

Bullard is an honorary professor of economics at Washington University in St. Louis, where he also sits on the advisory council of the economics department and the advisory boards of the Center for Dynamic Economics and the Wells Fargo Advisors Center for Finance and Accounting Research. He is a member of the University of Missouri-St. Louis Chancellor’s Council, the United Way U.S.A. Board of Trustees and the Greater St. Louis Financial Forum. Bullard also serves on the board of the St. Louis Regional Chamber.

A native of Forest Lake, Minn., Bullard earned his doctorate in economics from Indiana University in Bloomington. He holds Bachelor of Science degrees in economics and in quantitative methods and information systems from St. Cloud State University in St. Cloud, Minn.

8

Kevin McClearn, Chief District Engineer at Kentucky Transportation Cabinet, District Two Kevin is a licensed Professional Engineer and has been the Chief District Engineer at the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet’s District Two Office in Madisonville since 2009. His staff of up to 370 employees manages and maintains roughly 3,300 miles of roadways and 2,000 bridges in 11 Counties. He has 21 years of experience with the Transportation Cabinet including positions as the District Design Engineer, and Branch Manager for Planning. He received a B.S. Degree in Civil Engineering from Tennessee Technological University and is a Certified Public Manager. Prior to coming to the Cabinet he served as a mining engineer for 4 years. He currently resides in Madisonville with his wife and two children.

9

Nick Brake, Superintendent of Owensboro Public Schools Dr. Nick Brake, a 47-year-old native of Covington, Kentucky, is the Superintendent of the Owensboro Public Schools. The district enrolls 4,800 students in preschool through 12th grade at 10 school sites employing a staff of 850 and an annual budget of $60 million. OPS is one of seven Districts of Innovation given the freedom by the Kentucky Department of Education to redesign student learning in an effort to engage and motivate more students for college and career readiness.

Dr. Brake is a graduate of the Superintendents Institute at the Harvard Graduate School of Education.

He holds a Ph.D. in Education Administration and Public Policy from the University of Louisville. His bachelors and masters degrees are both in history. He has taught history, public administration, government and economics at the high school and college levels.

Prior to coming to OPS, Dr. Brake served as President/CEO of the Greater Owensboro Economic Development Corporation, where he played a key leadership role in much of the growth and development currently underway in Owensboro. He has also served as a dean and vice president at the Owensboro Community and Technical College and Director of Assessment, Research and Curriculum Development for the Daviess County Public Schools.

He and his wife Candance have two children, Anna Caroline and Nicholas, both students at Owensboro High School.

10

ENERGY 11

Terry Naulty, General Manager & CEO at Owensboro Municipal Utilities Phone: 270.926.3200 Email: naultytp@omu.org Mr. Naulty is currently the General Manager and CEO at Owensboro Municipal Utilities, the largest municipal electric and water utility in Kentucky including ownership and operation of coal fired generating stations, a position he has held since August of 2012. He serves on the Executive Committee of the Kentucky Municipal Utilities Association, is on the board of directors for the Greater Owensboro Economic Development Corporation (GOEDC) and chairs the GOEDC’s Utility Subcommittee. Prior to his current role at OMU he spent 18 years focused on renewable energy development and trading/marketing for various utility affiliated and bank affiliated trading companies and is an expert on RTO market operations, risk management and energy hedging. He has a history of highly profitable structured transactions including acquisitions, development and commercialization of electric generating portfolios. In 2008, he originated the concept and co-founded Liberty Green Renewables, LLC, a leading renewable biomass-to-energy development company which was later sold to an international hedge fund.

While in the trading and marketing business he held the titles of Managing Director, Senior Vice President and Vice President of Origination and Structuring and successfully originated long-term structured power and natural gas transactions for Fortis Bank, Cinergy Corp/Duke Energy and Reliant Resources, Inc. Mr. Naulty spent the first 10 years of his career working as an environmental engineer and senior manager for Louisville Gas and Electric Co. (since acquired by PPL) While at LG&E he served in several senior management functions including Director of Environmental Affairs where he was responsible for environmental compliance, permitting, environmental regulatory and legislative activities for over 3,000 MW of coal and natural gas-fired generation in Kentucky. He spent 6 years in various plant engineering, operations, and management functions while at LG&E. He received a Bachelor of Science in Environmental Engineering from Purdue University, is a registered professional engineer and attended Indiana University’s Kelley school of Management.

12

ENERGY ISSUES FACING THE OWENSBORO/DAVIESS COUNTY REGION 1. Carbon regula.ons for new and exis.ng power plants a. Close to 100% of regional electrical supply comes from coal fired genera.on b. Rate impacts associated with conversion to alterna.ve fossil fuels (natural gas) and stranded investment in idled coal fired capacity c. Electric rate exposure to the more vola.le natural gas supply market will mean more vola.lity in electric rates d. Regional compe..veness of electric rates as compared with areas of the country that are not so coal dependent and the impact to economic development 2. Natural Gas Infrastructure a. How will Kentucky incen.vize any new natural gas pipeline development? b. How will Kentucky work with gas pipeline companies to allow new infrastructure development on private land? c. Are there opportuni.es for Kentucky shale gas produc.on or other sources of natural gas and how can state government help incen.vize investment?

3. Coal Produc.on a. Will interna.onal demand for coals offset lower demand in US due to carbon regula.ons? b. Will Kentucky support efforts to build infrastructure and implement policies to foster addi.onal coal produc.on to meet interna.onal demand? c. Outlook for coal produc.on employment and suppor.ng industries?

4. Renewable Energy a. What is the poten.al for Kentucky based renewable energy? i. Solar ii. Wind iii. Biomass (landfill and wood waste) iv. Small scale hydroelectric b. Will Kentucky support development of biomass to energy as a major source of renewables? i. State policies development to incen.vize waste wood reuse for energy produc.on

13

ii. Support of research in biofuels produc.on from crops and wood fiber c. Renewable porWolio standards for electric u.li.es spurred by carbon regula.ons? i. Renewable energy credit programs for Kentucky based renewables vs. out of state renewables d. Distributed renewables i. Roof top solar – feed in tariff arrangements and u.lity system infrastructure investment to support build out 5. Energy Conserva.on/ Demand Side Management a. Poten.al for emission reduc.ons in Kentucky b. Funding of ini.a.ves using tax dollars c. Public sector vs. private sector conserva.on programs

14

Economic Challenges Facing Kentucky’s Electricity Generation Under Greenhouse Gas Constraints

Commonwealth of Kentucky Energy and Environment Cabinet

December 2013 15

CONTRIBUTORS The study was prepared by the following: Energy and Environment Cabinet University of Kentucky Department of Statistics University of Kentucky Center for Applied Energy Research Pacific Northwest National Laboratory For comments or questions, contact John Lyons, Energy and Environment Cabinet 502-564-3350 or John.Lyons@ky.gov 16

Economic Challenges Facing Kentucky’s Electricity Generation Under Greenhouse Gas Constraints December 2013

TABLE OF CONTENTS Preface . ...................................................................................................................................................... 1 Introduction . .............................................................................................................................................. 3 Technology Options to Achieve Potential GHG Reductions......................................................................... 5 NSR/PSD Barriers to Technology Adoption.................................................................................................. 8 Risk Exposure.............................................................................................................................................. 9 Study Approach and Results...................................................................................................................... 12 Federal Policy Options...................................................................................................................... 12 Kentucky-Specific Response/Modeled Policy Options..................................................................... 13 Simulation Results............................................................................................................................ 13 Recommendations.................................................................................................................................... 22 Acronyms and Abbreviations..................................................................................................................... 24 Appendix A - Future Power Generation Options......................................................................................A.1 Appendix B - Estimated Limits on Power Generation Sources for Kentucky............................................B.1 Appendix C - Simulation Results............................................................................................................... C.1

TABLES AND FIGURES Figure 1: Kentucky Electricity Generation, 1990-2050, Reference Case Without Additional Environmental Regulations . .............................................................................................................. 4 Figure 2: Levelized Costs and Overnight Capital Costs by Generating Technology..................................... 5 Figure 3: Carbon Dioxide Avoidance and Levelized Costs by Generating Technology................................ 7 Figure 4: Carbon Dioxide Avoidance and Capital Costs by Generating Technology.................................... 7 Figure 5: EIA Natural Gas Price Forecasts vs. Observed Natural Gas Prices ............................................ 11 Figure 6: Kentucky CO2 Emissions from Electricity Generation, 2000-2050, Reference Case ..................14 Figure 7: Kentucky’s Electricity Generation, 2035, Reference Case . ....................................................... 15 Figure 8: Kentucky Electricity Consumption, 1960-2050, Low Carbon Price - Reference Case Comparison ..................................................................................................................................... 18 Figure 9: Kentucky Electricity Prices, Nuclear Banned, Nuclear Allowed, Diversified Portfolio . .............21 Figure A.1: CO2 Emission Rates for Future Candidate Power Generation Technologies .........................A.3 Figure A.2: Levelized Cost of Electricity from Table A.1 . ........................................................................A.4 Table 1: Preliminary Risk Scenario Comparison for Nuclear, CCS (retrofit), and Natural Gas Power Generation ........................................................................................................... 10 Table 2: Kentucky Electricity Prices, 2035 . .............................................................................................. 16 Table 3: Kentucky Electricity Prices, 2050 . .............................................................................................. 16 Table 4: Kentucky Change in Employment, 2035 . ................................................................................... 17 Table 5: Change in Employment, 2050 .................................................................................................... 17 Table 6: Kentucky CO2 Emissions from Electricity Generation, 2050 ....................................................... 19 Table A.1: Data for Power Generation Technology Options ...................................................................A.2 Table B.1: Estimates of Existing Kentucky Coal Power Production “Eligible” for CCS Retrofit ................B.5

Page 1

17

Economic Challenges Facing Kentucky’s Electricity Generation Under Greenhouse Gas Constraints December 2013

PREFACE For the Energy and Environment Cabinet (EEC), which has primacy in administering most federal environmental laws and regulations at the state level, we have to understand the implications of what is arguably one of the most challenging issues to confront us—greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and their impact on climate change. Efforts to reduce GHG or carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions have moved beyond the point of discussion at the national level, and the United States Supreme Court has ruled that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has the authority to regulate GHG emissions. Furthermore, while public opinion on climate change has fluctuated over the years, a majority of Americans accept some linkage between GHG emissions and climate change.1 Although public opinion should never be a driver for science-based policy decisions, it is clear that people expect the nation to take action on this issue.

And it is. Thus, discussion and consideration of contingency plans to meet such possible future regulatory frameworks is well advised.

For Kentucky, which is already experiencing the impacts of shifts away from coal and toward natural gas, regulatory mechanisms to reduce GHG emissions will have significant repercussions. Greenhouse gas emissions from natural gas electric generating units (EGUs) are about half those from existing coal-fired units. Natural gas is also currently more cost competitive than coal from a levelized cost standpoint. With Kentucky’s existing narrowly defined least-cost principle guiding electric generation development, combined with existing and anticipated regulatory constraints, natural gas is becoming the fuel of choice. With this narrowly defined least-cost principle being a primary determining factor for utility business decisions, Kentucky will simply go from relying predominantly on coal for electricity generation to being predominantly dependent on natural gas. Shifting from one single fuel resource to another presents untenable risks for Kentucky’s citizens and for our manufacturing sector. Such a movement toward an all natural gas infrastructure also further erodes our state’s coal mining sector. And finally, and importantly, such a movement does not allow us to address GHG emissions in a more holistic, effective manner.

Shifting from one single fuel resource to another presents untenable risks for Kentucky’s citizens and for our manufacturing sector.

Such a movement toward an all natural gas infrastructure also further erodes our state’s coal mining sector.

In essence, near-term decisions are being made that have long-term consequences. And these decisions are driven by policies and principles that need to be examined more broadly given the growing impact that federal policies will have on our state. A holistic approach is one that will encourage electricity generation diversity to protect our economy, to hedge against risk, and to allow the state to take advantage of technological advancements relating to coal as they emerge. For example, today, technologies for making our coal generation plants more efficient, meaning fewer emissions per input, are for all intents off the table—they cannot compete cost-effectively with natural gas. We can reduce GHG emissions using coal with advanced technologies—they have a monetary cost, but the longer-term economic and energy security benefits also need to be considered.

It is important that coal continue to be a strong component of Kentucky’s electricity portfolio. And we must understand specific coal-use strategies to reduce GHG emissions. One important strategy is to improve boiler efficiency for electricity generation. Moving from conventional pulverized coal (PC) boilers 1

http://www.gallup.com/poll/161645/americans-concerns-global-warming-rise.aspx

Page 1

18

Economic Challenges Facing Kentucky’s Electricity Generation Under Greenhouse Gas Constraints December 2013

to more efficient, advanced coal technologies—even without carbon capture and sequestration (CCS)— can reduce CO2 emissions per MWh by as much as 25 percent. Further, these efficiency improvements reduce the quantity of CO2 to be separated and sequestered from flue gas, making CCS more feasible at the scale necessary for realistic carbon reduction strategies.

With a narrow least-cost decision criteria, the technologies that might present longer-term affordable, reliable coal-fired generating units that can comply with environmental requirements are not able to be considered. The technologies available today and the technologies that will be available to us in the future need to be considered more comprehensively. In this paper, we analyze the opportunities that enhancements to coal-fired boiler efficiency and other technologies can have on maintaining coal as an important part of Kentucky’s portfolio. Clearly, in a meaningful “all of the above” strategy to meet current energy demand and future energy growth, coal must be included for Kentucky, the nation, and indeed the world. The analyses included in this paper lead to a number of specific findings and some recommendations on multiple paths forward.

Page 19 2

Economic Challenges Facing Kentucky’s Electricity Generation Under Greenhouse Gas Constraints December 2013

INTRODUCTION The Energy and Environment Cabinet initiated this study in June 2013, a few weeks prior to President Obama’s announcement of his Climate Action Plan. Realizing GHG standards for existing power plants were a matter of when, not if, our intent with the study was multi-purposed. First, we wanted to determine the potential impact of federal GHG policies on Kentucky’s electricity generation portfolio. This part of the study supported another ongoing project that resulted in the EEC’s whitepaper, Greenhouse Gas Policy Implications for Kentucky under Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act.2 Changes to Kentucky’s electricity generation portfolio, changes already occurring even in the absence of federal GHG standards, will have an impact on electricity prices, with resulting effects on overall employment3 and coal consumption. Therefore, this study also sought to determine the extent of the changes under various possible federal climate policies and to evaluate state-level options for minimizing potential impacts.

A significant driver for the extensive analyses we have conducted arose from a preliminary examination of likely changes to Kentucky’s electricity portfolio given low natural gas prices, existing EPA regulations not related to GHGs, and EPA regulations limiting GHGs for new fossil power plants.4 Namely, in the absence of some type of policy response, Kentucky’s electricity portfolio would start to shift dramatically from coal-fired generation to natural gas beginning in the 2016 timeframe, as shown in Figure 1. Unless other low-carbon technologies, including technologies to reduce emissions at coal-fired power plants, are given the chance to come on-line, this trend will continue as rules limiting CO2 from existing plants become a reality.

Kentucky’s generation portfolio will shift from reliance on one fuel source—coal—to reliance on another fuel source—natural gas—if certain obstacles leading to a more diverse portfolio are not addressed.

Kentucky’s generation portfolio will shift from reliance on one fuel source—coal—to reliance on another fuel source—natural gas—if certain obstacles leading to a more diverse portfolio are not addressed. This report looks at a range of generation technologies that can lead to reduced GHG emissions, discusses some of the economic risks associated with various technologies, analyzes impacts to electricity generation under different GHG reduction constraints, and makes recommendations for consideration to help ensure Kentucky’s economy can continue to grow with affordable, relatively stable electricity prices.

Also evident is the large upward shift in natural gas generation and away from coal beginning in 2016, which is the effective date for new EPA regulations. This represents a forced retirement of existing coalfired units, many of which will not have been fully depreciated. In other words, utility ratepayers will

2

Greenhouse Gas Policy Implications for Kentucky under Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act, Oct. 22, 2013.

Kentucky Energy and Environment Cabinet. (2012). The Vulnerability of Kentucky’s Manufacturing Economy to Increasing Electricity Prices. Department for Energy Development and Independence, Frankfort. http://energy.ky.gov/Programs/Documents/Vulnerability%20of%20Kentucky’s%20Manufacturing%20Economy.pdf 4 EPA’s proposed rules (CAA, Section 111(b)) for new fossil generation require that new large natural gas-fired turbines meet a limit of 1,000 pounds of CO2 per megawatt-hour, while new small natural gas-fired turbines need to meet a limit of 1,100 pounds of CO2 per megawatt-hour. New coal-fired units would need to meet a limit of 1,100 pounds of CO2 per megawatt-hour, and would have the option to meet a somewhat tighter limit if they choose to average emissions over multiple years, giving those units additional operational flexibility.

3

Page 3

20

Economic Challenges Facing Kentucky’s Electricity Generation Under Greenhouse Gas Constraints December 2013

still be paying for these coal units even though they will have been taken out of service. This “stranded investment” will continue to be a drag on Kentucky’s economy for some time. Further, the EPA could exacerbate this problem if new CO2 emission rules are implemented too aggressively and force additional units out of service prematurely.

Figure 1: Kentucky Electricity Generation, 1990-2050, Reference Case Without Additional Environmental Regulations

Kentucky must be prepared to comply with future GHG rules while maintaining its strength as a manufacturing state and while minimizing the impact on an already struggling coal mining sector. Price increases pose a threat to all utility customers, especially Kentucky’s energy-intensive industries that rely on stable, relatively predictable low-cost electricity. To the extent possible, Kentucky environmental and energy leaders are participating in discussions with the EPA offering suggestions for the development of GHG rules affecting existing power plants that are flexible, account for carbon reductions already underway, and that minimize the impact on Kentucky’s ratepayers. The results from this study will help to further inform these discussions. Additionally, these results can help policymakers, utilities, and others within the state understand implications of GHG policies and possible options for least-cost compliance.

Page 21 4

Economic Challenges Facing Kentucky’s Electricity Generation Under Greenhouse Gas Constraints December 2013

Technology Options to Achieve Potential GHG Reductions Kentucky’s least-cost requirement5 for electricity generation technology has traditionally led to coal as the most affordable option for utilities. This has been the case even when expensive capital costs are required to achieve environmental compliance. Today, the least-cost requirement is driving the shift in Kentucky’s generation portfolio to natural gas. With the deadline for achieving federal regulations such as the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) approaching, many utilities are faced with a choice: install costly upgrades or retire a coal-fired plant before the end of its useful life. In many if not most cases, the lost generation capacity that occurs when a utility retires a coal unit is being replaced with natural gas, which is abundant and forecast to remain inexpensive compared with its historical trends. Greenhouse gas standards will accelerate this trend because natural gas meets the CO2 thresholds for new units while coal without carbon capture and storage does not.

The current low costs for natural gas are also precluding consideration of many other lower-carbon resources and technologies. This section looks at some of these technologies from a range of cost standpoints and the degree to which they provide CO2 emission reductions. Appendix A lists the technologies compiled for the current study, along with corresponding data for efficiency, fuel type, emissions, cost, and fuel resource availability. Figure 2 shows a plot of two of the most common comparison metrics for potential new technologies, the levelized-cost of electricity6 and the capital cost in dollars per kW. Figure 2: Levelized Costs and Overnight Capital Costs by Generating Technology

5 The Kentucky Public Service Commission applies the principle of least-cost as a normal part of its approval processes. See Case No. 2009-00545, Application of Kentucky Power Company for Approval of Renewable Energy Purchase Agreement for Wind Energy Resources Between Kentucky Power Company and FPL Illinois Wind LLC., Order dated June 28, 2010, at Pages 5-10 and Case No. 2011-00375, Joint Application of Louisville Gas and Electric and Kentucky Utilities Company for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity and Site Compatibility Certificate for the Construction of a Combined Cycle Combustion Turbine at the Cane Run Generating Station and the Purchase of Existing Simple Cycle Combustion Turbine Facilities From Bluegrass Generation Company LLC in Lagrange, Kentucky, Order dated May 3, 2012 at Page 15.

6 The total cost to build and operate a given electricity generating unit per kilowatt-hour of electricity that would be generated over the lifetime of the system.

Page 5

22

Economic Challenges Facing Kentucky’s Electricity Generation Under Greenhouse Gas Constraints December 2013

While the data in Figure 2 show many of the known differences for a technology’s levelized cost of electricity and capital costs, they reflect electricity pricing and do not necessarily help understand the costs related to CO2 reductions. When looking at how a given power generation technology might impact CO2 emissions, a common approach is to determine how much CO2 would be “avoided” with that technology’s implementation. For example, if one MWh per year of current Kentucky power generation were replaced with solar power, the annual “avoided” CO2 would be 2,074 lbs,7 which is simply the difference between the CO2 generation rate for solar (nearly zero) and the CO2 generation rate for an existing pulverized coal unit. There are limitations to the energy resources associated with low-carbon-emitting technologies. For this reason the total possible avoided CO2 was estimated for each technology option based on Kentucky resource limits (see Appendix B). For example, 10,000 GWh per year of solar was deemed a practical maximum in Kentucky, resulting in the maximum possible avoided CO2 from that technology to be about 10 million tons per year. Figure 3 shows a plot of the estimated possible avoided CO2 in Kentucky for each of the candidate power generation technologies (blue bars). Also plotted in Figure 3 is the levelized cost of electricity for each technology, normalized to the corresponding tons of CO2 avoided (red bars). This metric reflects the relative cost required to reduce a unit mass of CO2 emitted.

For illustrative purposes, consider that Kentucky must avoid 60 percent of current CO2 emissions (approximately 55 million tons per year). Given the estimated maximum CO2 avoided for each technology, the only single technologies capable of achieving a 60 percent reduction are nuclear; advanced natural gas combined cycle (NGCC)—with or without CCS; and pulverized coal with CCS. When the CO2 avoidance costs are factored in, both NGCC and nuclear have the lowest total cost, approximately $70 per ton of CO2 avoided. Technologies associated with coal power generation using CCS, new or retrofitted, have higher estimated costs compared to natural gas and nuclear, ranging from $100 to $145 per ton of CO2 avoided.

The individual technologies in Figure 3 capable of 25 percent to 50 percent reductions in current CO2 emissions include natural gas combustion turbines, retrofits of PC boilers with natural gas, and full conversion of the coal power fleet to ultra-super critical boiler technology. Of these technologies, retrofitting PC boilers with natural gas has the lowest cost, at $125 per ton of CO2 avoided, but with potential significant increase if natural gas prices were to increase.

The lower-end CO2 emission reductions (less than 10 percent of current emissions) in Figure 3 are comprised of the renewables, along with combined heat and power (CHP). The most economical of these technologies ($55 to $90 per ton of CO2 avoided) are CHP, wind, hydroelectric, and municipal solid waste (MSW). If combined these technologies could perhaps achieve a cumulative CO2 avoidance of approximately 10 million tons per year.

