Creating an Energy 

Blueprint for Appalachia

Results of the ARC-ORCAS 

Energy Workshops
 i 

Table of Contents 

Introduction 1 

Energy Blueprint Background 1 

Research Briefs 1 

 Energy Workshops 2 

Workshop Summary Report and Appendices 2 

Findings 3 

Fossil Energy 3 

Energy Efficiency and Transportation 4 

Renewable Energy 4 

Economic Development 4 

Recommendations 5 

Energy Blueprint 5 

Fossil Energy 5 

 Energy Efficiency 5 

 Transportation 5 

Economic Development 5 

Intellectual Capital 6 

Renewable Energy/Energy Portfolio 6 

ARC Implementation of the Energy Blueprint 6 

Institutional Leadership 6 

 LDD Enhancement 6 

 Information Dissemination 7 

Workshop Summary Information 7 

Energy Sectors 7 

Fossil Energy 7 

 Workshop Focus: Energy Efficiency 8 

Transportation and Fuels 9 

 Renewables 10 

Communities Coping with Energy 11 

Waste-to-Energy Innovations 11 

Achieving Efficiency Gains 11 

Aggregated Purchasing 11 

For More Information 12 

 Workshop Focus: SEDA-COG Energy Resource Center 13 

 Example: Auditing Alabama’s Schools 14 

Economic Development 15 

Investing in Appalachia 15 

Workshop Focus: Future Fuels 15 

Appendix A: Workshop Agendas A-1 

Appendix B: Workshop Attendees by Location B-1 

Appendix C: Energy Project Abstracts C-1 
 1

Summary Report 

INTRODUCTION

ENERGY BLUEPRINT BACKGROUND 

At the February 2006, Governors’ Quorum Meeting of the Appalachian Regional 

Commission (ARC), the governors of the 13 Appalachian states and the ARC federal cochair called for the creation of an “Energy Blueprint” for Appalachia, in response to 

today’s changing energy supply, policy, and use environment. The Commission’s 

objective in developing the Blueprint is to provide a strategic framework for the 

promotion of new energy-related job opportunities through the stimulation of sustainable 

energy production, efficiency, and conservation efforts throughout the Region. 

As envisioned, the Blueprint will include an assessment of the current energy landscape 

and an examination of both non-renewable and renewable energy opportunities, based on 

the competitive potential of the Appalachian Region’s energy resources; and will identify 

the Region’s energy assets and the potential for developing energy-related job 

opportunities in the Region based on the competitive potential of these assets and current 

and emerging energy technologies. 

One key aspect of the Blueprint's development will be gathering information from energy 

experts, the private sector, academia, government and other stakeholders. In order to do 

this, ARC has commissioned four research briefs and scheduled three energy 

workshops/roundtables in the Region and one consultation with the Region’s local 

development districts (LDDs). 

Based on these inputs, the Energy Blueprint will propose recommendations for 

investment, research, and advocacy in the development of energy-related job 

opportunities and in the retention of energy jobs in the Appalachian Region. The 

Blueprint should be in final form by late autumn 2006. 

Research Briefs 

ARC has commissioned four research briefs to help inform the Energy Blueprint. These 

briefs will demonstrate how national energy policy and market dynamics are likely to 

affect the development potential of energy resources in the Appalachian Region over the 

next decade. The briefs will draw on existing information and research on domestic 

energy resources, technology, and trends, with a focus on the Appalachian Region. The 

brief will cover the following topics: 

 Review of Energy Policies and Market Dynamics: An analysis of federal and 

state energy policy initiatives, regulations, and proposals. 

 Non-renewable Energy Innovation: A review of innovative non-renewable 

energy resource technologies and an assessment of their application within the 

Appalachian states. 

 Renewable Energy and Conservation: A review of all renewable energy 

sources and an assessment of the current state and resource potential across the 
 2

Region for each renewable energy source, as well as identification of any 

significant concentrations of business activity in each business segment. 

 Supply Chain Analysis: An analysis of the energy supply chain. 