Certain technologies are more capital intensive than others. Figure 4 shows the same data in Figure 3 but with initial capital costs in terms of annual CO2 avoided ($/ton CO2 avoided). The data in Figure 4 show the least capital intensive investments to be natural gas retrofits of the (eligible) existing fleet, advanced NGCC, and the retrofit of existing PC boilers with CCS technology. Comparing nuclear and advanced NGCC, the latter is less than half of the initial capital cost on a CO2 avoided basis, where the two were

7

In 2012, based upon 89,819 GWh, the weighted generation emission rate average of coal (92 percent) and oil and gas (4 percent) was 2,074 lbs/MWh.

Page 23 6

Economic Challenges Facing Kentucky’s Electricity Generation Under Greenhouse Gas Constraints December 2013

Figure 3: Carbon Dioxide Avoidance and Levelized Costs by Generating Technology

much closer based on the levelized costs in Figure 3. This could point out an important economic consideration in technology decisions, where upfront capital may be as important, if not more important, than levelized costs. Figures 2 through 4 also show that by itself, the new advanced coal-fired generation technology might not remove a sufficient amount of CO2 depending on the future carbon reduction requirement imposed upon Kentucky, and it is expensive relative to other technology options. However, CCS technology can reduce CO2 emissions and when paired with lesser expensive, low-CO2 emitting technologies, coal can be an option.

Figure 4: Carbon Dioxide Avoidance and Capital Costs by Generating Technology

Page 7

24

Economic Challenges Facing Kentucky’s Electricity Generation Under Greenhouse Gas Constraints December 2013

Several insights can be gained on how technologies vary as GHG reduction tools.

• Individual technologies capable of achieving a 60 percent CO2 reduction compared to Kentucky’s existing power generation fleet are limited to nuclear, advanced NGCC (with or without CCS), and pulverized coal with CCS. Of these technologies, at current prices for natural gas, NGCC has the lowest total cost, at $75 per ton of CO2 avoided, and a relatively lower upfront capital cost, but with potential price sensitivity to increasing natural gas costs. Nuclear technology is estimated to have a total cost similar to that of NGCC, but with higher upfront capital costs and potentially higher risks associated with permitting and adoption. Coal power generation with CCS has a higher estimated cost than the other two technologies, but could represent one of the lowest upfront capital cost options if current coal power capacity were retrofitted.

• Retrofitting PC boilers with natural gas could achieve intermediate reductions of up to 30 million tons of CO2 per year for Kentucky (one-third of current total emissions), assuming the “eligible” PC units listed in Appendix B. This option has an estimated levelized cost of $125 per ton of CO2 avoided, but could significantly increase with rising natural gas prices. However, PC boiler retrofits could be achieved for much smaller initial capital investments compared to other technologies, and may allow for conversion back to coal firing if other abatement technologies were brought on line in the future.

• Individual renewable power generation technologies and combined heat and power have more limited ability to reduce Kentucky’s CO2 emissions due to the general limitations of the corresponding resources. However, combinations of the most viable of these technologies (CHP, wind, hydroelectric and MSW) could potentially achieve a cumulative CO2 avoidance of 10 million tons per year (one-tenth of current total emissions), and an average levelized cost of $50 to $90 per ton of CO2 avoided.

NSR/PSD Barriers to Technology Adoption One purpose of this study was to investigate the potential for coal to maintain a substantial role in the production of electricity in Kentucky. This could be accomplished by improving boiler and turbine efficiency, through replacements or new green field construction of coal-fired capacity. The study team met with each of Kentucky’s major electric generating utilities to discuss these issues in the context of environmental compliance. A barrier for utilities to engage in any significant efficiency or technology upgrade has been the EPA’s enforcement of the New Source Review/Prevention of Significant Deterioration (NSR/PSD) rules.8 However, general comments from the utilities indicated that in the current economic and regulatory environment, most utility companies would choose to build an entirely new unit rather than invest in upgrades that would substantially improve boiler efficiency. This is made evident by many utilities’ current actions to comply with existing environmental rules by retiring current coal-fired generation and building new natural gas capacity to maintain the lowest cost portfolio. Even if the EPA were to ease NSR/PSD requirements, with the looming prospect of CO2 regulation, it is not clear whether that would be sufficient to encourage boiler efficiency upgrades. However, the NSR/PSD rules are a barrier to this type of upgrade.

8

http://www.epa.gov/NSR/psd.html

Page 25 8

Economic Challenges Facing Kentucky’s Electricity Generation Under Greenhouse Gas Constraints December 2013

Risk Exposure Economic projections for generation technologies are useful, but they do not tell a complete story.

Risks—economic, social, and technological—are also factors in whether a given technology is adopted, or the degree to which it is adopted on a large scale. For illustrative purposes, Table 1 shows a risk comparison for three of the technologies discussed above: Nuclear, CCS retrofits, and NGCC. The risk scenarios are ranked through an index that combines both probability and impact to CO2 emissions reductions.

Risk Category I reflects the greatest risk and Category III the least.

The risk comparison is not intended to provide a measure of absolute risk. Rather, it allows a relative ranking of the dominant risk factors associated with a particular technology, normalized across the identified options. While the exact placement of a risk scenario in a given category may be refined with further analyses, the general takeaway from the comparison is that there are significant, different risk elements associated with a given technology. For example, the readiness of small modular (nuclear) reactors (SMRs) as a viable option surfaces as a major risk consideration, along with cost and financing risks for nuclear in general. Liability protection concerns are a major risk consideration for CCS, and potential future price volatility is a major risk factor for natural gas. Some of these risks could be mitigated through policy actions, such as lifting the ban on nuclear power in Kentucky.

High natural gas prices also pose risk, as shown in Figure 3. Current EIA reference case natural gas price projections favor advanced NGCC with or without CCS as having cost advantages over both coal and nuclear technology. Even though nuclear has similar costs in terms of CO2 avoided, its much higher upfront capital costs and higher permitting risks take it out of consideration in the immediate future. Figure 2 also shows the cost differentials when natural gas prices are doubled. With gas prices doubled, pulverized coal technologies with CCS become cost competitive in terms of CO2 avoided; however, the upfront capital costs for pulverized coal with CCS still favor natural gas.

Figure 5 depicts the Energy Information Administration (EIA) natural gas price forecasts since 1979 and illustrates that a reliance on stable predictable natural gas prices as the basis for a major shift in generation technology is not without risk. The dark dotted line depicts the actual historical prices and the multiple colored lines represent the various annual EIA gas price forecasts. As can be seen, natural gas prices have proved difficult to forecast. The graph also illustrates the extent of recent gas price volatility and the risks to Kentucky of converting a large percentage of its electric generation fleet to natural gas if the U.S. returns to the high gas prices of the recent past. ... the breadth of risks emphasizes the benefits of a balanced power generation portfolio, as opposed to reliance on a single technology or fuel option.

Although this study did not attempt to quantify the impact of these risks, the breadth of risks emphasizes the benefits of a balanced power generation portfolio, as opposed to reliance on a single technology or fuel option.

Page 9

26

Economic Challenges Facing Kentucky’s Electricity Generation Under Greenhouse Gas Constraints December 2013

Table 1: Preliminary risk scenario comparison for nuclear, CCS (retrofit), and natural gas power generation. Risk categorization based on the likelihood of the scenario and its relative impact.

Risk Category*

Nuclear 

I 

  II 





CCS (Retrofit) Cost advantage of mass manufacturing (SMRs) not realized.

Financing issues encountered with heavy upfront capital costs.

Construction cost/ schedule overruns.

Unable to lift current Kentucky ban on nuclear.

Significant delays in (SMR) technology commercialization beyond 2020.

Adoption of nuclear slower than anticipated due to lack of current Kentucky infrastructure.

Major/visible nuclear disaster impacts overall nuclear market.

No progress on national policy for nuclear waste disposal.

Licensing delays.

Future in-state nuclear accident/ incident.

 



 

Natural Gas

Inadequate liability protection for CO2 storage sites.

Cannot deploy CCS to scale.



Future prices of natural gas could escalate by more than 2 times current rates.

Major CO2 release or seismic event from CCS site (anywhere) impacts overall industry.

Timeline for commercial viability of CCS delayed.

Financing issues encountered with heavy upfront capital costs.



Grid security compromised due to dependency on limited pipeline capacity.

Financing issues encountered with heavy upfront capital costs if CCS required.





Inadequate geologic  Grid stability storage capacity for issues III CO2 in Kentucky. encountered due to supply issues  Adoption of CCS with natural gas  limited due to lack no buffer. of public  Regulatory acceptance. constraints on  Capital costs much production.  higher than currently  anticipated.  Overall permitting timeline delays implementation. * Category I – Potentially unacceptable risk that requires mitigation action, such as legislation.

Category II – Significant risks but lower priority than Category I for mitigation measures.

Category III – Lower risks, in terms of priority for mitigation investment.

Page 27 10

Economic Challenges Facing Kentucky’s Electricity Generation Under Greenhouse Gas Constraints December 2013

Figure 5: EIA Natural Gas Price Forecasts vs. Observed Natural Gas Prices

Page 11

28

Economic Challenges Facing Kentucky’s Electricity Generation Under Greenhouse Gas Constraints December 2013

STUDY APPROACH AND RESULTS The previous section identifies existing and future power technologies that could be employed to reduce CO2 emissions. A more complex forecasting tool is required to assess specific assumed policy actions and the resulting impacts over time. For this study, an electric generation dispatch model was added to the EEC’s existing energy forecasting models to evaluate how potential technology improvements could be made to the generation fleet and how the fleet would evolve over time. The model uses a constrained optimization algorithm to find the least-cost electricity generation portfolio that complies with all environmental regulations, including specified GHG emission constraints. The analysis incorporates all generation capacity across the state as a hypothetical single fleet and considers compliance strategies over time on a unit-by-unit basis considering three different federally imposed CO2 emission limit regimes or constraints. Four possible responses Kentucky could take to meet the various assumed federal emission constraints were also considered.

The model dispatches all electricity generation units across the state on a constrained least-cost basis while satisfying demand and environmental requirements for electricity in a given year. The ultimate goals are (1) to understand the impact of different federal CO2 policies, and (2) to explore how various Kentucky-specific compliance strategies affect CO2 emissions, electricity prices, and employment.

Federal Policy Options At this time, it can only be surmised how EPA will regulate GHG emissions from modified, reconstructed, and existing power plants. Therefore, the study considered three possible frameworks for regulations: a carbon tax, a rate emissions standard, and a mass emissions standard. For purposes of the study, we used emissions limits that correspond to President Obama’s U.S. goals: a reduction in CO2 of 17 percent by 2020 compared to 2005 levels and a reduction of 80 percent by 2050. The reduction levels in intervening years are simply a linear interpolation between 2020 and 2050.

The carbon tax is a dollar amount levied on every ton of CO2 emitted. Three different sets of carbon taxes were evaluated: $10 in 2020 to $20 in 2040; $20 in 2020 to $40 in 2040; and $40 in 2020 to $60 in 2040.

The rate emission analysis takes the form of a statewide fleet annual average, where the actual state limit is the weighted average of coal-, gas-, and oil-fired generation emissions from a 2005 (per the President’s goals) baseline. The first rate regime takes effect in two periods: 1,472 lbs/MWh by 2020 to 1,189 lbs/MWh by 2025, a lesser standard that does not achieve the assumed targets based on the President’s goals. The second rate regime is designed to achieve the President’s CO2 emission goals of 17 percent by 2020 and extending to 80 percent by 2050 and takes effect in two periods: 1,655 lbs/MWh by 2020 to 330 lbs/MWh by 2050.

The mass emission analysis follows the assumed targets by initially requiring a 17 percent reduction in CO2 levels by 2020 extending to an 80 percent reduction by 2050. The limit is based upon a percentage reduction from the statewide emissions levels during the 2005 baseline period. The premise of this constraint is that once emission limits are set for any given period, the state can employ any generation technology available over time, as long as state emission limits are not breached. The constraint requires a 17 percent reduction from the baseline period by 2020 and a 30 percent reduction by 2030.

Page 29 12

Economic Challenges Facing Kentucky’s Electricity Generation Under Greenhouse Gas Constraints December 2013

Kentucky-Specific Response/Modeled Policy Options The study simulated four possible policy responses Kentucky could take to meet the various assumed federal emission constraints considered.

First, a business as usual (BAU) response is simulated. Here, the model assumes no changes are made to Kentucky’s energy regulatory framework. The model assumes compliance with existing environmental rules as well as compliance with EPA’s rule that limits GHG emissions from new fossil fuel power plants.

The BAU case sets the benchmark by which the other three portfolios are evaluated using each of the federal GHG constraints described above. EPA regulations already in place have set utility planning and investment compliance actions in motion. As a result, certain older coal-fired generation units in Kentucky have either been retired or are slated to be retired by 2016. New additional natural gas-fired generation capacity is either being constructed or being considered as replacement for many of the retired units. As existing units are retired, all new fossil generation will adhere to the new proposed CO2 emission limits.

For the second response (Flexible Portfolio), the BAU assumptions are relaxed to simulate elimination of the state’s ban on nuclear power. No other federal or state mandate is changed. The model builds the optimal least-cost generation portfolio based on price, with all fuels available with no additional constraints.

In the third response (Balanced Portfolio), the BAU assumptions are relaxed to eliminate the state’s ban on nuclear power and to place a limit on any type of generation source within the portfolio to simulate a more diversified energy mix. In the modeled optimal least-cost portfolio, no single resource (coal, gas, wind, solar, etc.) generates more than 60 percent of total electricity (MWh) in a given year.

In the final response (Coal Portfolio), the BAU assumptions are relaxed to eliminate the state’s ban on nuclear power and, to understand how coal could remain a part of Kentucky’s electricity mix despite carbon regulation, the model is required to meet a certain percentage of demand with coal. The optimal least-cost portfolio must be structured such that at least 40 percent of the electricity (MWh) is generated from coal in a given year. The model first complies with federal environmental rules and then attempts to meet the 40 percent generation requirement. However, in some years, given certain federal carbon policies being modeled, the 40 percent requirement cannot be met.

Simulation Results The full simulation results are in Appendix C. A Scenario Matrix is provided for quick reference of each Policy/Portfolio simulation. Following the Scenario Matrix, a series of snapshot estimation results matrices are provided for the years 2025, 2035, and 2050 covering employment, Kentucky gross domestic product (GDP), electricity prices, a variety of emissions including CO2, coal consumption, and percent coal-fired electricity generation. Each of the scenarios is summarized using graphs that depict changes to the metrics listed above over time. Finally, a description of the model itself and assumptions are provided. Twenty-eight scenarios were simulated based on the EIA’s reference case natural gas price.

An additional 28 scenarios were simulated based on EIA’s low oil and gas recovery case that led to high natural gas price forecasts. The following are several key findings derived from the simulations.

Page 13

30

Economic Challenges Facing Kentucky’s Electricity Generation Under Greenhouse Gas Constraints December 2013

Kentucky’s energy mix is changing even without new regulations on greenhouse gases. Environmental regulations unrelated to GHGs coupled with low natural gas price are already forcing retirements of existing coal capacity. Even without new rules limiting GHG emissions, Kentucky is already on a path to reduce its GHG emissions because of these changes. Over time, if gas prices remain low and utilities replace older coal-fired power plants with new natural gas combined cycle plants, the switch to gas will become more apparent. Figure 1 showed the gradual switch to natural gas over time, with resulting reductions in GHGs depicted in Figure 6. The greater reliance on natural gas will become the norm as utilities are forced to comply with existing regulations while meeting Kentucky’s least-cost requirement for construction of new electric generating units. Kentucky’s least-cost requirements currently favor natural gas due to currently low natural gas prices and the relatively low upfront capital costs for new construction. Based on study computer simulations, the contribution of natural gas to Kentucky’s energy mix will range from 40 percent to over 90 percent by 2035, depending on the stringency of the carbon policy that is assumed and Kentucky’s response to that policy. Figure 7 shows the projected generation mix for the year 2035 based on reference case computer simulations.

Even without new rules limiting GHG emissions, Kentucky is already on a path to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions.

Figure 6: Kentucky CO2 Emissions from Electricity Generation, 2000-2050, Reference Case

Page 31 14

Economic Challenges Facing Kentucky’s Electricity Generation Under Greenhouse Gas Constraints December 2013

Figure 7: Kentucky’s Electricity Generation, 2035, Reference Case

If Kentucky is required to reduce its CO2 emissions in line with the President’s goals, then the primary options for replacing baseload generation capacity from forced retirements are nuclear, natural gas combined cycle, and coal with carbon capture and sequestration. Each option carries risks as described in Table 1. There are advanced technologies being developed for both nuclear and coal requiring time to be market-ready. Nuclear is a zero emitting CO2 source and advanced coal with CCS, when commercially available, will be a very low emitting source. In certain circumstances, it is possible for the two technologies to work in tandem in a carbon-constrained world. However, the current ban on nuclear power makes it an omitted choice during utility planning processes. Even though relaxing the ban on nuclear generation does not have an immediate effect on the generation technology choices in the short or midterm, removing the ban is still an important first step. The most advantageous nuclear technology (small modular reactors) is still a few years away from deployment, and the planning and permitting processes are lengthy. As described in Table 1, there are specific risks unique to nuclear, coal with CCS, and natural gas for future baseload electric generating units (EGU). Diversification of future EGUs can mitigate the risk associated with a single fuel type as illustrated by the high natural gas price scenarios described below.

Federal carbon policies will likely increase the price of electricity, thereby weakening Kentucky’s economy. Kentucky’s electricity prices will increase with federal GHG policies relative to the reference case, thereby negatively affecting employment and state GDP. This finding holds regardless of the policy option the federal government might employ to reduce emissions. However, the federal policy options simulated by this study do have varying impacts on prices and Kentucky’s economic health However, the federal policy options simulated by this study do have varying impacts on prices and Kentucky’s economic health, and Kentucky can take steps to mitigate those impacts.

Page 15

32

Economic Challenges Facing Kentucky’s Electricity Generation Under Greenhouse Gas Constraints December 2013

(see Tables 2 and 3), and Kentucky can take steps to mitigate those impacts. The mid- and high-level carbon taxes have the most severe impact on the price of electricity through 2035. By 2050 there is less variation in price among the federal policy options simulated in this study, and it becomes clear that nuclear power is a price stabilizer. The scenarios that simulate maintaining the ban on nuclear power yield the highest priced energy mix for Kentucky under each of the federal carbon policies with the exception of the lowest carbon tax. Scenarios marked NA were unable to meet the assumed federal policy mandate and achieve a 40 percent coal portfolio.

Although not the only driver, low-cost electricity is very important for Kentucky’s economy. Kentucky’s low-cost electricity has fostered the single most electricity-intensive economy in the U.S., and increases in prices will have a notable impact. A study initiated by the Energy and Environment Cabinet in 2012 predicted a 25 percent increase in electricity prices would be associated with a net loss of 30,000 Table 2: Kentucky Electricity Prices, 2035

Table 3: Kentucky Electricity Prices, 2050

Page 33 16

Economic Challenges Facing Kentucky’s Electricity Generation Under Greenhouse Gas Constraints December 2013

full-time jobs, primarily in the manufacturing sector. 9 So, it is not surprising that in Kentucky, a policy that increases the price of electricity will have a similar impact on jobs and overall GDP. Tables 4 and 5 show that in the early years through 2035, the mid- and high-level carbon taxes have the most negative impact on employment. By 2050 nuclear power, if allowed, can mitigate the harmful effects on Kentucky’s economy of most of the federal policy options simulated. The three portfolios allowing nuclear power create the greatest employment opportunities.

Table 4: Kentucky Change in Employment, 2035

Scenarios marked NA indicate the scenario was unable to meet the assumed federal policy limits.

Table 5: Change in Employment, 2050

9

Kentucky Energy and Environment Cabinet. (2012). The Vulnerability of Kentucky’s Manufacturing Economy to Increasing Electricity Prices. Department for Energy Development and Independence, Frankfort. http://energy.ky.gov/Programs/Documents/Vulnerability%20of%20Kentucky’s%20Manufacturing%20Economy.pdf

Page 17

34

Economic Challenges Facing Kentucky’s Electricity Generation Under Greenhouse Gas Constraints December 2013

A federal carbon tax would likely have the most extreme impact on Kentucky. The lowest carbon tax slightly reduces carbon emissions by increasing the cost of electricity from carbon-emitting resources. This reduces the overall demand for electricity in each of the sectors—residential, commercial, and industrial—as compared to the reference case, as shown in Figure 8. The lowest carbon tax is not high enough to cause a significant shift in Kentucky’s energy mix relative to the reference case; it simply taxes the consumer of carbon-emitting electricity who responds by consuming less electricity. By 2035, the employment loss is similar across all portfolios ranging from approximately 60,000 to 70,000 fewer potential jobs relative to the reference case. Electricity price increases range from about 0.5 to 1.6 cents/kwh greater than in the reference case across the portfolios. By 2025 the low carbon tax can force enough reduction in CO2 emissions to meet the assumed targets, but by 2050 the low carbon tax falls short of the target and only reduces about 1.6 million tons more CO2 emissions than the reference case.

By 2035, the employment loss is similar across all portfolios ranging from approximately 60,000 to 70,000 fewer potential jobs relative to the reference case.

Figure 8: Kentucky Electricity Consumption, 1960-2050, Low Carbon Price - Reference Case Comparison

Page 35 18

Economic Challenges Facing Kentucky’s Electricity Generation Under Greenhouse Gas Constraints December 2013

The mid- and high-level carbon tax simulations tell a different story. These tax levels drive Kentucky to natural gas for power generation faster than any other federal carbon policy analyzed. Under the midlevel carbon tax, Kentucky becomes reliant on natural gas for 75 percent of its electricity by 2035 (Appendix C). However, a significant build out of new natural gas power plants occurs before then between 2016 and 2020. The high-level carbon tax creates a powerful economic driver to replace coal-fired power plants with natural gas as well. By 2035 nearly all of Kentucky’s electricity generation is natural gas-fired. It costs the ratepayers less money to abandon coal-fired power plants and build new naturalgas-fired power plants, which also emit carbon that is taxed, than to continue utilizing coal and paying the mid- and high-level taxes. The abrupt build out of natural gas forced by the highest level carbon tax actually reduces Kentucky’s carbon emissions below the assumed targets as shown in Table 6. Electricity price increases range from about 2.9 to 3.2 cents/kwh compared to the reference case across the portfolios in 2035 for the mid-level carbon price and about 3.5 to 4.5 cents/kwh for the high carbon price.

Potential employment levels are similar across all portfolios. In 2035, relative to the reference case, the mid-level carbon price results in approximately 110,000 to 130,000 fewer jobs. In 2035, the high carbon price results in more potential job losses, creating an estimated 130,000 to 170,000 fewer jobs than in the reference case.

By 2050, maintaining the nuclear ban results in up to 70,000 fewer jobs created compared to the more diversified portfolios.

Table 6: Kentucky CO2 Emissions from Electricity Generation, 2050

If Kentucky must face a carbon tax greater than $20/ton, nuclear power will be necessary to moderate the price of electricity beyond 2035. It becomes the preferred option since it can meet electricity demand while avoiding both the tax on carbon and higher natural gas prices in the out years. It is important to remember that natural gas-fired electricity does emit carbon and cannot avoid the tax entirely as nuclear can. As shown in Tables 2 and 3, when the carbon price is above $20/ton, the nuclear-banned scenarios are the most costly for ratepayers in terms of price per kilowatt hour.

Page 19

36

Economic Challenges Facing Kentucky’s Electricity Generation Under Greenhouse Gas Constraints December 2013

All three carbon tax levels simulated increase the price of electricity and reduce employment relative to the reference case, regardless of the response Kentucky takes to mitigate the impact of the taxes. Tables 2 through 5 demonstrate the carbon tax levels’ worsening impact on price and employment.

By relying on new generating capacity that emits zero carbon emissions such as nuclear power, Kentucky can meet carbon regulations while still relying on coal for some of its electricity generation mix.

However, the most coal could contribute to Kentucky’s electricity mix under the assumed targets by 2050 would be no more than 40 percent. The impact of maintaining coal in the generation portfolio, assuming the cost inputs described in Appendix A, varies depending on the federal policy option being simulated.

In the near term, the coal portfolio is most expensive under a carbon tax option. In 2035, the coal portfolio does not satisfy the federal CO2 limit analyzed.

Rate and mass emission limit regimes produce similar results under flexible statewide compliance portfolios.

The EEC’s GHG whitepaper demonstrated how a rigid emissions rate limit, as proposed by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), would be detrimental to Kentucky, especially if credit were not given for emissions reductions already underway. A rigid rate limit as proposed by NRDC removes compliance flexibility and, more importantly, would not achieve emissions reductions in line with assumed federal reduction goals beyond 2025; CO2 emissions would continue to grow, tracking growth in the state economy. Since, Kentucky’s generation fleet is currently undergoing a shift away from coal-fired EGUs to gas-fired EGUs, the whitepaper advocated for a mass emissions limit. Under this regulatory regime, the state would have the necessary flexibility to take full credit for the CO2 emission reductions that were going to result from the ongoing transformation of Kentucky’s generation fleet.

Furthermore, in this study, we did not consider any avoided GHG reductions via energy efficiency, carbon offsets, etc.

A rigid rate limit as proposed by NRDC removes compliance flexibility and, more importantly, would not achieve emissions reductions in line with assumed federal reduction goals beyond 2025; CO2 emissions would continue to grow, tracking growth in the state economy.

This study attempted to compare specific state responses to different federal CO2 regulatory regimes.

Applying emission rate limits to specific EGUs would mean shutting down the coal units as soon as limits became effective. Advanced coal combustion, CCS and advanced nuclear technologies are not mature, and additional time is needed for these technologies to be proven and implemented. Therefore, the rate limit was modeled two ways: first, a rate limit structure similar to NRDC’s and second, a rate limit specifically designed to track the mass emissions corresponding to the assumed targets of the President’s goals. The rate limit, as well as the mass emission limit, was applied to the state’s entire generation fleet. As expected, the NRDC structured rate limit failed to produce the requisite CO2 reduction levels beyond 2025, and employment and price levels were similar to the reference case results. The latter rate limit regime and the mass emission regime produced very similar results. By design, CO2 limits were achieved with very similar results for employment and price level changes. Also, as expected, allowing flexibility in the generation portfolio had a beneficial effect on the economy over time by allowing more jobs to be created with lower electricity prices.

Page 37 20

Economic Challenges Facing Kentucky’s Electricity Generation Under Greenhouse Gas Constraints December 2013

Higher natural gas prices will cost Kentucky jobs; a diversified portfolio moderates those impacts. Assuming that natural gas prices follow the EIA high natural gas price forecast, simulation results indicate that the higher price trajectory does not slow Kentucky’s transition to natural gas, although the higher gas price does make this transition more costly for Kentuckians, with resulting impacts on employment.

By 2035 the reference case, assuming the high natural gas price trajectory, results in 50,000 fewer jobs than the reference case that assumes EIA’s lower reference gas prices. Many of these jobs are in Kentucky’s manufacturing sector.

When federal carbon policies are simulated assuming the high gas price forecast, some notable differences occur compared to the lower gas price forecast. Nuclear power becomes a preferred option sooner with higher gas prices, and the cost of Kentucky’s nuclear ban is more severe. In 2035 assuming the mass emission standard is in effect, the nuclear banned portfolio produces higher gas prices compared to the other three portfolios examined. Higher gas prices also make diversification more attractive. Assuming Kentucky must meet the mass emission reduction simulated and assuming gas prices follow the EIA high gas price forecast, the difference in price between the portfolio that simulates a diversified or balanced approach and the portfolio that simulates just removing the nuclear ban is minimal. In many years the balanced portfolio is less costly. Figure 9 illustrates the effect of the nuclear ban on electricity prices and shows that through 2030 the cost of the balanced portfolio tracks with the non-diversified portfolio (Scenario 42). In later years the balanced portfolio is less costly for ratepayers. It should be noted a similar finding exists when gas prices are low.

Figure 9: Kentucky Electricity Prices, Nuclear Banned, Nuclear Allowed, Diversified Portfolio

Page 21

38

Economic Challenges Facing Kentucky’s Electricity Generation Under Greenhouse Gas Constraints December 2013

RECOMMENDATIONS Given the uncertainty regarding EPA’s rules for existing EGUs, states must think about potential economic impacts and consider potential actions to respond. In this paper, we have considered several impacts and diverse mitigation responses for Kentucky. The timing and details that will result from EPA’s proposed regulations when they are issued in June 2014 will undoubtedly affect reactions and responses from individual states, which will be very different and suggest that contingency planning is crucial.

Certainly, our thinking and planning will evolve. But based on our current understanding, several recommendations relative to Kentucky’s EGU fleet follow.

1.

Kentucky must continue to advocate for and find ways to maintain low-priced electricity. If low relative rates are not maintained, there will be reduced employment opportunities for Kentuckians, especially in the manufacturing sector.

2.

As described in Table 1, there are specific risks unique to nuclear, coal with CCS, and natural gas for future baseload electric generating units, and, for the most part, these risks do not overlap. Because of these unique risks and since it is impossible to determine which risk factors may ultimately dominate, it is imperative that Kentucky policy makers ensure that there is the flexibility necessary to diversify Kentucky’s future EGU fleet. Kentucky’s strict requirement that new electric ... it is imperative that Kentucky policy generating facilities be least cost coupled with the curmakers ensure that there is the flexibility rent low price of natural gas strongly favors natural gas necessary to diversify Kentucky’s future as the preferred fuel for future baseload EGU. However, EGU fleet. policy makers may want to modify the existing least-cost framework to prevent Kentucky from relying on natural gas for all new generation capacity as Kentucky’s existing power plant fleet is modified to comply with GHG regulations. It is important to note that an alternative EGU technology that is not least cost to build and operate today may shelter rate payers from risk and may prove to be a least-cost resource in the future. The avoided risks of alternative EGUs may be well worth the expected added upfront cost to the ratepayers, but strict interpretation of Kentucky’s least-cost requirement for construction of new EGUs will stymie Kentucky’s efforts to diversify its future EGU fleet.

3.

To maintain coal as a viable fuel for electricity generation, policies should be considered to encourage transition to more efficient coal generation technologies in a timely manner. Further, consideration should be given to relaxing the NSR/PSD rule that stymies serious consideration of coal generation efficiency upgrades at existing power plants. Research should continue to address those risks associated with CCS described in Table 1 to bring down the cost of the technology and remove barriers to its implementation.

4.

The existing statutory provision in KRS 278.605, which effectively bans the construction of nuclear power plants in Kentucky, should be repealed so that utilities have the option to consider developing nuclear power generation in their planning processes. Nuclear power is a zero carbon emitting resource that can enable Kentucky to meet GHG reduction requirements while still utilizing coal, and it can stabilize electricity prices in the long term. By moderating the increase in electricity price, nuclear power can protect jobs in a carbon-constrained world. Many

Page 39 22

Economic Challenges Facing Kentucky’s Electricity Generation Under Greenhouse Gas Constraints December 2013

of the scenarios show nuclear power edged out by low-cost natural gas in the earlier years.

However, development of nuclear power has a lengthy lead time and removing the ban can enable it to be a part of the planning process. Furthermore, the risk of a sudden shift to higher future natural gas prices may warrant the construction of nuclear power plants sooner.

5.

Kentucky is already on the path to reduce its carbon emissions as a result of combined market and regulatory forces. Any federal policy that requires further carbon emission reduction should allow Kentucky to use reductions already realized or expected because of power plant retirements and existing programs in its compliance plan.

A mass-emission reduction strategy as com- Further, Kentucky should be given flexibility in how it pared to a rate-based or carbon tax strategy meets the target so that coal can remain in the energy mix. A mass-emission reduction strategy as compared to will provide Kentucky greater flexibility in minimizing the impact on ratepayers and its a rate-based or carbon tax strategy will provide Kentucky greater flexibility in minimizing the impact on ratepayers existing coal fleet. and its existing coal fleet.

6.

Page 23

If Kentucky is afforded the responsibility to manage the GHG emissions on a statewide basis, ratepayers will benefit if utilities operating in Kentucky engage in enhanced cooperation and sector-wide planning. Therefore, it is important to afford utilities the opportunity to take advantage of regional differences in planning future compliance strategies. This is especially important if Kentucky must comply with a rate-based standard, which could have uneven economic impacts across the state. To a certain extent, the utilities already cooperate with each other in areas of network planning and operations. Furthermore, the shared ownership of assets is not uncommon in the industry. Enhanced coordination and long-range planning and coordination among utilities may result in better balancing of resources and services overall to Kentucky’s customers and more affordable prices.

40

Economic Challenges Facing Kentucky’s Electricity Generation Under Greenhouse Gas Constraints December 2013

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS B billion biomass fed boiler BFB btu British thermal unit CC combined cycle carbon capture and storage CCS CHP combined heat and power combustion turbine (simple cycle natural gas power plant) CT EGU electricity generating unit GDP Gross Domestic Product greenhouse gas GHG GWh gigawatt hour integrated gasification combined cycle plant IGCC lb pound kilowatt hour kwh municipal solid waste MSW MW megawatt MWh megawatt hour natural gas combined cycle (power plant) NGCC New Source Review/Prevention of Significant Deterioration NSR/PSD Natural Resources Defense Council NRDC O&M operating and maintenance (costs) PC pulverized coal supercritical (power plant) SC small modular (nuclear) reactor SMR ultra-supercritical (power plant) USC

Page 41 24

Economic Challenges Facing Kentucky’s Electricity Generation Under Greenhouse Gas Constraints December 2013

APPENDIX A - Future Power Generation Options Defining the future power generation options for Kentucky is a key part of the current regulatory impact assessment. Future technologies could include improvements to current coal power generation units including CCS, natural gas power generation, and renewables. Table A.1. shows the list of future power generation options assumed for Kentucky. Each of the technologies is accompanied by the necessary data required for modeling predictions. The color coding in the table corresponds to the sources of the various pieces of information (sources listed below the table).

The coal technologies in Table A.1 include both supercritical (SC) and ultra-supercritical (USC) power generation. The respective power generation efficiencies of those technologies are 39 percent and 45 percent (HHV). The impacts of CCS (assumed to be amine technology) to these systems is on both the efficiency and capital cost. Second-generation CCS technologies that are currently in earlier stages of research and development are also included in the projections.

For natural gas, technology options include combined cycle (CC) and combustion turbine (CT). Fuel cells and natural gas retrofits of PC boilers are also included, along with combined heat and power (CHP).

Finally, a variety of renewable (and nuclear) technologies are specified in Table A.1. The listed renewables include photovoltaic, nuclear (including small module reactors), wind, hydroelectric, municipal solid waste (MSW), and biomass. Biomass options include both 100 percent biomass power generation and 20 percent co-feeding options with coal.

For each of the technologies in Table A.1 estimates were made for levelized cost of electricity, maximum possible avoided CO2, etc. The supporting assumptions that were necessary for those estimates are shown in Appendix B. Outside of those assumptions, the key assumptions used in generating the estimates in Table A.1 are as follows:

1)

Nuclear power generation is not prohibited in Kentucky.

2)

Fuel prices are constant for the total cost estimates shown, except for the 2X natural gas price representations in several plots.

3)

A constant capital charge factor or 0.0965 was used for every technology type, which implies the same depreciation period and interest rates.

An average (current) CO2 generation rate of 2,074 lb/MW-h was assumed for Kentucky.

4)

5)

The specified lag time (permitting, construction, etc.) in Table A.1 was not taken into account in the cost and emissions comparison estimates. Also, only the current electricity demand values were used. The higher fidelity model is necessary to incorporate these parameters.

6)

Only CO2 emissions from biomass and MSW were exempted from CO2 emission totals used in the rollups, as they were not deemed as being from fossil energy sources.

Page A.1

42

Nominal Capacity (MW)

650 1,300 1,300 550 550 550 550 550 600 520 250 10 210 400 340 10 650 50 27 150 180 2,234 30 10

Capacity Factor

85% 85% 85% 85% 85% 85% 85% 85% 85% 83% 87% 87% 30% 87% 87% 90% 85% 78% 85% 25% 90% 90% 34% 52%

Heat Rate (Btu/kWh)

13,046 8,800 12,000 7,654 10,270 10,353 9,093 8,962 8,700 10,700 9,355 6,007 9,750 6,430 7,525 9,500 10,600 13,500 13,500 N/A N/A 10,452 N/A N/A Hydro

Wind

Uranium

Uranium

Solar

MSW

Biomass

Co-feed

Gas

Gas

Gas

Gas

Gas

Gas

Coal

Coal

Coal

Coal

Coal

Coal

Coal

Coal

Coal

Coal

CO2 (Total)

44.1 206 20.6 203 20 13 203 20 206 20.6 117 61 117 117 12 130 206 195 115 0 0 0 0 0

CO2 (from biomass & MSW)

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 36 195 115 0 0 0 0 0

Total CO2 Emissions (lb/MW-h)

576 1813 247 1554 205 135 1846 179 1792 220 1095 364 1141 752 90 1235 2184 2633 1551 0 0 0 0 0

CO2 from Fossil Sources (lb/MW-h)

576 1813 247 1554 205 135 1846 179 1792 220 1095 364 1141 752 90 1235 1802 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Fixed O&M Cost ($/kW-yr)

$216.4 $31.18 $66.43 $34.2 $47.3 $45.55 $45.55 $41.3 $62.3 $72.8 $25.0 $7.5 $7.0 $15.4 $31.8 $0.0 $40.0 $105.6 $90.5 $24.7 $93.3 $93.3 $39.6 $14.1

Variable O&M Cost ($/MWh)

$21.2 $4.47 $9.51 $5.2 $9.2 $7.10 $7.10 $8.0 $7.2 $8.5 $3.6 $6.1 $10.4 $3.3 $6.8 $43.0 $6.4 $5.3 ($10.0) $0.0 $2.1 $2.1 $0.0 $0.0

Overnight Capital Cost ($/kW)

$1,267 $2,934 $4,724 $3,000 $5,130 $4,770 $4,770 $4,470 $4,400 $6,599 $250 $2,278 $676 $1,023 $2,095 $7,108 $213 $4,114 $3,784 $3,873 $5,000 $5,530 $2,513 $2,936

2 0 0 0 5 5 5 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0

2 3 3 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 1 1.5 2 1.5 2 1 1 1.5 2 1 2 4 1 2

Construction Time (yrs)

3 5 6 4 5 5 5 5 4 5 1 1 1 2 3 1 1 2 3 1 3 7 1 4

Total Lead Time (yrs)

7 8 9 6.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 17.5 6.5 7.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 5 2 2 3.5 5 2 9 11 2 6

2.87 2.87 2.87 2.87 2.87 2.87 2.87 2.87 2.87 2.87 5.45 5.45 5.45 5.45 5.45 5.45 3.24 4.00 0.00 0.00 0.72 0.72 0.00 0.00

Assumed Fuel Price ($/MMBTU)

Estimates

0.104 0.072 0.114 0.071 0.111 0.105 0.101 0.097 0.098 0.137 0.061 0.069 0.091 0.053 0.078 0.182 0.049 0.133 0.051 0.182 0.075 0.089 0.095 0.065

100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 78% 8.0% 100% 100% 100% 100% 4.4% 4.4% 1.0% 12.0% 100% 100% 5.0% 2.3%

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), Updated Capital Cost Estimates for Utility Scale Electricity Generating Plants, April 2013 [all unhighlighted data in black font] Higman, Christopher; van der Burgt, Maarten (2008). Gasification (2nd Edition), Table 9.3. Elsevier.

Levelized Cost of New Generation Resources in the Annual Energy Outlook 2013, U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), January 2013.

Pulverized Coal Oxycombustion Power Plants - Volume 1: Bituminous Coal to Electricity, DOE/NETL-2007/1291, Revision 2, August 2008 Assumes 1/2 the parasitic energy for amine baseline carbon capture Craig Welling, US Dept. Energy Office of Nuclear Energy, Dec. 2010.

Technology Characterization: Gas Turbines, Prepared by Energy and Environmental Analysis for EPA Climate Protection Partnership Division, Washington DC, Dec. 2008.

Feasibility and cost of converting coal fired utility boilers to natural gas. MIT EL 86-009, Dec. 1986. 3-5% efficiency drop for NG substitution. B&V paper: +200 btu/kWh increase to subcritical cycle.

Male JL, et.al. "Logistics, Costs, and GHG Impacts of Utility-Scale Co-firing with 20% Biomass." PNNL-SA-94835, U.S. Department of Energy.

Skone TJ, et.al. Role of Alternative Energy Sources: Pulverized Coal and Biomass Co-firing, Technology Assessment, August 30, 2012, DOE/NETL-2012/1537, U.S. Department of Energy.

Estimates from PNNL (various sources).

“Renewable Energy Opportunities at Fort Campbell, Tennessee/Kentucky,” JR Hand , et. al., Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, for the U.S. DOE, PNNL-20223.

“Is It Better To Burn or Bury Waste for Clean Electricity Generation?,” P. Ozgen Kaplan, et. al., U.S. EPA, Environ. Sci. Technol. 2009, 43, 1711–1717.

"The Cost of Transmission for Wind Energy: A Review of Transmission Planning Studies,” Mills, et. al.. LBNL-1471E, February 2009. $2,213/kW from EIA report plus $300/kW of MISO transmission upgrade.

Subcritical PC Retrofit with CCS SC Pulverized Coal SC Pulverized Coal with CCS Ultra-Supercritical (USC) PC USC PC with CCS USC PC with Oxy-CCS USC PC with Oxy (no CCS) USC PC with Gen 2 CCS IGCC IGCC with CCS NG Retrofit of PC Boiler Combined Heat & Power Advanced CT Advanced NGCC Advanced NGCC with CCS Fuel Cells PC retrofit with 20% Biomass Biomass BFB Municipal Solid Waste Photovoltaic Small Modular (Nuclear) Reactors Conventional Nuclear Wind Hydroelectric

Fuel

Time Until Commerc Available (yrs)

Plant Costs (2012$) Permitting Time (yrs)

Emissions (lb/MMBtu)

Total LEC ($/kW-hr)

Plant Characteristics Max. Offset to KY Coal Power Generation

Table A.1: Data for Power Generation Technology Options Max. Possible CO2 Avoided (M tons/yr)

62 11 75 21 77 80 9 78 12 77 32 6 39 55 82 35 0 4 1 10 86 86 4 2

Total Cost ($/ton CO2 avoided)

139 550 125 271 119 108 886 103 692 148 125 80 195 81 79 433 359 128 49 175 72 86 91 63

Economic Challenges Facing Kentucky’s Electricity Generation Under Greenhouse Gas Constraints December 2013

Page 43 A.2

Economic Challenges Facing Kentucky’s Electricity Generation Under Greenhouse Gas Constraints December 2013

The following plot shows the CO2 generation rates for each of the potential power generation technologies in Table A.1. Technologies using coal and natural gas include options with carbon capture and storage (CCS). The renewable technologies, nuclear, and municipal solid waste plants have near zero CO2 emissions.

Figure A.1: CO2 Emission Rates for Future Candidate Power Generation Technologies

The next plot shows the levelized cost of electricity for the technologies in Table A.1 along with the cost sensitivity of a 2X increase in natural gas price. Here the initial price of natural gas was assumed to be $5.45 per million Btu.

Page A.3

44

Economic Challenges Facing Kentucky’s Electricity Generation Under Greenhouse Gas Constraints December 2013

Figure A.2: Levelized Cost of Electricity from Table A.1 - with 2X increase in natural gas price represented.

Page 45 A.4

Economic Challenges Facing Kentucky’s Electricity Generation Under Greenhouse Gas Constraints December 2013

APPENDIX B – Estimated Limits on Power Generation Sources for Kentucky The following sections outline the key assumptions and statewide potential for a given resource (biomass, MSW, wind, etc.). These assumptions were used to generate the estimates shown in Table A.1.

B.1

Biomass Potential

5.7 to 6.0 million dry tons of annual biomass potential are estimated for the entire state of Kentucky.10 The primary sources for the biomass are forest residue, dedicated crops, crop residue, and urban wood.

There are two primary technology options for biomass use in power generation, one as a co-feed component in current (or future) coal power plants, and two as a devoted (100 percent) feedstock for smaller power generation systems. The total state level resource assumptions for each of these two options are as follows:

Co-fed Biomass with Coal • The form of the biomass fuel is assumed to be char from a torrefaction process, which is a type of mild pyrolysis. The char yield from unprocessed biomass is typically around 55 percent.

• The fuel value of the char is assumed to be 9,100 btu/lb.

• The cost of the torrefied biomass is assumed to be $86 per ton, or $4.72 per million btu.

• The biomass char is assumed to be co-fed with coal at 20 percent of the total feedstock mass.

• The average heat rate of power generation (co-fed blend) is assumed to be 8,800 btu/kwh.

• Using the fuel value, the co-feeding percentage and the heat rate, the total annual energy potential for Kentucky is 6,650,000 MW-h, which equates to 760 MW of total possible power.

• The assumed size of the co-fed power plant is 650 MW. Therefore, the total number 650 MW coal power plants that could be 20 percent co-fired equates to 760 MW / (20 percent * 650 MW per plant * 85 percent assumed capacity factor) = 7 plants.

Devoted (100 percent) Biomass Power Generation • The form of the biomass fuel may be field dried but is otherwise unprocessed.

• The fuel value of the biomass is conservatively assumed to be 5,000 btu/lb.

• The cost of the biomass is assumed to be $40 per ton = $4 per million btu. 11

10 NREL Dec. 2005. TP-560-39181. Technical Report. A Geographic Perspective on Current Biomass Resource Availability in the United States.

11 U.S. Billion Ton Update - Biomass Supply for a Bioenergy and Bioproducts Industry, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, for the U.S. DOE under contract DE-AC05-00OR22725, August 2011.