Energy Workshops 

The three energy workshops were designed to bring together energy technology, 

economic development, energy production, environmental, and policy experts to discuss 

how national energy policy and market dynamics are likely to affect the competitive 

potential of energy resources and job development opportunities in the Appalachian 

Region over the next decade. The Oak Ridge Center for Advanced Studies (ORCAS), an 

independent research organization located in Oak Ridge, TN, was chosen to organize, 

convene, facilitate, and report back on the workshops for ARC. 

The ARC-ORCAS energy workshops were held as follows: 

 In Morgantown, WV, on Wednesday, June 21, 2006 

 In Oak Ridge, TN, on Tuesday, June 27, 2006 

 In Huntsville, AL, on Thursday, July 13, 2006 

Each workshop was composed of featured speakers, selected to present a snapshot of a 

particular issue that would inform the discussions; invited participants, who represented 

numerous industry, academic, and nongovernmental groups from across the many sectors 

of energy, economic development, and the environment; and audience members, who 

represented members of any other interested grassroots, nongovernmental, or academic 

groups as well as the public. 

Each workshop was composed of three focus sessions: energy, economic development, 

and community focus. While all three workshops had participants knowledgeable in 

renewable energy, fossil fuels, and conservation issues, each location examined a slightly 

different energy topic to enable more detailed discussions (i.e., fossil fuels in 

Morgantown; energy conservation, energy efficiency, and transportation in Oak Ridge; 

and renewable energy in Huntsville). The economic development focus discussed 

opportunities for the Region that result from the evolving energy situation and barriers to 

realizing these opportunities. Finally, the community focus looked for current examples 

of activities communities are pursuing to lower the cost of energy used in their municipal 

operations, and to attract new and retain existing energy-related businesses. 

WORKSHOP SUMMARY REPORT AND APPENDICES

This report summarizes findings from the workshops, provides overarching 

recommendations for both the Energy Blueprint itself and for the ARC to help implement 

the Blueprint, and then provides brief summaries of information presented by workshop 

participants in each focus area. Information that helped generate the recommendations 

and findings is addressed in detail here. In addition, three appendices provide 

supplemental information: Appendix A provides the agendas from the workshops, 

Appendix B provides contact information for all workshop attendees; and Appendix C 

includes one-page abstracts about energy-related projects that were submitted by 
 3

researchers and institutions across the country. ORCAS gathered these project papers 

through an open call for submissions on completed research, current projects, and/or 

visionary programs in energy and/or energy-related economic development. Specifically, 

ORCAS was seeking innovative projects that could be used in Appalachia to help meet 

its energy, efficiency, and energy-related job-creation goals. 

FINDINGS 

It has been almost one year since the devastating effects of Hurricane Katrina. That 

disaster, in tandem with world events, only increased the United States’ concerns about 

the future of energy prices and the security of our supply. Regardless of the type or 

source of fuel, however, several overarching facts remain clear: higher energy prices 

disproportionately affect people with lower incomes than other segments of the 

population. In fact, energy costs account for over 13% of a low-income family’s 

spending, while it only accounts for 3.5% of a mid-to-upper-level family’s expenditure. 

In addition, rising energy prices harm economic development in rural areas more than in 

urban areas. As a result, higher energy prices hurt those families and regions least able to 

cope with the costs. 

FOSSIL ENERGY

The Appalachian Region is home to numerous sources of energy, especially fossil energy 

including natural gas, petroleum, and abundant coal. Exploitation of the Region’s fossil 

energy resources should continue, but with a focus on higher value forms of the resource, 

such as liquefaction, gasification, and electricity production. The states and Region 

should continue to foster relationships with industries that are interested in transforming 

coal into an energy export, not just removing it from the region as a cheap raw material. 

In addition to the abundant supply in the Region, efforts to continue working with coal 

have several advantages over other forms of energy. Natural gas and petroleum 

substitutes are plagued with numerous uncertainties ranging from facility site location for 

Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) to the likely commercial competitiveness of tar sands, 

while coal’s contribution is in place and can be expanded in the near-term. As a result, 

the Energy Information Agency has increased its estimates about the future of coal and its 

contribution to liquid fuels market. 

Coal does face several challenges. Increased coal use bears inherent concerns about air 

quality, carbon dioxide emissions, and the water required for its processing and use. In 

addition, coal from the Region is currently at a cost disadvantage compared to that mined 

in the Western United States, but more stringent air quality standards will work to make 

the playing field more level. Advanced coal use technologies will also require training 

and expanding the coal-related workforce. The number of people currently working in the 

coal arena is declining, and new skills will be needed to work in plants that convert coal 

to energy via chemical processes. For example, an Integrated Gasification Combined 

Cycle (IGCC) plant is more similar to a chemical plant that makes electricity than any 

current coal-fired operation. This workforce will be needed soon, because many of the 

advanced coal technologies are on the verge of commercial application and could be 
 4

deployed in the near term. For example, Pennsylvania facilitated the establishment of a 

coal liquefaction plant by providing a guarantee to purchase some of its product. 

ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND TRANSPORTATION

The Appalachian Region currently lags behind the rest of the nation in exploiting energy 

efficiency measures. However, this creates tremendous opportunities for exploiting 

energy efficiency tools and techniques and using this resource as an engine of economic 

growth and development. Much of the Appalachian Region did not follow late 20th

century efficiency standards. For example, the Region spends one-fifth the national 

average, per capita, on energy efficiency programs, ranks near the bottom among regions 

in the use of ENERGY STAR® appliances, and has completed only one state-level 

Energy Efficiency Resource Standard (in Pennsylvania). The Region could now leapfrog up to the most recent efficiency techniques and thereby realize even greater savings 

and/or efficiency improvements. In addition, distributed energy production and 

integrated resource use planning in economic development projects have great potential. 

The Region is also set to embrace fuel savings and improvements through its solid 

progress in developing alternative transportation fuels including hydrogen, biodiesel, and 

ethanol. Businesses, corporate fleets, and individuals are increasingly utilizing these 

fuels within Appalachia. 

RENEWABLE ENERGY

Findings about renewable energy in Appalachia are similar to those for energy efficiency. 

For example, the Region has only limited programs for promoting green power and 

renewable energy, even though these represent significant economic development 

potential. While the Tennessee Valley Authority has a program to buy and sell green 

power and to promote more efficient metering and monitoring, demand thus far has not 

been widespread outside metropolitan areas within its service area. Indeed, most 

customers who currently embrace the green power and the alternative fuels that are 

strengths of the Region, pay more for these commodities. With continued investment, 

this cost differential could be eliminated and jobs created if Appalachia embraces its 

renewable resources, especially biomass—an energy development field in which the 

Region could lead the entire nation. 

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

In order to reap the rewards from efficiency and the development of renewable energy 

resources fully, current economic hurdles in the Region must be removed. A significant 

lack of venture capital funds exists in subsections of Appalachia; in other areas, 

traditional banks are too risk averse to loan to small entrepreneurs with new technologies. 

In addition, portions of the Region lack the connectivity and infrastructure to attract and 

keep new businesses. As a result, even home-grown businesses often are forced to 

relocate outside Appalachia, thereby denying the Region to benefits of its own 

innovations. 
 5

RECOMMENDATIONS 

ENERGY BLUEPRINT

Fossil Energy 

As a central economic resource of Appalachia, coal should be used to extend the 

Region’s economic development. The economic benefits of the coal extraction industry 

can be increased by promoting the location of emerging coal processing facilities such as 

liquefaction and gasification in the Region. In addition, the Region should work in 

collaboration with federal partners to focus on the development of technologies to enable 

this increased utilization of coal. Transmission system improvements to export coal 

electricity onto the grid, and new carbon sequestration technologies to create affordable 

zero emissions coal should be priorities in this area. 

Energy Efficiency 

Appalachia has great potential for taking advantage of opportunities in energy efficiency. 