Page B.1

46

Economic Challenges Facing Kentucky’s Electricity Generation Under Greenhouse Gas Constraints December 2013

• The average heat rate of power generation is assumed to be 13,500 btu/kwh.

• Using the fuel value, the co-feeding percentage, and the heat rate, the total annual energy potential for Kentucky is 4,300,000 MW-h, which equates to 490 MW of total possible power.

• The assumed size of a devoted biomass power plant is 50 MW. Therefore, the total number 50 MW coal power plants equates to 490 MW / (50 MW per plant * 85 percent assumed capacity factor) = 11 plants.

Hybrid Examples • If fractions of the total biomass are to be used for co-fed and devoted scenarios, simply multiply the corresponding energy potential by that fraction. For example, 75 percent co-fed and 25 percent devoted and would result in 75 percent * 6,650,000 MW-h/yr = 5,000,000 MW-h/yr for co-fed applications and 25 percent * 4,300,000 MW-h/yr = 1,075,000 MW-h/yr for devoted applications.

B.2

Municipal Solid Waste Potential

Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) enters Kentucky landfills at a rate of 4.2 million tons per year and approximately one-third is estimated to be recoverable.12 The energy content of recoverable MSW is approximately 11 million Btu per ton (5,500 Btu/lb), heavily weighted towards biogenic resources such as paper, paperboard, and yard debris.13 Power production from MSW can be achieved by either combustion or gasification-based systems, with typical heat rates of 18,000 and 13,600 Btu/kwh, respectively.14 The assumptions for potential future MSW power production are as follows: • Using the above parameters, and the lower of the two heat rates, the total annual energy potential for Kentucky is 1,100,000 MW-h, which equates to approximately 130 MW of total possible power.

• The assumed sizes of the combustion and gasification-based MSW power production units are 20 and 27 MW, respectively. Therefore, the total number 20 MW MSW power plants possible in Kentucky equates to 130 MW / (20 MW per plant * 85 percent assumed capacity factor) = 8 plants.

• MSW fuel costs are rolled into the Variable O&M. Therefore, tipping fees received by the power producer result in an overall negative Variable O&M.

12 “Is It Better To Burn or Bury Waste for Clean Electricity Generation?” P. Ozgen Kaplan, et. al., U.S. EPA, Environ. Sci. Technol.

2009, 43, 1711–1717.

13 “Renewable Energy Opportunities at Fort Campbell, Tennessee/Kentucky,” JR Hand, PNNL-20223.

14 U.S. EIA, Updated Capital Cost Estimates for Utility Scale Electricity Generating Plants, April 2013

Page 47 B.2

Economic Challenges Facing Kentucky’s Electricity Generation Under Greenhouse Gas Constraints December 2013

B.3

Hydroelectric Capacity

Total developable hydroelectric capacity in Kentucky is estimated at 439 MW, with the Meldahl project already under construction at 110 MW.15 This results in approximately 300 MW of remaining hydroelectric capacity for the state. Hydroelectric opportunities in the 0 to 10 MW size range sum up to a total of 107 MW, with an average size of 2.6 MW. Opportunities in the 0 to 50 MW range sum to a total of 297 MW, with an average size of 6 MW. Therefore, an average size of no more than 10 MW was assumed in the analysis for an individual future unit.

B.4

Wind Power

A national wind power assessment showed 1,900 GWh of possible in-state wind generation potential for Kentucky at 100-meters.16 This total is reduced to 173 GWh for wind generation potential at 80 meters.

The corresponding power production of these two options (at 30 percent capacity factor) is 700 MW and 61 MW, respectively. A Synapse study identified up to 2,000 GWh of out-of-state wind that may be available for Kentucky use.17 Based on these two assessments an in-state maximum of 1,900 GWh (700 MW at a 30 percent capacity factor) and 2,000 GWh of maximum out-of-state wind capacity were assumed.

These values equate to a corresponding (current) coal power displacement potential of 5 percent.

Future wind power imported to Kentucky is assumed to come from Indiana, with transmission into western Kentucky via existing MISO lines. The overnight capital cost of imported wind is assumed to be $2,213 per kW. This includes costs for a substation to increase voltage from the collection system at 34.5 kV to interconnected transmission system high voltage at 115 kV.18 The capital cost estimate does not include MISO upgrades necessary for transmission to Kentucky. Upgrades are not likely necessary for small amounts of wind transmission (<100 MW). For significant wind transmission a capital adder should be applied. A transmission cost adder estimate of approximately $300/kW is given in one study and is the assumed value for the current assessment.19

B.5

Potential for Solar Power Generation via Photovoltaic Technology

Several sources were studied to determine the extent of potential Kentucky solar resources using photovoltaic power generation.20,21,22 The referenced studies spanned from large scale (>10 MW) installations to small (0.1 MW) distributed generation systems, with projections out to 2025. The estimates of possible electric energy from solar ranged from 1,200 to 17,000 GWh per year, or 1.4 to 13 GW of potentially displaced power for the state. Based on this range a value of 10,000 GWh per year, or 8.0 GW at an assumed capacity factor, was assumed to be the state solar resource maximum for the current study.

This value has a corresponding (current) coal power displacement potential of 12 percent.

15

http://hydropower.inel.gov/resourceassessment/app_a/index_states.shtml?ky http://www.windpoweringamerica.gov/wind_resource_maps.asp?stateab=ky. Accessed 10/29/2013.

17 Synapse. KY REPS/EE Potential Impacts. January 2012.

18 Appendix B, page 21-1 of EIA April 2013 report 19 “The Cost of Transmission for Wind Energy: A Review of Transmission Planning Studies,” Andrew Mills, Ryan Wiser, and Kevin Porter. LBNL-1471E, February 2009.

20 Potential Impacts of a Renewable and Energy Efficiency Portfolio Standard in Kentucky. Synapse Jan. 12, 2012.

21 The Opportunities for Distributed Renewable Energy in Kentucky. Downstream Strategies, LLC. June 18, 2012.

22 Intelligent Energy Choices for Kentucky’s Future. Governor Steven L. Beshear. Nov. 2008.

16

Page B.3

48

Economic Challenges Facing Kentucky’s Electricity Generation Under Greenhouse Gas Constraints December 2013

B.6

Combined Heat and Power Potential

Combined Heat and Power (CHP) implies the use of waste heat from a power production plant for industrial heating. Natural gas is the most common fuel for CHP applications and is assumed for any of the modeling forecasts.

The current CHP potential in Kentucky is estimated between 4 percent and 12 percent of current power generation.23 Therefore, 8 percent is assumed as the current CHP potential for modeling purposes. This value equates to approximately 2,000 MW of current power generation for Kentucky. Future estimates for CHP potential are even larger.24,25 Therefore, it is assumed that the CHP “resource” could increase (linearly) to 30 percent of Kentucky’s power generation (approximately 7,000 MW in today’s power usage) over the next 20 years, where it should stay at the 30 percent maximum from there on out. The average size for an assumed CHP system is 10 MW. The assumed reduction in CO2 emission from CHP should be as high as 1,040 lb of CO2/MW-h.26 This value is close to the stated CO2 emissions from an average natural gas power generation source. The reason for the large potential offset is that total recoverable heat recovery from fuel in CHP is similar to the electricity yield. However, a key assumption in reducing projected CO2 emissions is that the CO2 that would otherwise be used in an industrial heating operation is not part of the power base rollup.

A net power generation heat rate of 6,000 Btu/kwh was also assumed for CHP, versus a starting point of around 12,000 Btu/kwh (for a 10 MW system). This adjustment is due to the fact that CHP thermal energy is nearly equivalent to the electricity energy itself and, therefore, could result in a 50 percent reduction in the effective heat rates for those systems.

B.7

Potential for Retrofits of PC Boilers with Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)

The existing Kentucky coal fleet was assessed for the potential of retrofitting to CCS. Kentucky currently has 63 coal-fired power generation units for a total pulverized coal (PC) capacity of 16,283 MW.27 The criteria used for CCS retrofit-ability were (1) units must have a capacity of at least 500 MW, either singly or combined at a single site (consolidate flue gas into a single CCS system); (2) units must have FGD, or analog, for high efficiency sulfur removal; and (3) units must not be slated for retirement and must be newer than 1970 vintage so as to preclude or reduce their retirement over the short term. Using these criteria 22 units were deemed “eligible” for retrofit, or a total current name plate capacity of 9,400 MW. The following table shows the subset of “eligible” plants along with CCS cost projections.

23 “Combined Heat and Power, Effective Energy Solutions for a Sustainable Future,” Shipley, et. al., Oak Ridge National Laboratory for the U.S. DOE, ORNL/TM-2008/224, December 1, 2008.

24 “The Market and Technical Potential for Combined Heat and Power in the Commercial/Institutional Sector,” ONSITE SYCOM Energy, for U.S. DOE – Energy Information Administration, January 2000.

25 “The Opportunities for Distributed Renewable Energy in Kentucky,” McIlmoil, et. al. Downstream Strategies, LLC, June 18, 2012 26 “Technology Characterization: Gas Turbines,” Prepared by Energy and Environmental Analysis for EPA Climate Protection Partnership Division, Washington DC, December 2008.

27 EIA dataset for Kentucky power generation.

Page 49 B.4

Economic Challenges Facing Kentucky’s Electricity Generation Under Greenhouse Gas Constraints December 2013

For any carbon capture technology a significant drain of power from the plant, or “parasitic load,” is required for the separation and compression of the CO2. The estimates in Table B.1 assume that commercial amine-based CO2 scrubbing (90 percent removal) is used for CCS, with a conservative parasitic load of 29 percent of the net electric power production. Therefore, the 9,400 MW of retrofitted power would only produce a net amount of 6,667 MW after retrofit. The capital cost estimates in Table B.1 total $5,377 million. This equates to $849 per kW of net power production with CCS. Fixed and variable costs will also increase with a CCS retrofit. The same baseline assessment for CCS on subcritical PC used for the capital projection was also used for the fixed and variable cost predictions.28 These costs were normalized to total CO2 production to aide in the subsequent estimates for a given plant retrofit. Here, the fixed costs with and without CCS were $9.8 and $8.3 per ton of total CO2 production, respectively. Similarly, the respective variable costs with and without CCS were $6.9 and $5.5.

Note that all of the above costs for CCS retrofit were adjusted for the parasitic power associated for the technology. This was done by assuming that all parasitic power would be replaced by new NGCC technology. Therefore, the individual costs were increased by the associated fraction of NGCC costs that would be required. For example, the capital costs was increased by the capital cost of NGCC ($1,023 per kW in Table A.1) multiplied by the parasitic load fraction (29 percent/71 percent).

Table B.1: Estimates of Existing Kentucky Coal Power Production “Eligible” for CCS Retrofit Commercial amine-based CO2 scrubbing (90 percent) estimates used with a parasitic load of 33 percent of the net electric power produced. Capital costs extrapolated using CO2 production rate.29 Unit Code

Site Name

6823_W1 1355_3 1355_2 1355_1 6018_2 1356_2 1356_3 1356_1 1356_4 6041_2 6041_1 6041_3 6041_4 1364_4 1364_3 1364_1 1364_2 1378_3 6639_G2 6639_G1 6071_2 6071_1

D B Wilson E W Brown E W Brown E W Brown East Bend Ghent Ghent Ghent Ghent H L Spurlock H L Spurlock H L Spurlock H L Spurlock Mill Creek Mill Creek Mill Creek Mill Creek Paradise R D Green R D Green Trimble County Trimble County

Totals

Name Plate Heat Rate Capacity (Btu/kW-h) (MW) 566 412 166 106 600 495 489 479 469 510 300 268 268 477 391 303 301 971 293 293 732 511 9,400

9,956 10,487 10,553 10,794 9,218 8,904 8,982 9,694 8,512 9,752 8,861 8,826 8,501 9,557 9,483 8,507 9,246 10,236 10,434 10,004 8,892 9,420

Online Year

Age Out Year

Total CO2 Generation (lb/hr)

1984 1971 1963 1957 1981 1977 1981 1974 1984 1981 1977 2005 2005 1982 1978 1972 1974 1970 1981 1979 2010 1990

2044 2048 2036 2034 2042 2057 2042 2041 2044 2057 2050 2075 2067 2042 2042 2042 2042 2030 2045 2033 2070 2066

1,154,963 886,505 359,478 234,771 1,136,268 903,405 901,540 952,190 820,642 1,021,754 545,748 485,407 467,038 936,160 761,168 528,844 570,621 2,038,760 628,391 603,032 1,366,527 987,870

Revised Capacity w/ CCS (MW) 401 292 118 75 426 351 347 340 333 362 213 190 190 338 277 215 213 689 208 208 519 362 6,667

1 1

Capital Cost for CCS Retrofits (2012$ M) 1,154,963 373 1,480,753 433

1 2

1,136,268 1,804,945

369 488

1,772,832

483

1,259,974

393

1,259,974

393

1,398,396

418

1,398,396

418

1 1

2,038,760 1,231,423

525 331

1 1

1,366,527 987,870

413 340

CO2 Number of CCS Generation Systems in Group per Group (lb/hr)

2

2

5,377

28 Pulverized Coal Oxy-combustion Power Plants - Volume 1: Bituminous Coal to Electricity, DOE/NETL-2007/1291, Revision 2, August 2008. Data for subcritical PC: Cases 9 and 10.

29 Quality Guidelines for Energy System Studies: Capital Cost Scaling Methodology, DOE/NETL-341/013113, January 2013

Page B.5

50

Economic Challenges Facing Kentuckyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Electricity Generation Under Greenhouse Gas Constraints December 2013

B.8

Potential for Natural Gas Power Generation

Conversion of existing capacity to natural gas-fired technologies could proceed under several different mechanisms including retrofit of pulverized coal (PC) fired furnaces to support natural gas combustion (fuel switching); replacement of existing capacity with natural gas combined cycle (NGCC) units; and/or replacement of existing PC produced energy to higher percentages of combined heat and power (CHP).

All are considered technically viable and relevant. The intent of this section is to describe the potential impacts under each of these scenarios when considered discretely; it does not however attempt to optimize a portfolio of generating options based on natural gas. The following is predicated on the natural gas fuel price as provided in EIA fuel price projections through 2040.

Retrofit of Existing Pulverized Coal Furnaces to Natural Gas Combustion The retrofit of PC furnaces to natural gas combustion can be a relatively simple process if the existing furnace and balance of plant can support the fuel switch. It can also be complex, and is inherently site specific. Traditionally, retrofit of PC furnaces to natural gas combustion has not been executed due to the lower efficiency steam cycle (when compared to a NGCC) and wide variation in natural gas fuel pricing compared to coal.

Of the existing PC capacity in Kentucky, approximately 80 percent of the fleet could fire natural gas. Removed from consideration were furnaces that would be difficult to repower without a technology switch such as stoker boilers and fluidized bed boilers. Plants that were declared as retired, or to be retired within the next three years, were also eliminated.

EIA (2012) indicated that of the 89,820 GWh produced in Kentucky, approximately 92 percent (82,566 GWh) was generated by coal-fired facilities. On an energy basis, replacing that electricity with retrofit PC furnaces operating at an average heat rate of 10,186 30 btu/kwh, would require the conversion of approximately 9,200 MWs31 ; an approximate capital outlay of $2.3 billion; and annual non-fuel operating expenses (fixed and variable) of approximately $500 million per year. From an infrastructure standpoint, natural gas consumption for converted PC plants alone could consume almost 17 percent of the entire natural gas pipeline capacity entering the state of Kentucky32; the capital required for expansion of distribution is not captured in the analysis, nor is the estimated cost for actual transmission of gas.

Transition to Natural Gas Combined Cycle The transition away from coal-fired capacity to natural gas combined cycle is already happening throughout the United States. For similar reasons as discussed earlier, such as higher efficiency power production when compared to coal-fired capacity and historically low fuel prices, existing NGCC units are experiencing much higher utilization rates (capacity factors), and new build capacity is quickly expanding as well.

30

Fleet average of the PC furnaces considered eligible for NG retrofit.

Assumes conversion can happen within two years. Costs are representative of 2016 which is the first year that furnaces could be transitioned.

32 Accessed at http://www.eia.gov/pub/oil_gas/natural_gas/analysis_publications/ngpipeline/usage.html 31

Page 51 B.6

Economic Challenges Facing Kentuckyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Electricity Generation Under Greenhouse Gas Constraints December 2013

Analysis of NGCC started with the same baseline energy production data from EIA for 2012. In addition to considering full replacement of coal-fired capacity, power production from existing natural gas-fired capacity was also included to understand the total demand for fuel, and the potential impact to natural gas pipeline infrastructure.

On an energy basis, replacing the currently produced electricity from pulverized coal would require the greenfield development of approximately 11,400 MW33; a capital outlay of $11.7 billion, and annual nonfuel operating expenses (fixed and variable) of $450 million per year. Natural gas consumption for new NGCC plants constructed to replace PC capacity would consume approximately 13 percent of the entire natural gas pipeline capacity entering the state of Kentucky.

33 Assumes conversion can happen within four years. Costs are representative of 2017 which is the first year that NGCC could be commissioned based on scheduled permitting and construction lead times.

Page B.7

52

EDUCATION 53

Jim Klauber, President of Owensboro Community & Technical College Phone: 270.686.3790 Email: jim.klauber@kctcs.edu Jim Klauber is a South Carolina native. Dr. Klauber earned his undergraduate degree from The Citadel, a Juris Doctorate from the University of South Carolina, and a Doctor of Philosophy degree from the University of South Carolina. He retired from the SC Army National Guard with the rank of Lieutenant Colonel after 27 years of service, 15 as a member of the Judge Advocate Generals Corps, including a 10month tour of duty in Kosovo. A former law clerk to Governor Carroll Campbell, and five term member SC General Assembly, he went to work for Piedmont Technical College in 2003 in Advancement and rose to be its Senior Vice President and General Counsel. Dr. Klauber came to Kentucky in 2010 as President of Owensboro Community & Technical College. He is married to the former Teresa Wyatt and has three children. He is a licensed private pilot and scuba diver.

54

Daviess County 2014-2015 Kentucky County Profile The 2014-2015 County Profile is produced by the Kentucky Center for Education & Workforce Statistics utilizing data from the Kentucky Longitudinal Data System (KLDS), which includes data from the Department of Education, Council on Postsecondary Education, Education Professional Standards Board, Kentucky Higher Education Assistance Authority, and the Kentucky Education and Workforce Development Cabinet. The report includes the most current data available for Kentucky counties, Area Development Districts (ADDs), and Workforce Investment Areas (WIAs) on demographics, employment, college readiness and educational attainment.

What are some basic facts about Daviess County residents?

What is the educational attainment of Daviess County residents?

Total population

County 97,847

KY 4,380,415

US 313,914,040

Median household income

$45,507

$42,610

$53,046

Per capita income

$22,785

$23,210

$28,051

Living in poverty

14.9%

18.6%

14.9%

Eligible for Medicaid

17.9%

18.8%

n/a

Without medical insurance

14.5%

16.9%

17.9%

Registered voters who voted in the 2012 general election

62.5%

59.7%

68.0%

6.7%

8.2%

8.1%

100.0%

95.7%

98.8%

Unemployment rate Access to Broadband Internet

County

KY

19.4

19.4

Graduates ready for college-level coursework based on junior year ACT Mathematics English Reading

39.0% 56.8% 44.2%

41.6% 55.7% 44.7%

28.6%

27.2%

Ready for college by graduation

51.1%

49.4%

Ready for career by graduation

4.4%

11.8%

53.1%

54.1%

2.89

2.88

Average GPA for 2013 graduates

US

12.2%

17.6%

14.3%

High school diploma or equivalent

39.8%

34.0%

28.2%

Some college but no degree

21.0%

20.5%

21.3%

Associate's degree

7.9%

6.9%

7.7%

Bachelorâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s degree

11.1%

12.5%

17.9%

7.9%

8.5%

10.6%

What industries provide employment in Daviess County?

2012 Employment by Sector Agriculture, Mining, and Other Natural Resources 0.7% Finance, Professional & Other Services 6.9%

Utilities, Trade, & Transportation 20.5%

Average junior year ACT Composite score for 2013 graduates

Ready for college and/or career by graduation

KY

Graduate or professional degree

Are Daviess County public high school graduates prepared for college and career?

Science

County Less than a high school diploma or equivalent

Health & Education Services 35.5% Information and Communications 1.0%

State and Local Government and Public Education 19.0% Manufacturing and Construction 16.4%

Percentage of Daviess County Population Living in Poverty, 1980-2012 60

50

40

KY County

30

20

19.0

17.6

15.4 12.5

14.6

12.3

18.6

18.1

17.7

15.8

14.2

14.9

10

0

1980

1990

2000

2010

2011

2012

http://KCEWS.ky.gov 55

Daviess County 2014-2015 - continued

What were the top college choices for Daviess County public high school graduates?

What is the education pipeline for Daviess County?

County

KY

Public K-12 enrollment in 2012-2013

15,084

652,317

Private K-12 enrollment in 2012-2013

2,722

70,078

Entering students ready for kindergarten in fall 2013

52.9%

49.0%

Special education population in 2012-2013

13.9%

13.2%

Students with free and reduced lunch in 2012-2013

56.0%

56.6%

972

44,853

Overall College Going Rates for 2011 Public High School Graduates

36.6% Attended College Did Not Attend College

63.4%

Public high school graduates in 2010-2011 Public high school graduates entering postsecondary education in 2011-2012

Top 10 Colleges and Universities Attended

Number of Enrollments

Owensboro Community & Technical College

In-state college going rate in 2011-2012

27,014

Western Kentucky University

93

60.3%

55.4%

Murray State University

35

University of Kentucky

35

Kentucky Wesleyan College University of Louisville

32 23

Brescia University

21

3.4%

5.4%

Kentucky Adult Education enrollments for 2011-2012

744

40,300

GEDs awarded in 2011-2012

199

9,826

Out-of-state college going rate in 2011-2012

Students earning a postsecondary certificate or diploma in 2011-2012

178

8,193

Students earning an associate’s degree in 2011-2012

203

9,187

Students earning a bachelor’s degree in 2011-2012

317

15,745

95

4,326

Students earning a bachelor’s degree in science, technology, engineering, or mathematics (STEM) in 2011-2012 Students earning a graduate or professional degree in 2011-2012

73

National Career Readiness Certificates (NCRC) awarded in 2012-2013 Bachelor’s degree six-year graduation rate for 2007 cohort

7,480

607

13,745

61.7n/a %

Associate’s degree three-year graduation rate for 2010 cohort

340

616

54.2%

18.2n/a %

11.0%

University Of Southern Indiana

9

Bluegrass Community & Technical College

8

Eastern Kentucky University

8

Other Institutions

48

How much financial aid did 2011 public high school graduates from Daviess County receive in 2012?