Combined with already attractive electricity prices within the Region, efficiency 

improvements should be viewed as a positive marketing opportunity for prospective 

energy intensive businesses, and utilized as such. The Energy Blueprint should include a 

focus on the development of efficiency enabling technologies, in collaboration with 

federal partners, to further enhance the Region’s advantages in this area. 

Transportation 

The Appalachian Region is enjoying the growth of numerous businesses providing 

alternative transportation fuels. These successes of these efforts should be transferred to 

other parts of the Region that have yet to experience these developments. In addition, the 

Energy Blueprint should include initiation of activity to provide reduced risk for these 

projects, thereby helping them secure financing. For example, many entrepreneurs 

cannot secure long-term funding because they cannot obtain purchase guarantees or longterm contracts (without an “early out” clause) for their product. In addition, because 

energy is inextricably linked with issues of manufacturing and transportation, a strategic 

approach to development and problem-solving that considers impacts on all three factors 

is warranted. 

Economic Development 

Similarly, the keys to economic development rest in the reduction of risk and the 

provision of venture capital. The Energy Blueprint should advance the exploration and 

creation of policy options, at both the state and federal levels, to accelerate the 

deployment of new energy technologies. The Blueprint also should include the creation 

and planned implementation of a strategy to develop greater venture capital resources 

with the region. Finding ways to apply all available economic development tools to 

energy-related economic development should also be envisioned by the Energy 

Blueprint. 
 6

Intellectual Capital 

To maintain these regional advancements and innovations, the Energy Blueprint would 

benefit by recognizing and focusing on a key underutilized asset: the intellectual 

resources of the Region. Appalachia’s universities, colleges, national laboratories, and 

entrepreneurs should be exploited for their ability to provide technical assistance to local 

businesses and to provide new technologies and processes around which new business 

opportunities can be developed. A strategy to offset theses costs to the local businesses 

and entrepreneurs, perhaps modeled on current programs in several member states, 

should be included as well. 

Renewable Energy/Energy Portfolio

Finally, in order to counter the pressures and uncertainties of the energy supply and to 

encourage the utilization of the Region’s green energy advantages, a balanced supply 

portfolio including “green” energy is the best path forward. However, due to differences 

even within the subregions of Appalachia, achieving balance in each state can be 

difficult. Consequently, the Energy Blueprint should include the initiation of activity to 

determine the feasibility of a regional, balanced green energy portfolio. The portfolio 

should include green energy standards and a credit trading program that rewards 

innovation. Technologies within the green energy portfolio should include clean coal, 

energy efficiency programs, and renewable energy sources. 

ARC IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ENERGY BLUEPRINT

The United States does not lack for energy policies or ideas. However, implementation is 

often not as prolific. In this era of volatile energy prices and supplies, a strategic 

perspective that makes the most of integrated and collaborative approaches is needed. As 

such, the ARC can build upon the Energy Blueprint process—and the support garnered 

from the Appalachian states’ governors—to fulfill several additional, and vital, roles to 

ensure the Blueprint’s successful implementation. 

Institutional Leadership 

The ARC can serve as the long-term institutional catalyst needed for the implementation 

of energy/economic development actions envisioned by the Energy Blueprint. By using 

its convening and educational authorities to coordinate activities of various partners; 

facilitate their collaboration; disseminate best practices and lesson learned; and provide a 

forum for research institutions to exchange ideas and identify opportunities for energy 

and energy-related development, the ARC can continue to act as a catalyst for this longterm regional and national requirement. 

LDD Enhancement 

The ARC should, in partnership with other agencies (such as the Departments of 

Agriculture and Energy, or the Small Business Administration), facilitate the expansion 

of services offered through its Local Development Districts (LDDs) to achieve the 

objectives of the Energy Blueprint. For example, so that LDDS could provide a unified 

source of information vital to the establishment of small/rural alternative fuel producers; 

to help identify local companies with appropriate products and expertise for prospective 

energy-related companies; and to create resource/product matchmaking programs that 
 7

identify businesses with input, waste, or byproduct streams that are resources or 

requirements for other businesses (similar to the work SEDA-COG has conducted). 