Average

Awards

Kentucky Ed. Excellence Scholarships (KEES)

n/a $956

874

State need-based grants

n/a $433

112

State non-need-based grants

n/a $1,034

384

Federal Pell grants

n/a $2,356

288

n/a $966

151

Federal non-need-based loans

n/a $1,502

145

Institutional grants

n/a $1,140

107

Federal need-based loans

Percentage of Adults with a Bachelor's Degree or Higher in Daviess County, 1980-2012 50

40

30

KY 20.3

20

17.1 13.6 11.1

17.0

20.7 18.2

21.0 18.5

County

19.0

14.1

11.0

10

0

1980

1990

2000

2010

2011

2012

Sources: US Census 2008-2012 American Community Survey, US Department of Education, Kentucky Department of Education, Kentucky Higher Education Assistance Authority, Kentucky Office of Employment and Training, Kentucky State Board of Elections, US Census Small Area Health Insurance Estimates Program, Kentucky Department for Medicaid Services, National Telecommunications and Information Administration, Kentucky Adult Education, and the Council on Postsecondary Education. Complete descriptions of sources and methodologies may be found in the technical notes at the end of the County Profiles or through the Kentucky Center for Education & Workforce Statistics website at the address below:

http://KCEWS.ky.gov

56

2013 Kentucky High School Feedback Report

Owensboro Independent School District Owensboro High School

College Going and College Success

The Kentucky High School Feedback Report is produced by the Kentucky Center for Education and Workforce Statistics utilizing data from the Kentucky Longitudinal Data System (KLDS), which includes data from the Department of Education, Council on Postsecondary Education, and the Kentucky Higher Education Assistance Authority. This report provides the most complete and accurate data about college going and success that exists for this district. It follows students who graduated from public high schools in 2010-11 and were enrolled in a college or university during the 2011-12 academic year. It expands upon the previous High School Feedback Reports by including information about college success and progress for those public high school graduates of 2009-10 who attended an in-state public four-year university or KCTCS college during the 2010-11 academic year.

A. Overall, how do 2010-11 graduates from this district compare to others in Kentucky?

In order to ensure the confidentiality of individuals, some data items have been redacted.

Redacted data are represented by an asterisk (*).

Quick Statistics

District

Kentucky

1. Number of high school graduates

233 *

44,853

2. Average high school GPA

2.85 *

2.81

70.8% *

45.2%

4. Average junior year ACT scores for this class by subject a. English b. Mathematics c. Reading d. Science e. Composite

18.7 * 17.9 * 19.1 * 19.5 * 18.9 *

18.2 18.6 19.3 19.1 18.9

5. Average Kentucky Educational Excellence Scholarship (KEES) Awards earned by these graduates

3. Percent of students in this class who were eligible for free or reduced lunch

$989 *

$1,029

6. Overall college-going rate for graduates from this class

60.9% *

60.2%

7. Percent of graduates from this class who attended an in-state college or university

58.8% *

55.4%

0.0% 2.6%

5.4%

8. Percent of graduates from this class who attended an out-of-state college or university

Public High School Graduates of 2010-11

High school graduation rate (AFGR)

82.5% *

Overall college-going rate

60.9% *

Percent of graduates ready for 34.2% * 56.9% * 44.6% *

a. College-level math* b. College-level English* c. College-level reading* Average Kentucky Educational Excellence Scholarship (KEES) Awards earned by these graduates

$989 *

Public High School Graduates of 2009-10 Attending College in 2010-11 Percent with first year of college cumulative GPA of 2.0 or higher 61.0% * Percent who earned a full year of college-level credits during their first year (30 hours or more) 14.4% * Percent of college attendees in 78.7% 2010-11 who returned in 2011-12 * * Math, English, and reading readiness calculations are based on the average junior ACT scores for these graduates using Kentucky's benchmarks.

College Going Rates Compared to the Previous Year's Graduating Class 100%

80%

61.4%

60.9% 60%

60.2%

54.6%

40%

20%

0%

District

State 2009-10 Graduates

2010-11 Graduates

Note: This Kentucky High School Feedback Report was produced using data from the Kentucky Longitudinal Data System (KLDS) and provides information at a deeper level and in a different format than previous reports. If you intend to compare data from this report to others, please review the technical notes for each to ensure that the data are comparable. For more information, please visit http://KCEWS.ky.gov or e-mail KCEWS@ky.gov.

1

57

2013 Kentucky High School Feedback Report

Owensboro Independent School District Owensboro High School

College Going and College Success

B. What types of colleges and universities did 2010-11 graduates from this district attend?

1. Number of 2010-11 high school graduates entering college

District

Kentucky

142

27,014

0.0% 41.5 %

43.0%

0.0% 47.9 % 0.0% 14.1 %

37.8% 12.8%

60%

0.0% 0.0% 4.2%

1.7% 8.9%

40%

Postsecondary Enrollments for Graduates of This District 100%

2. Type of college or university attended

a. Four-year public university b. Two-year public community or technical college (KCTCS) c. Independent d. Other in-state or proprietary e. Out-of-state

80%

47.9% 41.5%

20%

3. College going rates for specific student populations a. Male b. Female

54.4*% 67.2*%

53.5% 67.0%

c. White

58.2*%

60.7%

d. African-American

70.2*%

55.7%

e. Hispanic/Latino g. Special education

Four-year public

Two-year public

Other in-state or proprietary

Out-of-state

100%

17.9%

80.8*% 24.7*%

Independent

Postsecondary Enrollments for Graduates Statewide

48.0%

*

h. Ready for college-level coursework* i. Not ready for college-level coursework*

4.2% 0%

52.2%

*

53.9*%

f. Eligible for free/reduced lunch

14.1%

88.1% 43.4%

80%

60%

The following data include only those students who attended an in-state public college or university.

43.0%

4. Started college full-time

85.7*%

84.6%

5. Degree or credential sought a. Bachelor's degree b. Associate's degree c. Certificate or diploma d. Not designated, undecided, undeclared, or no degree

37.8*% 54.6*% 2.5*% 5.0*%

47.9% 36.6% 5.0% 10.6%

37.8%

40%

20%

12.8%

8.9% 1.7%

0% Four-year public

Two-year public

Other in-state or proprietary

Out-of-state

Independent

College Going Rates for Graduates by Demographic Characteristics 100%

80%

67.2% 60%

70.2%

67.0% 58.2%

54.4%

60.7% 55.7%

53.5%

52.2%

40%

20%

0%

Male

Female

White

District

African-American

Hispanic/Latino

State

*College readiness is based on meeting all three Kentucky benchmarks during the junior year ACT assessment.

2

58

2013 Kentucky High School Feedback Report

Owensboro Independent School District Owensboro High School

College Going and College Success

C. Where did 2010-11 graduates from this district go to college?

Top 10 Colleges and Universities Attended

Number of Enrollments

Owensboro Community & Technical College

67

Western Kentucky University

26

Murray State University

14

Kentucky Wesleyan College

11

University Of Kentucky

8

Brescia University

6

University Of Louisville

5

Eastern Kentucky University

3

Kentucky State University

2

Elizabethtown Community & Technical College

1

Other Institutions

10

Average Junior Year ACT Composite by Enrolled Institution Type 30.0

26.0

22.0

21.9

21.8 20.8

20.8 18.3

18.0

21.0

18.1 17.1

14.0

10.0

In-state four-year public university

In-state two-year public university

In-state independent District

Other in-state or proprietary

Out-of-state

State

Kentucky's college readiness benchmarks for the ACT are 18 in English, 19 in mathematics, and 20 in reading.

3

59

2013 Kentucky High School Feedback Report

Owensboro Independent School District Owensboro High School

College Going and College Success

D. How did graduates from this district perform in their first year of college compared to others in Kentucky?

The following data include 2009-10 public high school graduates who enrolled at a public Kentucky college or university during the 2010-11 academic year.

District

Kentucky

1. Percent of 2009-10 graduates who enrolled at a public in-state college and started full-time

88.3*%

90.8%

2. Percent with first year of college cumulative GPA of a. Less than 2.0 b. 2.0 to 2.99 c. 3.0 or higher

39.0*% 25.7*% 35.2*%

34.6% 30.0% 35.4%

3. Percent of college attendees meeting Kentucky's college readiness benchmarks (did not require developmental or supplemental coursework)*

54.2*%

49.6%

23.8 * 21.3 *

24.3 22.1

45.9*% 39.6*% 14.4*%

40.2% 44.6% 15.2%

First Year of College Cumulative GPA

39.0% 35.2%

Graph redacted due to small counts.

25.7%

4. Average credit hours in 2010-11 academic year a. Attempted b. Completed 5. Number of college-level credit hours earned in 2010-11 academic year a. Fewer than 15 hours b. 15 hours to 29.9 hours c. 30 hours or more

Less than 2.0 2.0 to 2.99 3.0 or Higher

Number of College-Level Credit Hours Earned in 2010-11 Academic Year 45.9% 14.4%

Comparing College Performance by College Readiness*

Graph redacted due to small counts.

6. Average first year cumulative GPA a. Ready for college-level coursework b. Not ready for college-level coursework

2.61 * 1.89 *

2.83 2.01

7. Average college-level credit hours earned a. Ready for college-level coursework b. Not ready for college-level coursework

24.9 * 12.4 *

23.8 14.4

39.6%

Fewer than 15 hours 15 to 29.9 hours 30 hours or more

8. Percent who returned for second year of college 92.9*% 72.3*%

a. Ready for college-level coursework b. Not ready for college-level coursework

90.5% 74.1%

*College readiness is based on meeting all three Kentucky benchmarks during the statewide junior year ACT assessment (English 18, math 19, reading 20).

College Performance by College Readiness First Year of College Cumulative GPA

Percent Returning for Second Year of College 100.0%

4.00

92.9%

90.5%

3.50 80.0% 3.00

74.1%

72.3%

2.83 2.61

2.50

60.0%

2.01

1.89

2.00

40.0%

1.50 1.00

20.0% 0.50 0.00

0.0%

District

State

District

College Ready

4

State

Not College Ready 60

2013 Kentucky High School Feedback Report

Owensboro Independent School District Owensboro High School

College Going and College Success Comparing High School and College Grades 9. Average cumulative GPA a. High school b. First year of college

District

Kentucky

2.92 * 2.08 *

2.80 2.27

2.49 * * 1.97

2.53 2.13

Average Cumulative GPAs for Graduates of This District 4.00

10. Average cumulative grade in math a. Senior year of high school b. First year of college 11. Average cumulative grade in English a. Senior year of high school b. First year of college 12. Average cumulative grade in science a. Senior year of high school

3.00

Graph redacted due 2.92 to small counts.

2.08

2.00

b. First year of college

2.51 * 2.47 *

2.84 2.54

2.76 *

2.74

2.46 *

2.35

1.00

0.00

High School

First Year of College

E. What types of financial aid did college attendees from this district receive?

District

Kentucky Percent of These College Attendees Receiving a Pell Grant

State Aid 13. Average Kentucky Educational Excellence Scholarship (KEES) award

$1,385 *

$1,364

a. Average need-based grant

$631 *

$602

b. Average non-need grant

$982 *

$961

100%

14. State grants

80%

67.6% 60%

50.3%

Federal Aid 15. Average Pell grant

$2,759 *

$1,945

$704 *

$947

$1,124 *

$1,411

40%

16. Federal loans

20%

a. Average need-based loan b. Average non-need loan

0%

District

Institutional Aid 17. Average institutional grant

$1,983 *

State

$1,274

Average Per Student Financial Aid Award by Type $4,000

$3,000 $2,759 $2,358 $1,983

$1,945

$2,000 $1,613 $1,385

$1,828

$1,563

$1,364

$1,274

$1,000

$0

KEES Awards

State Grants

Pell Grants

District

5

Federal Loans

Institutional Grants

State

61

2013 Kentucky High School Feedback Report

Owensboro Independent School District Owensboro High School

College Going and College Success

Average Aid Amounts for Graduates of This District Attending In-State Four-Year Public Universities

Average Aid Amounts for Graduates of This District Attending In-State Two-Year Public Colleges

$20,000

$20,000

$16,000

$16,000

$12,000

$12,000

Average Tuition and Fees** $7,181

$9,993 $1,817

$8,000

$8,000

$2,130 $960 $1,919

$4,000

$4,000

$6,193 $978 $329 $525 $843

Average Tuition and Fees** $2,860

$3,517

$3,168 $0

$0

State and Federal Needs-Based Grants*

Federal Needs-Based Loans*

KEES Awards*

State and Federal Non-Needs-Based Grants*

Federal Non-Needs-Based Loans*

Average Tuition and Fees**

*Average per student totals **Average in-state costs for tuition and fees in academic year 2010-11 as reported by institutions to Kentucky Higher Education Assistance Authority (KHEAA)

F. How did graduates from this district persist in college?

District 18. Number of 2009-10 high school graduates who a. Graduated high school b. Attended at least one semester of college c. Attended both fall and spring semesters d. Returned for second year of college e. Earned 30 or more college-level credit hours in first year (in-state public only)

Percent Earning 30 or More College-Level Credit Hours During First Year

Kentucky 100%

251 * 137 * 117 * 111 *

43,711 26,858 22,559 20,264

16 *

3,219

80% 60% 40% 20%

14.4%

15.2%

District

State

0%

College Enrollment Patterns for Public High School Graduates of 2009-2010 100%

80%

61.4% 60%

54.6%

51.7% 46.8%

44.4%

46.4%

40%

20%

0%

Attended College in 2010-11

Attended Fall and Spring in 2010-11 District

Attended Fall and Spring in 2010-11 and Returned in 2011-12

State

Technical notes for this report can be found at http://kcews.ky.gov/reports/2013HSFRTechNotes.pdf.

6

62

2013 Kentucky High School Feedback Report

Daviess County School District Apollo High School

College Going and College Success

The Kentucky High School Feedback Report is produced by the Kentucky Center for Education and Workforce Statistics utilizing data from the Kentucky Longitudinal Data System (KLDS), which includes data from the Department of Education, Council on Postsecondary Education, and the Kentucky Higher Education Assistance Authority. This report provides the most complete and accurate data about college going and success that exists for this district. It follows students who graduated from public high schools in 2010-11 and were enrolled in a college or university during the 2011-12 academic year. It expands upon the previous High School Feedback Reports by including information about college success and progress for those public high school graduates of 2009-10 who attended an in-state public four-year university or KCTCS college during the 2010-11 academic year.

A. Overall, how do 2010-11 graduates from this district compare to others in Kentucky?

In order to ensure the confidentiality of individuals, some data items have been redacted.

Redacted data are represented by an asterisk (*).

Quick Statistics

District

Kentucky

1. Number of high school graduates

739 *

44,853

2. Average high school GPA

2.70 *

2.81

39.0% *

45.2%

4. Average junior year ACT scores for this class by subject a. English b. Mathematics c. Reading d. Science e. Composite

18.8 * 18.6 * 19.1 * 19.1 * 19.0 *

18.2 18.6 19.3 19.1 18.9

5. Average Kentucky Educational Excellence Scholarship (KEES) Awards earned by these graduates

3. Percent of students in this class who were eligible for free or reduced lunch

$945 *

$1,029

6. Overall college-going rate for graduates from this class

64.1% *

60.2%

7. Percent of graduates from this class who attended an in-state college or university

60.8% *

55.4%

0.0% 3.7%

5.4%

8. Percent of graduates from this class who attended an out-of-state college or university

Public High School Graduates of 2010-11

High school graduation rate (AFGR)

84.3% *

Overall college-going rate

64.1% *

Percent of graduates ready for 38.4% * 56.3% * 43.6% *

a. College-level math* b. College-level English* c. College-level reading* Average Kentucky Educational Excellence Scholarship (KEES) Awards earned by these graduates

$945 *

Public High School Graduates of 2009-10 Attending College in 2010-11 Percent with first year of college cumulative GPA of 2.0 or higher 68.9% * Percent who earned a full year of college-level credits during their first year (30 hours or more) 15.9% * Percent of college attendees in 79.8% 2010-11 who returned in 2011-12 * * Math, English, and reading readiness calculations are based on the average junior ACT scores for these graduates using Kentucky's benchmarks.

College Going Rates Compared to the Previous Year's Graduating Class 100%

80%

68.2% 64.1%

61.4%

60.2%

60%

40%

20%

0%

District

State 2009-10 Graduates

2010-11 Graduates

Note: This Kentucky High School Feedback Report was produced using data from the Kentucky Longitudinal Data System (KLDS) and provides information at a deeper level and in a different format than previous reports. If you intend to compare data from this report to others, please review the technical notes for each to ensure that the data are comparable. For more information, please visit http://KCEWS.ky.gov or e-mail KCEWS@ky.gov.

1

63

2013 Kentucky High School Feedback Report

Daviess County School District Apollo High School

College Going and College Success

B. What types of colleges and universities did 2010-11 graduates from this district attend?

1. Number of 2010-11 high school graduates entering college

District

Kentucky

474

27,014

0.0% 29.5 %

43.0%

0.0% 59.7 % 0.0% 10.1 %

37.8% 12.8%

60%

0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 5.7%

1.7% 8.9%

40%

Postsecondary Enrollments for Graduates of This District 100%

2. Type of college or university attended

a. Four-year public university b. Two-year public community or technical college (KCTCS) c. Independent d. Other in-state or proprietary e. Out-of-state

80%

59.7%

29.5% 20%

3. College going rates for specific student populations a. Male b. Female

10.1%

58.9*% 70.1*%

53.5% 67.0%

c. White

64.8*%

60.7%

d. African-American

54.5*%

55.7%

e. Hispanic/Latino

40.0*%

52.2%

f. Eligible for free/reduced lunch

48.3*%

48.0%

g. Special education

91.1*% 13.3*%

h. Ready for college-level coursework* i. Not ready for college-level coursework*

Four-year public

Two-year public

Other in-state or proprietary

Out-of-state

Independent

Postsecondary Enrollments for Graduates Statewide 100%

17.9%

*

5.7% 0.2%

0%

88.1% 43.4%

80%

60%

The following data include only those students who attended an in-state public college or university.

43.0%

4. Started college full-time

87.7*%

84.6%

5. Degree or credential sought a. Bachelor's degree b. Associate's degree c. Certificate or diploma d. Not designated, undecided, undeclared, or no degree

31.4*% 54.3*% 2.5*% 11.8*%

47.9% 36.6% 5.0% 10.6%

37.8%

40%

20%

12.8%

8.9% 1.7%

0% Four-year public

Two-year public

Other in-state or proprietary

Out-of-state

Independent

College Going Rates for Graduates by Demographic Characteristics 100%

80%

70.1% 60%

67.0%

64.8% 60.7%

58.9%

54.5%

53.5%

55.7%

52.2% 40.0%

40%

20%

0%

Male

Female

White

District

African-American

Hispanic/Latino

State

*College readiness is based on meeting all three Kentucky benchmarks during the junior year ACT assessment.

2

64

2013 Kentucky High School Feedback Report

Daviess County School District Apollo High School

College Going and College Success

C. Where did 2010-11 graduates from this district go to college?

Top 10 Colleges and Universities Attended

Number of Enrollments

Owensboro Community & Technical College

273

Western Kentucky University

67

University Of Kentucky

27

Murray State University

21

Kentucky Wesleyan College

21

University Of Louisville

18

Brescia University

15

Bluegrass Community & Technical College

8

University Of Southern Indiana

8

Eastern Kentucky University

5

Other Institutions

36

Average Junior Year ACT Composite by Enrolled Institution Type 30.0

26.0

23.6

23.3 22.0

22.9 21.9

21.8 21.0 18.6

18.0

18.1 17.1

14.0

10.0

In-state four-year public university

In-state two-year public university

In-state independent District

Other in-state or proprietary

Out-of-state

State

Kentucky's college readiness benchmarks for the ACT are 18 in English, 19 in mathematics, and 20 in reading.

3

65

2013 Kentucky High School Feedback Report

Daviess County School District Apollo High School

College Going and College Success

D. How did graduates from this district perform in their first year of college compared to others in Kentucky?

The following data include 2009-10 public high school graduates who enrolled at a public Kentucky college or university during the 2010-11 academic year.

District

Kentucky

1. Percent of 2009-10 graduates who enrolled at a public in-state college and started full-time

92.2*%

90.8%

2. Percent with first year of college cumulative GPA of a. Less than 2.0 b. 2.0 to 2.99 c. 3.0 or higher

31.1*% 31.9*% 37.0*%

34.6% 30.0% 35.4%

First Year of College Cumulative GPA

31.1%

3. Percent of college attendees meeting Kentucky's college readiness benchmarks (did not require developmental or supplemental coursework)*

37.0%

Graph redacted due to small counts.

31.9%

4. Average credit hours in 2010-11 academic year a. Attempted b. Completed 5. Number of college-level credit hours earned in 2010-11 academic year a. Fewer than 15 hours b. 15 hours to 29.9 hours c. 30 hours or more

68.1*%

49.6%

24.7 * 22.3 *

24.3 22.1

34.6*% 49.5*% 15.9*%

40.2% 44.6% 15.2%

Less than 2.0 2.0 to 2.99 3.0 or Higher

Number of College-Level Credit Hours Earned in 2010-11 Academic Year 34.6% 15.9%

Comparing College Performance by College Readiness*

Graph redacted due to small counts.

6. Average first year cumulative GPA a. Ready for college-level coursework b. Not ready for college-level coursework

2.97 * 2.11 *

2.83 2.01

7. Average college-level credit hours earned a. Ready for college-level coursework b. Not ready for college-level coursework

24.5 * 15.8 *

23.8 14.4

49.5%

Fewer than 15 hours 15 to 29.9 hours 30 hours or more

8. Percent who returned for second year of college 91.5*% 72.7*%

a. Ready for college-level coursework b. Not ready for college-level coursework

90.5% 74.1%

*College readiness is based on meeting all three Kentucky benchmarks during the statewide junior year ACT assessment (English 18, math 19, reading 20).

College Performance by College Readiness First Year of College Cumulative GPA

Percent Returning for Second Year of College 100.0%

4.00

91.5%

90.5%

3.50 80.0% 3.00

2.97

74.1%

72.7%

2.83

2.50

60.0%

2.11

2.01

2.00

40.0%

1.50 1.00

20.0% 0.50 0.00

0.0%

District

State

District

College Ready

4

State

Not College Ready 66

2013 Kentucky High School Feedback Report

Daviess County School District Apollo High School

College Going and College Success Comparing High School and College Grades 9. Average cumulative GPA a. High school b. First year of college

District

Kentucky

2.76 * 2.38 *

2.80 2.27

2.28 * * 2.15

2.53 2.13

Average Cumulative GPAs for Graduates of This District 4.00

10. Average cumulative grade in math a. Senior year of high school b. First year of college 11. Average cumulative grade in English a. Senior year of high school b. First year of college 12. Average cumulative grade in science a. Senior year of high school

3.00

Graph redacted due 2.76 to small counts.

2.38

2.00

b. First year of college

2.55 * 2.72 *

2.84 2.54

2.31 *

2.74

2.59 *

2.35

1.00

0.00

High School

First Year of College

E. What types of financial aid did college attendees from this district receive?

District

Kentucky Percent of These College Attendees Receiving a Pell Grant

State Aid 13. Average Kentucky Educational Excellence Scholarship (KEES) award

$1,262 *

$1,364

a. Average need-based grant

$626 *

$602

b. Average non-need grant

$768 *

$961

100%

14. State grants

80%

60%

50.3%

46.9%

Federal Aid 15. Average Pell grant

$1,796 *

$1,945

$663 *

$947

$1,333 *

$1,411

40%

16. Federal loans

20%

a. Average need-based loan b. Average non-need loan

0%

District

Institutional Aid 17. Average institutional grant

$794 *

State

$1,274

Average Per Student Financial Aid Award by Type $4,000

$3,000

$2,358 $1,997

$1,945

$2,000

$1,796 $1,563 $1,262

$1,364

$1,394

$1,274

$1,000

$794

$0

KEES Awards

State Grants

Pell Grants

District

5

Federal Loans

Institutional Grants

State

67

2013 Kentucky High School Feedback Report

Daviess County School District Apollo High School

College Going and College Success

Average Aid Amounts for Graduates of This District Attending In-State Four-Year Public Universities

Average Aid Amounts for Graduates of This District Attending In-State Two-Year Public Colleges

$20,000

$20,000

$16,000

$16,000

$12,000

$12,000

Average Tuition and Fees** $7,181

$9,167 $1,672

$8,000

$8,000

$2,742 $1,310

$4,000

$4,000

Average Tuition and Fees** $2,860

$5,202 $883 $628 $343 $586

$1,756

$2,763

$1,686 $0

$0

State and Federal Needs-Based Grants*

Federal Needs-Based Loans*

KEES Awards*

State and Federal Non-Needs-Based Grants*

Federal Non-Needs-Based Loans*

Average Tuition and Fees**

*Average per student totals **Average in-state costs for tuition and fees in academic year 2010-11 as reported by institutions to Kentucky Higher Education Assistance Authority (KHEAA)

F. How did graduates from this district persist in college?

District 18. Number of 2009-10 high school graduates who a. Graduated high school b. Attended at least one semester of college c. Attended both fall and spring semesters d. Returned for second year of college e. Earned 30 or more college-level credit hours in first year (in-state public only)

Percent Earning 30 or More College-Level Credit Hours During First Year

Kentucky 100%

746 * 509 * 460 * 410 *

43,711 26,858 22,559 20,264

67 *

3,219

80% 60% 40% 20%

15.9%

15.2%

District

State

0%

College Enrollment Patterns for Public High School Graduates of 2009-2010 100%

80%

68.2% 61.4%

61.7%

60%

51.7%

55.0% 46.4%

40%

20%

0%

Attended College in 2010-11

Attended Fall and Spring in 2010-11 District

Attended Fall and Spring in 2010-11 and Returned in 2011-12

State

Technical notes for this report can be found at http://kcews.ky.gov/reports/2013HSFRTechNotes.pdf.

6

68

69

70

71

HEALTH 72

Philip Patterson, President and CEO of Owensboro Health Phone: 270.417.2000 Email: philip.patterson@owensborohealth.org Philip Patterson began his tenure as President and CEO of Owensboro Health in November of 2013.

Originally from Mobile, Alabama, Philip has worked in health care for over 20 years, with positions in New York, Dallas, New Orleans, Atlanta and Birmingham. Before joining the Owensboro Health team, Patterson served as CEO of Bon Secours Charity Health System, a three hospital system in the New York and New Jersey area with net patient revenue of nearly $500 million.

Mr. Patterson earned a bachelor of science in business administration from Auburn University, a master of business administration from the University of Alabama and a master of health administration from Georgia State University.

Patterson believes that by not only encouraging wellness, but providing the necessary tools and resources to the communities we serve, Owensboro Health can play a vital role in shaping healthier future for generations to come.

73

Appendix 1: Indicators and Sources Used for Report !"#$%! #&&'(()*+)!',-*.)/'012&'( !"#$%&'()%*'+,-$%*'./&#0-/1, <*)$"0,/'()%*'+,-$%*'./&#0-/1, A0,B,/%-C$,'+=&>)%-$';%-D& A0)I-0D'<-0,'A0=B)",0'J-%, ;,>&'0)D+0*,-2*E !E,L!"M#&%,"'N,-%*'J-%,'"#,'%='O0,-&%'<-/1,0

!E,L!"M#&%,"'N,-%*'J-%,'"#,'%='<-/1,0 !E,L!"M#&%,"'N,-%*'J-%,'"#,'%='<=$=0,1%-$'<-/1,0

!E,L!"M#&%,"'N,-%*'J-%,'"#,'%='Q#/E'<-/1,0 !E,L!"M#&%,"'N,-%*'J-%,'"#,'%='A0=&%-%,'<-/1,0

;,>&'0)J>&2:'>&' !$$'<-/1,0'./1)",/1,'J-%, O0,-&%'<-/1,0'./1)",/1,'J-%, <,0B)1-$'<-/1,0'./1)",/1,'J-%, <=$=0,1%-$'<-/1,0'./1)",/1,'J-%, Q#/E'-/"'O0=/1*#&'<-/1,0'./1)",/1,'J-%,

!3) 4545 C55 C55 ' '

!E,L!"M#&%,"'XJ'J-%,'"#,'%='Q=/EL[,0I'<=I>$)1-%)=/&'=P'N)-C,%,& !E,L!"M#&%,"'XJ'J-%,'"#,'%=';*=0%L[,0I'<=I>$)1-%)=/&'=P'N)-C,%,&

!E,L!"M#&%,"'XJ'J-%,'"#,'%=':/1=/%0=$$,"'N)-C,%,&

!E,L!"M#&%,"'+=&>)%-$)\-%)=/'J-%,'"#,'%='N)-C,%,& !E,L!"M#&%,"'+=&>)%-$)\-%)=/'J-%,'"#,'%='Q=/EL[,0I'<=I>$)1-%)=/&'=P'N)-C,%,& !E,L!"M#&%,"'+=&>)%-$)\-%)=/'J-%,'"#,'%=';*=0%L[,0I'<=I>$)1-%)=/&'=P'N)-C,%,&

!E,L!"M#&%,"'+=&>)%-$)\-%)=/'J-%,'"#,'%=':/1=/%0=$$,"'N)-C,%,&

:;'<=#/%),&

>,01,/% >,01,/%

:;'<=#/%),&

")&1*-0E,&F8G999'H,")1-0,',/0=$$,,&

:;'<=#/%),& >0=B)",0&F899G999'>=>#$-%)=/

3K46 39K43 394?

KK4K 3?4@

374@ 82?

854?

6547 3@4?

3996L399? :;'<=#/%),& ",-%*&F899G999'P,I-$,&

' ' ' KLFG '

696 83847 548 @K42 89K46 8743 8624K

@?642 @KK 83248 88K45 8943 24K 6@42 @246 264@ 5@4K 874K 884K 8K548 8@64K

3996L399? :;'<=#/%),& 1-&,&F899G999'>=>#$-%)=/

3996L399? :;'<=#/%),& ",-%*&F899G999'>=>#$-%)=/ 3996L399? :;'<=#/%),& ",-%*&F899G999'>=>#$-%)=/ 3996L399? :;'<=#/%),& ",-%*&F899G999'>=>#$-%)=/ 3996L399? :;'<=#/%),& ",-%*&F899G999'I-$,&

3996L399? :;'<=#/%),& 1-&,&F899G999'P,I-$,& 399@L3992 :;'<=#/%),& 1-&,&F899G999'P,I-$,& 3996L399? :;'<=#/%),& 1-&,&F899G999'>=>#$-%)=/ 3996L399? :;'<=#/%),& 1-&,&F899G999'>=>#$-%)=/ 3996L399? :;'<=#/%),& 1-&,&F899G999'>=>#$-%)=/ 3996L399? :;'<=#/%),&

1-&,&F899G999'I-$,&

5K

6?48

K@42

399?

:;'<=#/%),&

>,01,/%

' ' ' ' ' '

89 86 33 36 899 88

?9 ?9 ?9 ?9 ?9 ?9

K9 K9 K9 K9 K9 K9

3983 3983 3983 3983 3983 3983

VW'<=#/%),&

J-/U J-/U J-/U J-/U J-/U J-/U

' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '

8943 7947 3@4@ 245 946 342 8K48 2 @4?

7

8@48 7845 7K47 8K4? @47 K47 324K 8@47 8943 K4@

8942 3@45 3548 8342 34?

74K 3946 ?4@ 54@ 7

H-II=E0->*D';10,,/)/ET'H,")1-0,'A=>#$-%)=/

!E,L!"M#&%,"'XJ'J-%,'"#,'%='N)-C,%,&

B>2*

;+@A,02(+>

:;'<=#/%),&

334@ 3974K 8@48 5@4K 85

A0=&%-%,'<-/1,0'./1)",/1,'J-%, ;,>&'0)/&0''>2>M

!E,L!"M#&%,"'N,-%*'J-%,'"#,'%='N)-C,%,&

?',0 3988 3988 399?

399?

45FG CG5FG CHFI HIFI 4CF4

R0-$'<-B)%D'-/"'A*-0D/S'<-/1,0'./1)",/1,'J-%,

;+8>*E)!',-*.)9,>N2>M( <$)/)1-$'<-0,'J-/U)/E +,-$%*'O,*-B)=0&'J-/U)/E H=0C)")%D'J-/U)/E H=0%-$)%D'J-/U)/E A*D&)1-$'X/B)0=/I,/%'J-/U)/E ;=1)-$'-/"'X1=/=I)1'Y-1%=0&'J-/U)/E 62,O'*'( !"#$%&'()%*'N)-C,%,&

6,12'(() 9':) =0''>) 7,-8' ;8*+<< ;8*+<< 2342 5647 2848 ?74? ?8 ?@43 53 ?@ 56 K@ 77 63

VW'<=#/%),& VW'<=#/%),& VW'<=#/%),& VW'<=#/%),& VW'<=#/%),&

3992L3989 VW'<=#/%),&

>,01,/%

3995L399? :;'<=#/%),& ",-%*&F899G999'>=>#$-%)=/ 399?L3988 VW'<=#/%),&

XJ'B)&)%&F89G999'>=>#$-%)=/'82Z'D,-0&

399?L3988 VW'<=#/%),&

XJ'B)&)%&F89G999'>=>#$-%)=/'82Z'D,-0&

3992L3989 VW'<=#/%),&

XJ'B)&)%&F89G999'>=>#$-%)=/'82Z'D,-0&

399?L3988 VW'<=#/%),&

XJ'B)&)%&F89G999'>=>#$-%)=/'82Z'D,-0&

399?L3988 VW'<=#/%),&

*=&>)%-$)\-%)=/&F89G999'>=>#$-%)=/'82Z'D,-0&

399?L3988 VW'<=#/%),&

*=&>)%-$)\-%)=/&F89G999'>=>#$-%)=/'82Z'D,-0&

399?L3988 VW'<=#/%),&

*=&>)%-$)\-%)=/&F89G999'>=>#$-%)=/'82Z'D,-0&

399?L3988 VW'<=#/%),&

*=&>)%-$)\-%)=/&F89G999'>=>#$-%)=/'82Z'D,-0&

Community Health Needs Assessment: Owensboro Health - Daviess County Page 40 of 50

74

!"#$%! !./ 0101 ' !"#$%&'()%*'+,'-,"./.,".,%'0)1),2'3)44)5#$%6 B.A&C,&'()%*'+'DC2,)%)1.'3)44)5#$%6 ' B.A&C,&'()%*'+'3)&+G)$)%6 ' B.A&C,&'()%*'+'?.$4ID+A.'3)44)5#$%6 ' B.A&C,&'()%*'+,'!JG#$+%CA6'3)44)5#$%6 '

&'()*'+','-(

"A-;B'(-C/D4,;','8<C/E/F-'GH, !"#$%'MA#)%'+,"'@.2.%+G$.'DC,&#J/%)C, !"#$%&'(*C'+A.'PG.&. !"#$%&'(*C'+A.'P1.A(.)2*%'CA'PG.&. !"#$%&'(*C'+A.'?.".,%+A6 0C(I-,5CJ.'BA.&5*CC$'PG.&)%6 !-);,/&'(-)(-/E/L,;8M!2.I!"Q#&%."'3.+%*'R+%.'"#.'%C'D.A.GAC1+&5#$+A'3)&.+&.'S?%ACT.U

!2.I!"Q#&%."'3.+%*'R+%.'"#.'%C'DCAC,+A6'X.+A%'3)&.+&.

!2.I!"Q#&%."'YR'R+%.'"#.'%C'DC,2.&%)1.'X.+A%'M+)$#A. !2.I!"Q#&%."'XC&/)%+$)[+%)C,'R+%.'"#.'%C'DC,2.&%)1.'X.+A%'M+)$#A.

P>>4<'Q),'8<(/E/P<9-B,'84(/&'(-)(-( !"#$%&'()%*'-,4$#.,[+'@+55),+%)C, !2.I!"Q#&%."'3.+%*'R+%.'"#.'%C'-,4$#.,[+'+,"'B,.#JC,)+

!2.I!"Q#&%."'YR'R+%.'"#.'%C'\+5%.A)+$'B,.#JC,)+

!2.I!"Q#&%."'YR'R+%.'"#.'%C'X./+%)%)& !2.I!"Q#&%."'XC&/)%+$)[+%)C,'R+%.'"#.'%C'\+5%.A)+$'B,.#JC,)+

!2.I!"Q#&%."'XC&/)%+$)[+%)C,'R+%.'"#.'%C'X./+%)%)&

D*$+J6")+'-,5)".,5.'R+%.

-JJ#,)[+%)C,'?%+%#&'C4'=E'%C'K9I]C,%*IP$"'D*)$"A.,

^#G.A5#$C&)&'D+&.&

&)2'-((/ 5-6/ :;--</ 3)+4- 74,899 74,899 789: 987 98E: F8E =F8H: =;8= F8<: ;8H 78K: L8E

=-); ;<== ;<== ;<== ;<== ;<==

@<',

78>?);'(8<

>?'@+$#. >?'@+$#. >?'@+$#. >?'@+$#. >?'@+$#.

/.A5.,% /.A5.,% /.A5.,% /.A5.,% /.A5.,%

;<<9I;<<E NO'DC#,%).&

/.A5.,% /.A5.,% /.A5.,% /.A5.,% /.A5.,%

I1JK ' I0JK '

=98E ;L8L LF8H ;F87 =98L

=F8L KL8H HK KH89 =L8=

IIJN O11JN ' '

F=8H =<98E =<89 F98L

9K89 F98K =L<8L =KK8H ;K8= =F8= 9K F<89

;<<HI;<<E >?'DC#,%).& ".+%*&V=<<W<<<'/C/#$+%)C,

' ' ' ' ' ' ' N1 '

KH8L ;=87 ;78F <8L KF8= =8; KKH8E 7H8F F

K;8L K78; ;K8= =78; 9<8H KL8H K8F =8H 7L8H L; K89 ;89 ;L989 =7;8K HH8= 7<87

VJN K ' OJW '

78L L89 EK ;L 9F8E

=<8= 78K 7; K7 LH8F

O1J0

=H89

' ' ' '

=H8F KK8= LE8= KF =F

;<<7I;<=< NO'DC#,%).& ;<<7I;<=< NO'DC#,%).& ;<<7I;<=< NO'DC#,%).& ;<<7I;<=< >?'DC#,%).&

;<<HI;<<E >?'DC#,%).& ".+%*&V=<<W<<<'/C/#$+%)C, ;<<EI;<== NO'DC#,%).&

YR'1)&)%&V=<W<<<'/C/#$+%)C,'=7Z'6.+A&

;<<EI;<== NO'DC#,%).&

*C&/)%+$)[+%)C,&V=<W<<<'/C/#$+%)C,'=7Z'6.+A&

;<<7I;<=< NO'DC#,%).&

/.A5.,%

;<<HI;<<E >?'DC#,%).& ".+%*&V=<<W<<<'/C/#$+%)C, ;<<EI;<== NO'DC#,%).&

YR'1)&)%&V=<W<<<'/C/#$+%)C,'=7Z'6.+A&

;<<EI;<== NO'DC#,%).&

YR'1)&)%&V=<W<<<'/C/#$+%)C,'=7Z'6.+A&

;<<EI;<== NO'DC#,%).&

*C&/)%+$)[+%)C,&V=<W<<<'/C/#$+%)C,'=7Z'6.+A&

;<<EI;<== NO'DC#,%).&

*C&/)%+$)[+%)C,&V=<W<<<'/C/#$+%)C,'=7Z'6.+A&

;<<E ;<<H

NO'DC#,%).& 5+&.&V=<<W<<<'/C/#$+%)C,

;<<EI;<== BA)CA'@+$#.

/.A5.,% 5+&.&

E8= L87 7L K; 9987

;<<KI;<<H NO'DC#,%).&

/.A5.,%

=L8F

=K8K

;<<HI;<<E >?'DC#,%).& ".+%*&V=<<W<<<'/C/#$+%)C,

F=8; K=8L

K98= K<8E

;H8E ;7

;<<HI;<<E >?'DC#,%).& ".+%*&V=<<W<<<'/C/#$+%)C, ;<<LI;<=< >?'DC#,%).&

/.A5.,%

=E8; 97

KF8H =E

;787 K<

;<<LI;<=< NO'DC#,%).&

/.A5.,%

NO'DC#,%).&

R),-;<)+C/S-,)+/E/P<9)<,/!-)+,HT/S)>'+U/.+)<<'<G

\+G).&'()%*'0C('\)A%*'_.)2*% -,4+,%']CA%+$)%6'R+%. ]C%*.A&'(*C'R.5.)1."'!".`#+%.'BA.,+%+$'D+A.

]C%*.A&'(*C'?JCT."'3#A),2'BA.2,+,56 ^..,'\)A%*'R+%.

R-<,)+/!-)+,H/E/R-<,)+/&'(8;6-;( !2.I!"Q#&%."'3.+%*'R+%.'"#.'%C'?#)5)".

X+6-;/#64+,(/E/#G'<G !2.I!"Q#&%."'3.+%*'R+%.'"#.'%C'!$[*.)J.Aa&'3)&.+&.

B.C/$.'L9Z'0)1),2'!$C,.

X;)+/!-)+,H !"#$%&'()%*']+QCA'^CC%*'0C&& 3.,%)&%'R+%.

;<<KI;<<H NO'DC#,%).& ".+%*&V=W<<<'$)1.'G)A%*&

;<<H ;<<L

NO'DC#,%).& NO'DC#,%).&

;<<KI;<<H NO'DC#,%).&

;<<H

/.A5.,% /.A5.,% $)1.'G)A%*&V=W<<<'4.J+$.&'+2."'=9I=E

>?'DC#,%).& ".,%)&%&V=<<W<<<'/C/#$+%)C,

Community Health Needs Assessment: Owensboro Health - Daviess County Page 41 of 50

75

!"#$%! &'()(*+,-*./.012(+3 !"#$!%&'()#%*+#,)-*.,)#*%'#*)/*0121)#1)2/1,3*41&'52#(

;(7A,'1+-'3.6,7(17(7 !%'3)(*D2)-*!()-E, !"#$!%&'()#%*K.*.,)#*%'#*)/*!%'3)*!()-E,

!"#$!%&'()#%*K.*.,)#*%'#*)/*!()-E, !"#$!%&'()#%*K.*.,)#*%'#*)/*@OP+ !"#$!%&'()#%*Q/(C2),32R,)2/1*.,)#*%'#*)/*!%'3)*!()-E,

!"#$!%&'()#%*Q/(C2),32R,)2/1*.,)#*%'#*)/*!()-E,

!"#$!%&'()#%*Q/(C2),32R,)2/1*.,)#*%'#*)/*@OP+

0:E7+1*F(.#E:7( !%'3)(*D-/*S21"#*+521T !%'3)(*D-/*?E/T# !"#$!%&'()#%*K.*.,)#*%'#*)/*!3J/-/3*!U'(# !"#$!%&'()#%*Q/(C2),32R,)2/1*.,)#*%'#*)/*!3J/-/3*!U'(#

!&.

4545 CD

61),(77. ;(<. >'((*.

819:( =:+-22 =:+-22 6789 :;8< 698:

?(1'

B*,+

=-@A1',7-*

=>>7$=>>9 0?*@/'1)2#( %#,)-(A<>>B>>>*C/C'3,)2/1

* * * * * * *

<68F 698= 698G :6 989 <<8; =987

<F8= ;F8G 678G F=86 <7 <F8; F68;

<G8< =986 ;F G=86 <<8; <=8G GG8:

=>>F$=><> HI*@/'1)2#(

C#5J#1)

=>>9$=><< HI*@/'1)2#(

K.*L2(2)(A<>B>>>*C/C'3,)2/1*<FM*N#,5(

4GHC I4 * *

<G8= =6 ;G8= <6

<;8= ;<86 ==8= 98;

98: =:8: <G8; :86

=>>F$=><> HI*@/'1)2#(

* * * * *

<786 <78: <><8; F8F <68:

;< =78; <F:86 =>8G ;78G

=G87 <98: <6F <=8F =78:

=>>F$=><> HI*@/'1)2#(

C#5J#1)

=>>9$=><< HI*@/'1)2#(

K.*L2(2)(A<>B>>>*C/C'3,)2/1*<FM*N#,5(

=>>9$=><< HI*@/'1)2#(

K.*L2(2)(A<>B>>>*C/C'3,)2/1*<FM*N#,5(

=>>9$=><< HI*@/'1)2#(

-/(C2),32R,)2/1(A<>B>>>*C/C'3,)2/1*<FM*N#,5(

=>>9$=><< HI*@/'1)2#(

-/(C2),32R,)2/1(A<>B>>>*C/C'3,)2/1*<FM*N#,5(

!&.

4545 * * * * * * * * * * *

61),(77.