Information Dissemination 

The ARC should collaborate with other community-based organizations to create a Webbased “best practices” and “lessons learned” database for communities coping with the 

evolving energy situation. In addition, the ARC should support grassroots efforts that are 

already in place providing information dissemination, such as the East Tennessee Clean 

Fuels Coalition. These organizations and the public information service they provide are 

vital to the future of alternative energy sources, including those with which Appalachia 

can excel. The importance of information-sharing among areas, businesses, local 

governments, and small entrepreneurs cannot be underestimated. 

WORKSHOP SUMMARY INFORMATION 

ENERGY SECTORS

Each ARC-ORCAS workshop considered the same energy sectors (e.g., fossil and 

renewables) and focus areas (e.g., economic development, community coping, etc.), 

however, because the composition of the group differed per location, the discussion often 

elicited different comments. To provide a coherent picture of the workshops’ discussions 

overall, comments from all three events have been centralized under their subject matter 

not by their location. 

Fossil Energy 

Of the three workshops, fossil energy discussions were most prevalent in Morgantown, 

WV. Representatives from state and local governments, the coal sector, and the energy 

industry discussed the potential for a bright future for coal, so long as several challenges 

could be met. For example, while the United States coal supply is estimated to last 

enough 250+ years, much of that production capacity is located in the West. While this 

coal has lower energy density than Appalachian coal, its easy removal from the ground 

makes it less expensive than coal from the Eastern United States. As a result, some 

participants said they felt their Region is in essence competing against other states and 

that Appalachia needs a new way to compete. 

One way by which the Region could compete is by the introduction and encouragement 

of new coal technologies such as gasification or liquefaction. Participants noted that 

because coal is a known, and abundant, quantity, it has growing advantages over other 

energy sources, even natural gas where the increasing prices, declining domestic 

availability, and uncertainty associated with siting facilities for its import and storage 

make it less desirable. Companies may not want to subject themselves to the risks of fuel 

source problems. As a result, IGCC plants, which are essentially chemical plants that 

turn coal into electricity, are in the planning stages for Appalachia. The fuel source is 

secure, the price is more stable, and the opportunity to create chemical feedstocks as a 

byproduct of electricity generation is attractive to some utilities. In addition, electricity 

suppliers are also looking at improving current coal technologies using pulverized coal 

and fluid beds. Coal liquefaction is not quite as far along in commercialization, largely 
 8

for reasons stemming from risk reduction and venture capital, as noted in other sections 

of this report. Pennsylvania, however, is taking a first step by providing purchase 

guarantees to a first plant in order to get the process underway. 

Overall, participants were optimistic about the potential new uses and development that 

could come from Appalachia’s abundance of coal, provided that clean air/carbon 

emissions problems did not hinder technology or increase production costs too greatly. 

Several participants noted that funded demonstration projects, increased venture capital, 

and dedicated contract terms would also help advance prospects for new coal 

technologies. 

WORKSHOP FOCUS: ENERGY EFFICIENCY

At the Oak Ridge workshop, Marilyn Brown of Oak Ridge National Laboratory spoke about the 

benefits of energy efficiency, both past achievements and the outlook for the future of energy in 

the United States. In Huntsville, Skip Laitner of the American Council for an Energy-Efficient 

Economy provided comments about the economic benefits of efficiency. This is a summary of 

portions of their presentations. 

The Southeastern United States still lags behind much of the nation in recognizing the benefits of 

energy efficiency, although, as the fastest growing region in the country, its need for energy 

efficiency is tremendous. For example, the Southeast US spends only one-fifth the national 

average, per capita, on energy efficiency programs, ranks near the bottom among regions in 

ENERGY STAR® appliance penetration, and is the last region to establish an energy-efficiency 

alliance. 