819:( ==8; <>89 =8< 6=F=< 6;8G 98G ::8= <68: 6G ==>:6 :8G

;(<. =:+-22 =:8F <68< =89 ;:96F =<89 <;8: G:8G <9 G>87 <F7F: 78G

* * *

6=8; ;86 :;8=

G<8= :8= GG8F

=>>9$=><< HI*@/'1)2#( K.*L2(2)(A<>B>>>*C/C'3,)2/1 =>>9$=><< HI*@/'1)2#(

K.*L2(2)(A<>B>>>*C/C'3,)2/1*<FM*N#,5(

=>>9$=><< HI*@/'1)2#(

-/(C2),32R,)2/1(A<>B>>>*C/C'3,)2/1*<FM*N#,5(

=>>9$=><< HI*@/'1)2#(

-/(C2),32R,)2/1(A<>B>>>*C/C'3,)2/1

=>>9$=><< HI*@/'1)2#(

-/(C2),32R,)2/1(A<>B>>>*C/C'3,)2/1*<FM*N#,5(

=>>F$=><> HI*@/'1)2#(

C#5J#1) C#5J#1)

=>>9$=><< HI*@/'1)2#(

K.*L2(2)(A<>B>>>*C/C'3,)2/1*<FM*N#,5(

=>>9$=><< HI*@/'1)2#(

-/(C2),32R,)2/1(A<>B>>>*C/C'3,)2/1*<FM*N#,5(

.J(99*(77./.$,2(7+39(KL+M(' ?#3V$.#C/5)#%*W#1#5,3*Q#,3)-*!((#((E#1)X*P//5*/5*Y,25

!"#$!%&'()#%*K.*.,)#*%'#*)/*+#-N%5,)2/1 !"#$!%&'()#%*K.*.,)#*%'#*)/*0521,5N*Z5,J)*41V#J)2/1( !"#$!%&'()#%*Q/(C2),32R,)2/1*.,)#*%'#*)/*+#-N%5,)2/1 !"#$!%&'()#%*Q/(C2),32R,)2/1*.,)#*%'#*)/*0521,5N*Z5,J)*41V#J)2/1(

NB#$O%?.LP.$OP" "F-*-@3Q.&-)('+3 @-23%5#1*[2L21"*S#3/D*P/L#5)N*[#L#3 Y,E232#(*[2L21"*S#3/D*P/L#5)N*[#L#3 Q/'(#-/3%(*D2)-*@,(-*P'U32J*!((2(),1J#*41J/E#

\#%2,1*Q/'(#-/3%*41J/E# [/D$41J/E#*P#5(/1(*D-/*,5#*?]!P*P,5)2J2C,1)(

P#/C3#*:GM*[2L21"*S#3/D*P/L#5)N*[#L#3 P#/C3#*[2L21"*=>>^*!U/L#*P/L#5)N*[#L#3 P#/C3#*[2L21"*S#3/D*P/L#5)N*[#L#3 ?)'%#1)(*K32"2U3#*V/5*)-#*Y5##*['1J-*P5/"5,E

P#5*@,C2),*41J/E# 01#EC3/N#%*_/5T#5(*21*@2L232,1*[,U/5*Y/5J#

>'((*. =:+-22 ?(1' =>86 =>>:$=><> <>86 =>>:$=><> = =>>:$=><> 6=66G =>>:$=><> ;<8G =>>7 <> =>>:$=><> :;86 =>>:$=><> <687 =>>:$=><> ;989 =>>9 =<G<= =>>:$=><> 98= ?#C$<=

B*,+

=-@A1',7-*

0?*@/'1)2#( 0?*@/'1)2#( 0?*@/'1)2#( 0?*@/'1)2#( 0?*@/'1)2#( 0?*@/'1)2#( 0?*@/'1)2#( 0?*@/'1)2#( 0?*@/'1)2#( 0?*@/'1)2#( 0?*@/'1)2#(

C#5J#1) C#5J#1) C#5J#1) %/33,5( C#5J#1) C#5J#1) C#5J#1) C#5J#1) C#5J#1) %/33,5( C#5J#1)

"F-*-@3Q.!-:7,*R .#1)#5(*?C#1%21"*;>^*/5*\/5#*/V*Q/'(#-/3%*41J/E#*/1*.#1)

Y/5#J3/('5#*.,)# Q/E#/D1#5(-2C

6: 68F :<8G

=>>:$=><> 0?*@/'1)2#(

=>>F

0?*@/'1)2#(

=>>:$=><> 0?*@/'1)2#(

C#5J#1) C#5J#1) C#5J#1)

Community Health Needs Assessment: Owensboro Health - Daviess County Page 42 of 50

76

!"#$%&'()*($%*+ 45(

6767 +,-./0123 !"#$%&'()$*"+(),"-$.&/0121),"$1,$3'"# !"#$%&'()$*"+(),"-$.&/0121),"$1,$?)'(1,@ A"#$%&'()$*"+(),"-$.&/0121),"$1,$3'"# A"#$%&'()$*"+(),"-$.&/0121),"$1,$?)'(1,@ *"+(),";"/;E)'2#)&$?'"1/ $ .)/>I)$8CJ$K1"#$'$L'2#)I/&M-$N)@&))$/&$O1@#)&

O1@#$*2#//I$%&'(+'"1/, +391B23C:30 P,,+'I$QR/,)$P1&$S+'I1"T P,,+'I$.'&"12I)$./II+"1/, ?)2/@,1R)($G'&21,/@),-$?)I)'-)($1,"/$P1&

.LE$?)I)'-)( 5-H=1.(I/@:0J G#1I($V12"1W-$/0$*+X-"',"1'")($PX+-) P@);P(Y+-")($N)'"#$?'")$(+)$"/$3/"/&$V)#12I)$G/II1-1/,-

N&+@$P&&)-"$?'")

V1/I),"$G&1W)$?'")

I2.1/=(+391B23C:30 *1,@I);.'&),"$O/+-)#/I(V/")&$E+&,/+" &B/3;D2B0/0123(L(M-1=0(+391B23C:30 M-1=0(+391B23C:30 ['&W)&-$3'&U)"$N),-1"T ['-"$[//($?)-"'+&',"$N),-1"T %&/2)&T$*"/&)$N),-1"T \1]+/&$*"/&)$N),-1"T \/K;^,2/W)$',($_:$31I)$0&/W$'$%&/2)&T$*"/&)

?)2&)'"1/,$',($[1",)--$['21I1"1)*`P.$G)&"101)($*"/&)&B/3;D2B0/0123 a/&U)&-$G/WW+"1,@$XT$.+XI12$E&',->/&"'"1/,

O/+-)#/I(-$K1"#/+"$'$V)#12I) a/&U)&-$K#/$a'IU$"/$a/&U

$ E6FG

8/91:;;( >:,( AB::3( </=-: ?-02@@ ?-02@@ 456 4!74 A!7!6 4B7C DB6 C574 4A6 4:7! :C7! :D :!7C :A78 :B7: :D75 A!7D6 4D74

$ $ $ $

8 : D:454 :8DC:

$ K6FG $ $

C84 ::7A 89AC :7D

$ $

BC7C DA7:

$ $ $ $ $ $ $

979:6 974A 97:C :87!

57!

97956 :7:

NFN $ OFK

97B 47! :7C

B B

8C7:

8 8

:47!

:4D575 :B8C7A

:75

:7B

BC7A C!

857C D:7B

974

9798 97C4 978: :97!

887!

9794 975

97: 47D :7C

97B C74 87D

974: 97:C :47D B974

':/B 89:9;89:: 89:9;89:: 89:9;89:: 89:9;89:: 89:9;89:: 899D;89:9 89:9;89::

899A;89:9 899A;89:9

"310 >)&2)," >)&2)," >)&2)," >)&2)," F*$G/+,"1)- -"+(),"-H")'2#)& F*$G/+,"1)- >)&2)," <=$*"'")$ >)&2)," ?2CD/B1;23

<=$*"'")$ <=$*"'")$ <=$*"'")$ <=$*"'")$

?',U ?',U

89:9 89:9

F*$G/+,"1)-

.&1/&$V'I+)

>/+,(>/+,(-

89:9

.&1/&$V'I+)

2'-)-

8994;8995 F*$G/+,"1)- ()'"#-H:99Z999$>/>+I'"1/,

8995 8995

<=$G/+,"1)- '&&)-"-H:99Z999$>/>+I'"1/,$ <=$G/+,"1)- 2&1W)-H:Z999$>/>+I'"1/,

<=$G/+,"1)-

>)&2)," >)&2),"

F*$3)(1',$V'I+)

W'&U)"-H:Z999$>/>+I'"1/,

899D;89:9 F*$G/+,"1)-

899A

89:: 8995 8995 89:9 899D 8995 89:9

F*$G/+,"1)- &)-"'+&',"-H:Z999$>/>+I'"1/, F*$G/+,"1)- -"/&)-H:Z999$>/>+I'"1/, F*$G/+,"1)- -"/&)-H:99Z999$>/>+I'"1/, F*$G/+,"1)-

>)&2),"

F*$3)(1',$V'I+)

0'21I1"1)-H:Z999$>/>+I'"1/,

F*$G/+,"1)- -"/&)-H:Z999$>/>+I'"1/,

899D;89:9 F*$G/+,"1)899D;89:9 F*$G/+,"1)899D;89:9 F*$G/+,"1)-

>)&2)," >)&2)," >)&2),"

Community Health Needs Assessment: Owensboro Health - Daviess County Page 43 of 50

77

TRANSPORTATION

78

Suzanne Blazar, Vice President – Director of Personnel and Training at First Security Bank Phone: 270.663.4625 Email: sblazar@firstsecurity.net Suzanne Blazar is Vice President - Director of Personnel and Training for First Security Bank. She received her BS in Marketing and Distributive Education from Western Kentucky University in Bowling Green, Kentucky. Suzanne spent almost 15 years with UniFirst Corporation at their Distribution Center in Owensboro. In addition to being part of the team that helped open the center, she served 9 years as General Manager. Suzanne has served on several boards including; Junior Achievement, Owensboro Riverport Authority, Greater Owensboro Economic Development Corporation, and the Greater Owensboro Chamber of Commerce, where she served as Board Chair in 2010. She also served on the City of Owensboro Mayor’s Riverport Authority Privatization Committee. Suzanne currently serves on the Wendell Ford Education Center’s Advisory Board and the Board of Directors for Owensboro Health.

She is a 2011 graduate of Leadership Kentucky. Suzanne resides in Owensboro with her husband, Joe, and daughter Caitlin.

79

Owensboro’s Interstate

“Interstate access is always in the top three factors considered when executives make location decisions, and frequently it is number one.” l Robert Ady - President, Fantus Consulting; quoted in the Wall Street Journal ll

Toll

To

Gary

Fort Wayne

The Interstate 67 Corridor is a top priority of the City of Owensboro, Daviess County Fiscal Court, Greater Owensboro Economic Development Corp and Chamber of Commerce. These organizations will be working closely with the Interstate 67 Development Corporation and leadership in Spencer, Dubois, and Daviess counties in southern Indiana to make I-67 a reality.

Cincinnati

65

6

67 0

71

ES IL M

69 Evansville

64

P Ohio

Owensboro

R.

P

Existing Interstate Highway

67

Madisonville

P

P P

65 75

P

Other Major Highways

Lexington

P

R.

Henderson

Parkways

64

Louisville

164

en

P

74 69

Gre

24

70

70

Ohio R.

Class 1 Railway

69

Indianapolis

I-69 Corridor I-67 Corridor

67

65

74

Bowling Green

P

P

P

Navigable Waterway Riverport

Airport

69

24

65 Nashville

40

65

75

40 24

75

Interstate 67 Corridor l North-south

interstate link between northern Michigan and Nashville, TN that will pass through Owensboro, Kentucky.

Parkway and Owensboro By-Pass Extension to connect with I-65 in Bowling Green.

l I-67

l I-67

l Two

l I-67

uses mostly existing corridors from I-75 near Gaylord, MI to I-69 at Indianapolis and I-65 near Bowling Green, KY

u

u

major Greenfield sections remain 8 miles of US 231 from I-64 to I-69 in Dubois and 3 Daviess counties in Indiana (indicated in box on map) 40 miles from Manton, MI to I-75

l I-67

would use the recently constructed Natcher Bridge to Kentucky near Owensboro as well as the existing Natcher

would leverage investments in I-69 in southern Indiana and around Indianapolis. would leverage the recently completed US 231 corridor in Spencer County, Indiana. Funding would be used to upgrade and eliminate existing grade intersections.

l I-67

would provide a less congested route from Nashville to Indianapolis avoiding the delays on I-65 through Louisville.

80

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

High-Level Overview of I-67 Corridor US 60 and US 231 May 2014

81

82

HIGH LEVEL OVERVIEW OF I-67 CORRIDOR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Kentucky Transportation Cabinet – Division of Planning MAY 2014 The Kentucky Transportation Cabinet (KYTC) has undertaken a high-level overview study of the potential I-67 corridor from the Natcher Parkway and US 60 interchange in Owensboro, Kentucky to the Kentucky/Indiana state line. The I-67 Development Corporation is studying the feasibility of a potential I67 interstate corridor between I-65 in Nashville, Tennessee and I-196 in Western Michigan. However, an I-67 corridor is currently neither congressionally mandated nor administratively designated by the FHWA. In 2012, the I-67 Development Corporation published the I-67 Corridor Feasibility Study, which analyzed the feasibility of an interstate corridor between I-65 in Bowling Green, Kentucky and Indianapolis, Indiana.

The study analyzed a potential I-67 corridor along the Natcher Parkway from I-65 in Bowling Green to US 60 in Owensboro, then along US 60 and US 231 to I-64 in Indiana. The corridor would then continue along a new interstate east of Huntingburg and Jasper, terminating at I-69 near Washington, Indiana.

Figure ES-1 illustrates this segment of the potential I-67 corridor and is defined as follows: • Natcher Parkway and US 60 interchange (Exit 17) eastward along existing US 60 (Wendell Ford Expressway) to KY 54 interchange (Exit 18) (Blue); • US 60 (Bypass) Extension, currently under construction, from KY 54 interchange to Hawes Boulevard (Yellow); • US 60 from Hawes Boulevard to US 231 intersection (Red); • US 231 from US 60 across the William H. Natcher Parkway Bridge to Indiana (Green);

Figure ES-1 I-67 Study Area

83

STUDY PURPOSE The primary purpose of this high-level overview study is to review the existing conditions along US 60 (Wendell Ford Expressway), US 60 (Bypass) Extension, US 60, and US 231 to identify locations that do not meet current Association of State Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO) and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) highway design guidelines and related criteria for designation as an interstate route. Evaluations include the degree to which these criteria are not met and identify improvements to address identified deficiencies.

STUDY ACTIVITIES The study activities for the High Level Overview of the I-67 Corridor Study included the following: • • • •

Identify criteria and standards per AASHTO and the FHWA for designation as an interstate route; Collect data from the KYTC’s Highway Information System, As-built plans, crash data, field observation and measurement, and other information provided by the local KYTC District 2 office; Compare and analyze collected data with the interstate criteria, and identify conditions and locations on US 60 (Wendell Ford Expressway), US 60 (Bypass) Extension, US 60, and US 231 that do not meet interstate criteria and standards; Develop potential improvements and costs associated with improving these areas with identified deficiencies to meet criteria and standards.

KEY FINDINGS The studied corridor provides some of the basic geometric characteristics of an interstate highway, such as two travel lanes in each direction, 12-foot lanes, 4-foot inside paved shoulders, 10-foot outside paved shoulders, 36-foot rural medians, 10-foot urban medians, 70 mph rural design speed, and 50 mph urban design speed. The urban sections exceed the minimum median widths, while the rural sections meet the minimum 36-foot median widths. However, some physical features of the project routes do not meet the criteria for an interstate facility. The following discussion describes the geometric features that do not meet interstate standards. The findings are based on available data and limited field reviews: •

Interstate Control of Access: US 60 and US 231 are partially controlled access routes along the study corridor. Access to an interstate highway shall be fully controlled. The intersections and access entrances would need to be terminated, rerouted, or grade separated in order to satisfy minimum interstate criteria for control of access.

•

Interchange Configuration: According to the I-67 Corridor Feasibility Study published by the I-67 Development Corporation, the I-67 corridor in Kentucky would follow along the Natcher Parkway from I-65 in Bowling Green to Owensboro, then along US 60 (Wendell Ford Expressway), US 60 (Bypass) Extension, and US 60/US 231 across the Ohio River at the William H. Natcher Bridge.

The Natcher Parkway and US 60 (Wendell Ford Expressway) interchange has a trumpet configuration. The Natcher Parkway entrance and exit ramps are one lane. Therefore, the northbound I-67 through movement is currently a one-lane ramp, and the southbound I-67 through movement is currently a one-lane loop ramp. US 60 (Wendell Ford Expressway) is the main movement through the interchange with more than 30,000 vpd traveling on four lanes. Based on the interstate criteria requiring two through lanes, the Natcher Parkway and US 60 interchange would need to be improved for the proposed I-67 route.

•

Bridge Lateral Clearance: One mainline bridge at MP 17.906 on US 60 (Wendell Ford Expressway) does not meet the minimum lateral clearance required. The mainline bridges on US 60 (Bypass) Extension, US 60, and US 231 meet the minimum lateral clearance required.

•

Vertical Alignment and Stopping Sight Distance: Two vertical curves on the westbound on-ramp at the KY 54 and US 60 (Wendell Ford Expressway) interchange do not meet the minimum interstate criteria.

•

Interchange Access Control: The KY 54 interchange on US 60 (Wendell Ford Expressway) does not meet the minimum control of access.

84

PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATES Table ES 1 provides a preliminary cost estimate to upgrade the I-67 corridor along US 60 (Wendell Ford Expressway), US 60 (Bypass) Extension, US 60, and US 231 to meet interstate standards and criteria.

This study did not include any property research or utility location.

Improvement

Location

Design & ROW and Environmental Utilities (million) 1 (million) 2

Construction Costs (million)

Total Costs (million)

$41

$60

$6

$12

Control of Access / Frontage Road

US 60 (Wendell Ford Expressway) US 60 / US 231

$5

$14

$36

$55

US 60 / US 231 Interchange

US 60 / US 231

$5

$9

$30

$44

KY 54

$0.5

$1

$4

$5

KY 54 US 231 (Ohio River)

$1

$3

$9

$13

-

-

-

-

$18

$39

$120

$177

Natcher Parkway / US 60 Interchange

Vertical Alignment / Stopping Sight Distance Interchange Access Control William H. Natcher Bridge

Total

3

1

Design & Environmental cost estimated at 15% construction costs

2

ROW and Utilities cost estimated at 30% construction costs

3

ROW and Utilities cost estimated at 40% construction costs for Control of Access / Frontage Road Improvement

Table ES 1 I-67 Corridor Improvement Preliminary Cost Estimate

85

400 Shoppers Drive P.O. Box 747 Winchester, KY 40391 859-744-1218 www.palmernet.com 86

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY I-69, I-66/I-65 Spurs, and US 60 Connection Strategic Planning Corridor Study Overview of Existing Conditions William H. Natcher Parkway, Audubon Parkway, and US 60 Wendell Ford Expressway May 2014

87

88

I-69 SPUR, I-66/I-65 SPUR, AND US 60 CONNECTION: HENDERSON TO BOWLING GREEN STRATEGIC CORRIDOR PLANNING STUDY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Kentucky Transportation Cabinet â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Division of Planning MAY 2014 The Kentucky Transportation Cabinet (KYTC) has undertaken a strategic corridor planning study for the proposed interstate routes, Interstate 69 (I-69) Spur and Interstate 66/65 (I-66/I-65) Spur. The project corridor includes the Audubon Parkway from the Edward T. Breathitt (Pennyrile) Parkway in Henderson to Owensboro, Kentucky, US 60 in Owensboro, and the William H. Natcher Parkway from Owensboro to I-65 in Bowling Green, Kentucky. The corridor passes through Henderson, Daviess, Ohio, Butler, and Warren Counties.

STUDY PURPOSE The primary purpose of this strategic corridor study is to review the existing conditions along the Audubon Parkway, Natcher Parkway, and US 60 to identify locations that do not meet current Association of State Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO) and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) highway design guidelines and related criteria. Evaluations include the degree to which these criteria are not met, their impact on safety and capacity, and identify options for making improvements to address identified deficiencies.

PROJECT BACKGROUND The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) Technical Corrections Act of 2008 designates the Audubon Parkway as a future I-69 Spur and the Natcher Parkway as a future I-66 Spur given these routes meet interstate standards and connect to an existing interstate.

89

STUDY ACTIVITIES The study activities for the I-69 Spur, I-66/I-65 Spur, and US 60 Connection Strategic Corridor Planning Study included the following: • • • •

Identify criteria and standards per AASHTO and the FHWA for designation as an interstate route; Collect data from the KYTC’s Highway Information System, As-built plans, crash data, field observation and measurement, and other information provided by local Highway District office; Compare and analyze data collected with criteria and identify conditions and locations on the Audubon Parkway, Natcher Parkway, and US 60 that do not meet interstate criteria and standards; Develop improvement strategies and costs associated with improving these areas with identified deficiencies to meet criteria and standards for designation as an interstate highway.

KEY FINDINGS The project routes consist of two travel lanes in each direction, a design speed of 70 miles-per-hour or greater for rural conditions and 50 miles-per-hour for urban conditions, and are fully controlled access facilities. However, some physical features of the project routes do not meet the criteria for an interstate facility. Attached to the end of this summary are figures identifying these physical features, which do not meet interstate criteria.

The following findings are based on available data and limited field reviews:

Operational Considerations and Safety • • •

•

•

•

•

•

Crash Analysis: For the crash analysis, a high crash segment was defined as having a critical crash rate factor greater than or equal to one. Crash segments with a critical crash rate factor between 0.9 and 0.99 are also identified in the report.

Crash Analysis – Audubon Parkway: Compared to other Kentucky parkways, one segment in Henderson/Daviess County (MP 10.141 – 18.049) has a critical crash rate between 0.9 and 0.99.

Crash Analysis – Audubon Parkway as an Interstate: Compared to Kentucky interstates, rather than state parkways, one high crash segment was identified along the Audubon Parkway located in Henderson/Daviess County (MP 10.141 – MP 18.049). The segment has a critical crash rate factor of 1.13.

Additional Findings Related to Crash Analysis: Four crashes coded as median cross-over or head-on collisions occurred on the Natcher Parkway during the study period (2006-2010). No median crossover or head-on collisions were recorded on the Audubon Parkway or US 60 during the study period.

Two fatal crashes on the Audubon Parkway, one fatal crash on US 60, and eight fatal crashes on the Natcher Parkway were recorded during the study period (2006-2010).

Current Traffic (2011): The current traffic (2011) for the Audubon Parkway ranges from 9,450 vehicles per day (vpd) near Henderson to 10,590 vpd near the US 60 interchange in Owensboro. On US 60, the traffic volumes range from 19,200 vpd near the Audubon Parkway interchange to 32,400 vpd between the US 231 and US 431 interchanges. On the Natcher Parkway, the traffic volumes range from 7,940 vpd at the Western Kentucky Parkway interchange to 20,400 vpd near the I-65 interchange in Bowling Green.

Truck Percentages (2011): The existing truck percentages on the Audubon Parkway range from 19.5% at Owensboro to 21.1% at Henderson, Kentucky. On US 60, the truck percentages range from 10.1% to 12.4%. The existing truck percentages on the Natcher Parkway range from 19.9% in Morgantown to 32.9% north of the Western Kentucky Parkway interchange in Ohio and Daviess Counties.

Future Traffic (2040) without Interstate Spur Designations: The projected annual growth rates range from 2.1% to 2.3% along the Audubon Parkway, from 1.5% to 2.3% on US 60, and from 0.9% to 3.1% on the Natcher Parkway. The growth rates resulted in a range from 18,400 vpd to 20,500 vpd on the Audubon Parkway, 36,100 vpd to 49,900 vpd on US 60, and 10,800 vpd to 49,500 vpd on the Natcher Parkway.