Unlike the Southeast, a few states in the West and Northeast have adopted state standards that are 

more rigorous than federal standards. These state initiatives regulate energy efficiency for DVD 

players, walk-in refrigerators, residential furnaces, and several other appliances. If these 15 

standards were adopted nationally, the natural gas savings would be enough to heat 6.3 million 

typical U.S. households and electricity savings would reach 52 billion kilowatt-hours per year by 

2020, eliminating the need for about 40 average-sized power plants. Greenhouse gas emissions 

would be reduced by 12 million metric tons of carbon equivalent annually. 

At the utility-level, Energy Efficiency Resource Standards (EERS) are operating in 7 U.S. states 

and are being debated in several additional states, primarily in the West and Northeast and 4 in 

European countries. An EERS consists of electric and/or gas energy savings targets for utilities, 

typically with flexibility to achieve the target through a market-based trading system. Targets are 

achieved through end-user energy-saving improvements and are aided and documented by 

utilities or other program operators. Key EERS policy design issues include working with 

utilities, setting appropriate savings targets, and examining the relationship between an EERS and 

other energy policies. 

Despite regional differences in efficiency standards, energy efficiency has already shown 

dramatic benefits in the national economy and is vital to the nation’s energy future. Contrary to 

some beliefs, increasing energy efficiency is not about slowing the U.S. economy—it is about 

realizing benefits from existing sources. In fact, due to current technology, energy efficiency has 

provided about 75% of all new demands for energy services in the United States. Continued 

development and innovation in energy efficiency can provide more opportunities for energy 

services, increased energy supply, and a catalyst for economic growth. From the perspective of 
 9

economic development, energy efficiency, therefore, should be embraced as a way to improve 

corporate productivity and to enhance state economic benefits. 

To illustrate this fact, a simple economic model, drawn from historical data in North Carolina, 

was shown to demonstrate how a $100 million investment in energy efficiency by the state could 

lead to the following net impacts: an annual savings of $25 million in energy costs (0.1% of 

current energy costs) and an annual gain of approximately 300 jobs—roughly the equivalent of 

one new manufacturing plant. Over time, if cost-effective efficiency gains continued and grew to 

10% of the state’s current (2006) energy costs, employment could grow as much as 24,000 jobs 

annually but without the environmental impacts of added traffic. In sum, efficiency costs money, 

but inefficiency costs even more in dollars and development. 

Moreover, if energy efficiency could be increased today and over the next decades, it would 

continue to place energy efficiency among the primary sources of energy, not just a source of 

cost-savings or productivity. Just as in the last 30 years, numerous emerging technologies within 

the building and construction industry could make a significant impact in the future. For example, 

sealing methods that address unseen air leaks, electrochromic windows, unconventional water 

heaters, sensors to continuously optimize operations, solid state lighting, and 80-90% efficient 

integrated energy systems. Additional developments in materials, sensors, and information 

systems could further advance energy efficiency at the commercial, utility, and residential levels 

across the United States. 

Transportation and Fuels 

At each of the workshops, participants noted how much of the nation’s energy supply and 

costs are devoted to transportation fuels. Rural communities especially were very 

concerned about the ability to keep their school buses running in the face of rising prices. 

At the Morgantown workshop, coal-to-liquid technologies were discussed as one option 

to reduce the pressure on transportation fuels. Liquefied coal can be turned into gasoline, 

jet fuel, diesel, or into ethanol (via methane). However, these technologies currently face 

the problem of how to get from research into commercialization, due to risk and capital 

constraints. 

At the Oak Ridge workshop, the prospect of turning coal into hydrogen was raised. Like 

oil, processes to use coal products for fuel would also need to use “clean” methods. (At 

present, technologies exist to deal with the sulfur in coal, meaning that coal-based diesel 

fuel is possible in the near-term.) Once achieved, however, the Appalachian Region 

could become a major force in the hydrogen industry/economy due to its abundance of 

coal. One way in which the Region could advance into the hydrogen industry is for 

utilities to get into the fuel business, versus relying on foreign suppliers and the refining 

supply process. For example, if TVA diverted off-peak power to hydrogen plants, the 

hydrogen plants could provide fuel all day long. In addition, because hydrogen can be 

made from so many processes, including wind, solar, and hydro power, other sectors of 

Appalachia could also establish themselves in the hydrogen-production business. 