Future Traffic (2040) with Interstate Spur Designations: The projected annual growth rates range from 2.3% to 2.6% along the Audubon Parkway, from 1.8% to 2.5% on US 60 and from 1.1% to 3.6% on the Natcher Parkway. The projected growth rates resulted in traffic volumes ranging from

90

• • •

19,500 vpd to 22,300 vpd on the Audubon Parkway, 38,200 vpd to 54,400 vpd on US 60, and 11,500 vpd to 56,900 vpd on the Natcher Parkway.

Truck Percentages (2040): Future truck volumes were not forecast for this project.

Level of Service (2011): The Audubon Parkway, Natcher Parkway, and US 60 currently operate at LOS C or better, which is acceptable to the AASHTO guidelines.

Level of Service (2040): The Audubon Parkway is expected to operate at LOS B or better with or without interstate spur designation. US 60 is expected to operate at LOS D or better with or without interstate spur designation. The rural sections of the Natcher Parkway are expected to operate at LOS B or better with or without interstate spur designation. The urban sections of the Natcher Parkway are expected to operate at LOS D or better without interstate spur designation and LOS E or better with interstate spur designation.

Mainline Geometry/Typical Section • • • • • •

•

• • • •

Design Speed: The Audubon Parkway, US 60, and Natcher Parkway meet or exceed the minimum design speed guidelines for interstate highways in rural and urban areas.

Lane Width: The lane width on the Audubon Parkway, US 60, and Natcher Parkway meet the minimum AASHTO guidelines for interstate design.

Outside Shoulder Width: The Audubon Parkway, Natcher Parkway, and US 60 meet the AASHTO minimum outside shoulder width based on the current truck DDHV. Inside Shoulder Width: The AASHTO minimum inside shoulder width is met on the Audubon Parkway, Natcher Parkway, and US 60.

Median Width: The Audubon Parkway, Natcher Parkway, and US 60 meet the rural 36-foot AASHTO minimum median width in rural areas and the 10-foot AASHTO minimum median width in urban areas.

Clear Zones: Based on the provided information and limited field reviews, it is not possible to evaluate the applicability of the current design standards for clear zone on the Audubon Parkway, Natcher Parkway, and US 60. The fill and cut slopes provided in the typical sections vary from 1V:2H to 1V:4H, the median ditch slope varies from 1V:3H to 1V:12H, and the outside ditch slope is between 1V:3H and 1V:4H. Guardrail Placement and Condition: The guardrail leading end treatments on the Audubon Parkway, Natcher Parkway, and US 60 meet the current standards. Dome guardrail trailing end treatments on the Audubon Parkway, Natcher Parkway, and US 60 do not meet current standards. An evaluation of guardrail placement is not possible based on the information provided on the As-built plans.

Superelevation: From the review of As-built plans, horizontal curves along the Audubon Parkway, Natcher Parkway, and US 60 appear to comply with the AASHTO criteria.

Horizontal Alignment: The horizontal curvature for the Audubon Parkway, Natcher Parkway, and US 60 is acceptable and in compliance with the current AASHTO design guidelines.

Vertical Alignment: All of the vertical curves along the Audubon Parkway and US 60 meet the current AASHTO guidelines. One vertical curve on the Natcher Parkway (MP 53.800) does not meet the guideline for the minimum length of vertical curves.

Stopping Sight Distance: The minimum stopping sight distance guideline is not met for one vertical curve on the Natcher Parkway: MP 53.800.

Bridges and Overpasses • • • •

Lateral Clearance – Audubon Parkway: All of the mainline bridges on the Audubon Parkway meet the minimum lateral clearance. (The bridges at the Pennyrile Parkway and US 60 interchanges are not included.)

Lateral Clearance – US 60: Four of the mainline bridges on US 60 do not meet the minimum lateral clearance requirement. (The bridges at the Audubon Parkway and Natcher Parkway are not included.)

Lateral Clearance – Natcher Parkway: Of the 39 mainline bridges on the Natcher Parkway, 32 do not meet the minimum lateral clearance. (The bridges at the US 60 interchanges are not included.)

Vertical Clearance – Audubon Parkway: All of the overpass bridges meet the minimum 16 foot vertical clearance requirement.

91

• • • •

Vertical Clearance – US 60: One overpass bridge does not meet the minimum 16-foot vertical clearance requirement (MP 11.611). The clearance is not met on the eastbound and westbound lanes on US 60.

Vertical Clearance – Natcher Parkway: Of the 26 overpass bridges on the Natcher Parkway, 2 do not meet the minimum 16-foot vertical clearance requirement. They are located at MP 62.352 and MP 33.741.

Functional Adequacy: Seventeen mainline bridges and culverts are identified as functionally obsolete; nine overpass bridges are identified as functionally obsolete.

Sufficiency Rating: All Audubon Parkway, Natcher Parkway, and US 60 mainline and overpass bridges have a sufficiency rating greater than 60.0. Three culverts have a sufficiency rating less than 60.0.

Interchanges and Ramps • • • • • •

•

• • •

•

•

•

Design Speed: Design speed for a majority of the interchange ramps was not provided on the asbuilt plans.

Lane Width: Lane widths for the interchange ramps range from 15 feet to 16 feet, which is compliant with AASHTO guidelines.

Shoulder Width: All of the interchange ramps on the Audubon Parkway, Natcher Parkway, and US 60 have 4-foot paved inside shoulders and 6-foot paved outside shoulders, which meet current practice.

Horizontal Alignment: The minimum horizontal radius is met on all interchange ramps that were provided on the As-built plans.

Vertical Alignment - Vertical Grade: The minimum vertical grade is met on all interchange ramps that were provided on the As-built plans.

Vertical Alignment - Vertical Length of Curve: Eight ramp vertical curves do not meet the requirement for minimum length of curve that was calculated based on the minimum ramp design speed. On the Audubon Parkway, these ramps are located at the Pennyrile Parkway interchange (Exit 1) and US 60 interchange (Exit 24). On the Natcher Parkway, these ramps are located at the US 31 W interchange (Exit 6), the US 231 interchange (Exit 28) and the Western Kentucky Parkway interchange (Exit 43).

On US 60, the Natcher Parkway and US 60 interchange also has vertical curves that do not meet the calculated minimum length of curve.

Vertical Alignment - Stopping Sight Distance: Eight vertical curve ramps do not meet the minimum stopping sight distance requirement that was calculated based on the minimum ramp design speed.

The vertical curves that do not meet the minimum stopping sight distance are located at the interchanges previously mentioned for vertical length of curve.

Superelevation: Based on review of As-built plans, existing ramps appear to satisfy the AASHTO criteria for superelevation.

Speed-Change Lanes: Many of the existing ramps on the Audubon Parkway, Natcher Parkway, and US 60 do not meet the minimum criteria for acceleration and deceleration lengths.

Weaving Characteristics: The weaving situation within the Natcher Parkway and Western Kentucky Parkway will operate at LOS A in the northbound and southbound directions with future interstate spur traffic projections. The interchanges at Exits 9, 36, and 50 on the Natcher Parkway and Exit 10 on the Audubon Parkway are cloverleaf interchanges with weaving within the interchange.

Interchange Spacing: On US 60, two locations do not meet the minimum interchange spacing. The interchange spacing between the Audubon Parkway interchange (Exit 10) and the KY 81 interchange (Exit 11) is less than one mile. The interchange spacing between the KY 81 interchange (Exit 11) and the Carter Road interchange (Exit 12) is also less than one mile. On the Natcher Parkway, one location does not meet the minimum interchange spacing requirements. The two interchanges (Exits 28 and 29) in Butler County are within three miles of each other.

Interchange Control of Access: Two interchanges (Exit 5 and Exit 18) on the Audubon Parkway do not meet the minimum interchange control of access requirement. The minimum interchange control of access requirement is also not met at Exit 12 on US 60, and Exits 28 and 36 on the Natcher Parkway.

Interchange Configuration: Currently, the Audubon Parkway and Natcher Parkway have four service interchanges that do not meet the recommended interstate interchange configuration. On the Audubon Parkway, the interchange is located at Exit 10. The remaining three interchanges are on

92

the Natcher Parkway located at Exit 9, Exit 36, and Exit 50. These four interchanges were locations for toll plazas before tolls were removed from the route.

IMPROVEMENT STRATEGIES AND COSTS The range of improvement strategies under consideration are No Build, Necessary Upgrades and Spot Safety Improvements, and Fully Compliant Reconstruction. These strategies represent incremental levels of infrastructure investment needed to implement I-69 Spur and I-66/I-65 Spur in Central and Western Kentucky.

•

•

•

No Build – The Audubon Parkway, Natcher Parkway, and US 60 would continue to provide connectivity for the future interstate spur traffic but would not meet interstate criteria. The Audubon Parkway, Natcher Parkway, and US 60 would remain as they currently exist without the interstate spur designation. This alternative would not require any additional funding for the construction related to upgrading the facilities to current interstate standards.

Necessary Upgrades and Spot Safety Improvements - Key safety and operational concerns would be addressed. Under this improvement strategy the Audubon Parkway, Natcher Parkway, and US 60 would be upgraded to meet some, but not all current interstate standards. Design exceptions and variances would be required for those design features that do not meet current criteria or standards.

Design exceptions and design variances would require further study to determine if a design exception is deemed appropriate by the KYTC and the FHWA. New infrastructure and improvements along the parkways and US 60 would be proposed to upgrade necessary features and improve safety for those locations that are not addressed by design exceptions and variances.

Fully Compliant Reconstruction – This improvement strategy would involve improvements within existing right of way or with minimum right of way acquisition necessary for making the existing parkways and US 60 fully compliant with minimum AASHTO criteria for interstate routes.

Based on the study, there are four possible interstate route designation options for the Audubon Parkway, Natcher Parkway, and US 60. Options for I-66 Spurs specifically are not included because at this time no active KYTC I-66 projects are within the study area. These possible interstate route designation options are presented below.

•

Option 1 - I-69 Spur

This option designates the I-69 Spur to follow along the Audubon Parkway from Henderson to the US 60 interchange in Owensboro. The interstate spur would begin at I-69 south of Henderson and would terminate at the US 60 interchange in Owensboro. At the time of this report, the I-69 alignment through Henderson is under evaluation, and the intersecting location with the Audubon Parkway is undetermined. The Audubon Parkway cannot be designated as an interstate spur until it connects with a route that has been designated as I-69.

93

â&#x20AC;˘

Option 2 - I-66/I-65 Spur

This option designates the I-66/I-65 Spur along the Natcher Parkway from I-65 in Bowling Green to the US 60 interchange in Owensboro. The I-66/I-65 Spur would begin at the existing I-65 and Natcher Parkway interchange and terminate at the existing Natcher Parkway and US 60 interchange at the east side of Owensboro. â&#x20AC;˘

Option 3 - I-69 Spur including US 60

The third option designates the Audubon Parkway and US 60 as I-69 Spur. Similar to Option 1, the I69 Spur would follow along the Audubon Parkway from south of Henderson to the US 60 interchange in Owensboro. The spur would continue along US 60 and terminate at the US 60 and Natcher Parkway interchange on the east side of Owensboro. At the time of this report, the I-69 alignment through Henderson is under evaluation, and the intersecting location with the Audubon Parkway is undetermined. The Audubon Parkway and US 60 cannot be designated as an interstate spur until the Audubon Parkway connects with a route that has been designated as I-69.

94

â&#x20AC;˘

Option 4 - I-66/I-65 Spur including US 60

This option designates the Natcher Parkway and US 60 as I-66/I-65 Spur. Similar to Option 2, the I66/I-65 spur would follow along the Natcher Parkway from I-65 in Bowling Green to the US 60 interchange in Owensboro. The spur would continue on US 60 and terminate at the US 60 and Audubon Parkway interchange on the west side of Owensboro.

The following table provides a range of preliminary cost estimates for the interstate route designations. As noted, the Necessary Upgrades and Spot Safety Improvement Strategy would require design exceptions and variances for those design features that do not meet interstate standards. The Fully Compliant Reconstruction Strategy improves all geometric deficiencies and does not require any design exceptions or variances. The cost range provided illustrates the cost variation between the improvement strategies.

The lower cost estimate represents the Necessary Upgrades and Spot Safety Improvement Strategy, and the upper cost estimate represents the Fully Compliant Reconstruction Strategy. After further analysis of the identified deficiencies, KYTC will need to recommend strategies to the Federal Highway Administration to bring the deficiencies into compliance with interstate criteria. Available options include addressing the required improvements through construction, requesting design exceptions/variances, committing to future improvements as part of the on-going maintenance and operation of the facility. It is anticipated that some combination of these approaches will be used. Thus, as projects for implementation of improvement strategies are initiated, additional engineering analyses and studies will be needed to further refine the specifics for improvements and to document the recommendations Interstate Designation Option

Cost 1 (million)

Interstate Miles

Cost per Mile (million)

1. I-69 Spur - Audubon Parkway

23.4

$13.99

-

$14.73

$0.60

-

$0.63

2. I-66/I-65 Spur - Natcher Parkway

70.2

$66.21

-

$75.87

$0.94

-

$1.08

3. I-69 Spur - Audubon Parkway & US 60

30.1

$65.17

-

$87.15

$2.17

-

$2.90

4. I-66/I-65 Spur - Natcher Parkway & US 60

76.9

$117.39

-

$148.29

$1.53

-

$1.93

Necessary Upgrades and Spot Safety Improvement Strategy Fully Compliant Reconstruction Strategy 1

Cost for routine maintenance is not depicted in estimate Table ES-1 - Cost Comparison of Potential Alternatives

SUMMARY Information presented herein is a first look planning-level study to identify deficiencies and impediments for interstate spur designation and to identify a range of improvement strategies needed to upgrade the Audubon Parkway, Natcher Parkway, and US 60 to satisfy applicable interstate criteria.

After further analysis of the identified deficiencies, KYTC will need to recommend strategies to the 95

Federal Highway Administration to bring the deficiencies into compliance with interstate criteria. Available options include addressing the required improvements through construction, requesting design exceptions/variances, committing to future improvements as part of the on-going maintenance and operation of the facility. It is anticipated that some combination of these approaches will be used. Thus, as projects for implementation of improvement strategies are initiated, additional engineering analyses and studies will be needed to further refine the specifics for improvements and to document the recommendations.

For example, the following may be areas for further analysis: • •

•

Operational Considerations – Roadway conditions not shown in crash data may be contributing to crash history. Additional analyses during preliminary engineering may provide additional insight that could refine the scope of needed improvements at a given location.

Mainline Geometry and Typical Section – Analyses for mainline geometry and typical section were evaluated using As-built plans supplemented with limited field reviews of existing conditions. Actual design features may require further verification with detailed field surveys of the roadway crosssection during preliminary engineering for implementing improvement strategies.

Interchanges and Ramps – Most of the interchange ramps are deficient, and some design features were illegible on the As-built plans. Therefore, as interchanges are identified for improvement, geometric features (i.e. superelevation rate, horizontal and vertical alignments, design speed, etc.) should be further analyzed.

96

97

98

99

100

101

102

103

Table ES-2 Deficiencies Summary Deficiency Type

Milepoint

Deficiency Description

Audubon Parkway - Henderson / Daviess Counties

1

Exit 1

2

Exit 5

Taper Length < Min

Taper Length < Min; Ramp Entrance Deficient

Interchange control of access less than 300' minimum 6.223

Barrier Wall Deficiency

6.223

Barrier wall does not meet current standard

10.141 - 18.049 High Crash Segment - CRF= 1.13 (CRF >=1.0) 3

Exit 10

Taper Length < Min; Ramp Entrance Deficient; Previous Toll Plaza

Barrier Wall Deficiency

15.839

Barrier wall does not meet current standard

4

Exit 18

Taper Length < Min; Divergence Angle > Max;

Interchange control of access less than 300' minimum 22.701

Barrier Wall Deficiency 5

22.701

Barrier wall does not meet current standard

Exit 24 / Divergence Angle > Max; Taper Length < Min Exit 10 (US 60)

US 60 - Daviess County

1

11.230

Interchange spacing less than 1 mile minimum

6

Exit 11

Taper Length < Min

1

11.611

Vertical clearance = 15.61' (16' minimum)

2

11.611

Vertical clearance = 15.31' (16' minimum)

2

12

Barrier Wall Deficiency

12.011

7

Exit 12

12.011

Interchange spacing less than 1 mile minimum Barrier wall does not meet current standard Taper Length < Min

Interchange control of access less than 100' minimum Barrier Wall Deficiency

13.564

8

Exit 14

Barrier Wall Deficiency

14.416

1

15.026

13.564

14.416

Barrier wall does not meet current standard Taper Length < Min Barrier wall does not meet current standard Horizontal Clearance = 30' (Note bridge is less than 200' long) Barrier wall does not meet current standard

(Table ES-2 continued on following page)

104

Table ES-2 (Continued) Deficiencies Summary Deficiency Type

Milepoint

Deficiency Description

US 60 - Daviess County

2

15.272

Horizontal Clearance = 30' (Note bridge is less than 200' long) Barrier wall does not meet current standards

Barrier Wall Deficiency

15.272

Barrier wall does not meet current standards

3

15.842

Horizontal Clearance = 34' (Note bridge is less than 200' long)

9

Exit 16

Taper Length < Min

4

16.943

Horizontal Clearance = 33.8' (Note bridge is less than 200' long)

10

Exit 17 / Divergence Angle > Max; Taper Length < Min Exit 72 (Natcher)

Natcher Parkway - Daviess / Ohio / Butler / Warren Counties

5

69.846

Horizontal Clearance = 30.5' (Note bridge is less than 200' long)

6

69.846

Horizontal Clearance = 30.5' (Note bridge is less than 200' long)

7

69.522

Horizontal Clearance = 30.5' (Note bridge is less than 200' long)

8

69.522

Horizontal Clearance = 30.5' (Note bridge is less than 200' long)

9

69.327

Horizontal Clearance = 30.5' (Note bridge is less than 200' long)

10

69.327

Horizontal Clearance = 30.5' (Note bridge is less than 200' long)

11

65.028

Horizontal Clearance = 30' (Note bridge is less than 200' long) Barrier wall does not meet current standards

12

65.028

Horizontal Clearance = 30' (Note bridge is less than 200' long) Barrier wall does not meet current standards

13

64.835

Horizontal Clearance = 30' (Note bridge is less than 200' long) Barrier wall does not meet current standards

(Table ES-2 continued on following page)

105

Table ES-2 (Continued) Deficiencies Summary Deficiency Type

Milepoint

Deficiency Description

Natcher Parkway - Daviess / Ohio / Butler / Warren Counties

14

Horizontal Clearance = 30' (Note bridge is less than 200' long) 64.835 Barrier wall does not meet current standards

15

64.485

Horizontal Clearance = 30' (Note bridge is less than 200' long) Barrier wall does not meet current standards

16

64.485

Horizontal Clearance = 30' (Note bridge is less than 200' long) Barrier wall does not meet current standards

3

62.352

17

60.328

Vertical clearance = 15.96' (16' minimum) Horizontal Clearance = 30' (Note bridge is less than 200' long) Barrier wall does not meet current standards

18

60.328

Horizontal Clearance = 30' (Note bridge is less than 200' long) Barrier wall does not meet current standards

19

51.491

Horizontal Clearance = 30' (Note bridge is less than 200' long) Barrier wall does not meet current standards

20

51.491

Horizontal Clearance = 30' (Note bridge is less than 200' long) Barrier wall does not meet current standards

53.800

Length of Vertical Curve = 800' (829' calcuated minimum)

1

53.800

Stopping Sight Distance = 710' (730' minimum)

11

Exit 50

Taper Length < Min; Entrance Ramp Deficient; Previous Toll Plaza

1

Barrier Wall Deficiency Barrier Wall Deficiency

46.645 46.645 46.146 46.146

Barrier wall does not meet current standards Barrier wall does not meet current standards Horizontal Clearance = 30' (Note bridge is over 200' long)

21

45.88 Barrier wall does not meet current standards

(Table ES-2 continued on following page)

106

Table ES-2 (Continued) Deficiencies Summary Deficiency Type

Milepoint

Deficiency Description

Natcher Parkway - Daviess / Ohio / Butler / Warren Counties

Horizontal Clearance = 30' (Note bridge is over 200' long)

22

45.88 Barrier Wall does not meet current standard

12

Exit 43

Taper Length < Min

13

Exit 36

Taper Length < Min; Entrance Ramp Deficient; Interchange control of access less than 300' minimum; Previous Toll Plaza

Barrier Wall Deficiency

34.816 (NB & SB)

4

33.741

Vertical clearance = 15.76' (16' minimum)

23

29.533

Horizontal Clearance = 30' (Note bridge is less than 200' long)

24

29.533

Horizontal Clearance = 30' (Note bridge is less than 200' long)

Barrier Wall does not meet current standard

Taper Length < Min

14

Exit 29 Interchange control of access less than 300' minimum

3

29.000

Interchange spacing less than 3 mile minimum

15

Exit 28

Taper Length < Min

25

28.523

Horizontal Clearance = 30' (Note bridge is less than 200' long)

26

28.523

Horizontal Clearance = 30' (Note bridge is less than 200' long) Horizontal Clearance = 30' (Note bridge is over 200' long)

27

24.723 Barrier Wall does not meet current standard

Horizontal Clearance = 30' (Note bridge is over 200' long)

28

24.723 Barrier Wall does not meet current standard

Horizontal Clearance = 30' (Note bridge is over 200' long)

29

15.627 Barrier Wall does not meet current standard

(Table ES-2 continued on following page)

107

Table ES-2 (Continued) Deficiencies Summary Deficiency Type

Milepoint

Deficiency Description

Natcher Parkway - Daviess / Ohio / Butler / Warren Counties

30

Horizontal Clearance = 30' (Note bridge is over 200' long) 15.627 Barrier Wall does not meet current standard

16

Exit 9

Taper Length < Min; Entrance Ramp Deficient; Previous Toll Plaza

17

Exit 7

Taper Length < Min Horizontal Clearance = 30' (Note bridge is over 200' long)

31

7.083 Barrier Wall does not meet current standard

32

Horizontal Clearance = 30' (Note bridge is over 200' long) 7.083 Barrier Wall does not meet current standard

Horizontal Clearance = 30' (Note bridge is less 200' long)

33

6.003 Barrier Wall does not meet current standard

Horizontal Clearance = 35.1' (Note bridge is less 200' long)

34

6.003 Barrier Wall does not meet current standard

18

Exit 6

Taper Length < Min Horizontal Clearance = 30' (Note bridge is over 200' long)

35

5.686 Barrier Wall does not meet current standard

Horizontal Clearance = 30' (Note bridge is over 200' long)

36

5.686 Barrier Wall does not meet current standard

19

Exit 2

Taper Length < Min

Aucubon Parkway / US 60 / Natcher Parkway

Guardrail Trailing End Treatments

Appendix D

Guardrail Trailing End Treatments do not meet current standard.

Reference Appendix D for locations

108

400 Shoppers Drive P.O. Box 747 Winchester, KY 40391 859-744-1218 www.palmernet.com 109

110

111

112

113

114