Hurdles remain for the hydrogen economy. Research is still needed in how to store 

hydrogen supplies and how to increase the longevity of fuel cells. Pilot projects 

underway, for example using cars and trucks in Tennessee, are working to address these 

problems. Even when these problems are solved and consumers can be convinced to 
 10

switch to a new technology and fuel, the U.S. economy still will not switch to hydrogen 

overnight. As hydrogen demand and supply go up, oil prices will drop, keeping demand 

up. As a result, the national economy will remain a mix of oil and hydrogen for some 

time after hydrogen becomes useable on a broad scale. Consumer education and 

government policies will also play major roles in any moves away from petroleum-based 

fuels. 

Renewables 

Renewable energy sources arose in discussion at all three workshops. Participants noted 

that consumers need more education about renewables in order to create demand. In 

much of Appalachia, consumers do not yet provide demand for green power made from 

renewables, due to both a lack of information and the increased costs currently associated 

with green power options. Others noted renewables are a good option to protect the 

United States against shortages due to foreign supply, infrastructure problems as were 

seen after Hurricane Katrina, and to spur economic development. Again, the importance 

of becoming a home for energy production, not just the source of raw materials, even 

renewables, was mentioned. For example, a Spanish wind firm has just relocated to 

Pennsylvania where they will manufacture wind machine parts as well as capture wind 

for energy. In addition, a community that is open to wind farms, could become the home 

to repair and maintenance jobs for those wind machines as well. In Appalachia, TVA is 

creating a financial incentive as well by buying all excess power created by anyone who 

is producing green power, even from solar cells on their roof. 

Aside from limited demand, renewables face other challenges at present. Green power 

sources such as wind are not yet cost competitive with traditional energy sources 

especially low-cost power in the Appalachian Region. In fact, even the burgeoning 

biomass and biodiesel industries are not yet succeeding on their cost advantages, but on 

other opportunities they present. Due to its strong history in agriculture, biomass is one 

area in which Appalachia could thrive. In addition, biomass energy processes can be 

used to help reduce waste streams from industry. A paper plant or building materials 

manufacturer creates so much wood waste that removing the waste is in itself a benefit. 

One biomass project in Tennessee, located within a building materials plant, burns 59 

tons of wood waste each year from that plant alone. They not only create their own 

energy in the process, they also sell excess power to TVA and sell the wood ash to other 

industries. Notably, this plant was able to become a reality due to the drive of the owner 

to protect air quality and reduce global warming. Without its private funding, the plant 

would have faced political and economic hurdles. 

Biodiesel is another area of renewable energy that experiences these challenges. With a 

lack of regulations, standards, or even centralized information, it can be difficult for new 

producers to enter the market, as participants noted. In addition, consumers are 

concerned that most cars and engines are not yet covered by warranty to use biodiesel. 

Whether or not biodiesel engines can be maintained adequately is also a concern due to 

the lack of facilities that are familiar with biodiesel engines. Producers worry that, due to 

the absence of standards for biodiesel production, if a customer receives a “bad” batch of 

fuel, it can ruin the reputation of the fuel—and the producer—forever. 
 11

COMMUNITIES COPING WITH ENERGY

Throughout the country, local governments and other groups have identified strategies to 

reduce energy costs. Discussions of these activities pepper the Web as new stories, press 

releases, and organizational postings, though details are often scant. A few resources 

provide collected information that may be useful to local decisionmakers in search of 

energy solutions. These sources include: the Smart Communities Network 

(http://www.smartcommunities.ncat.org/); the National League of Cities 

(http://www.nlc.org/home/); the U.S. Department of Energy, State Energy Program 

(http://www.eere.energy.gov/state_energy_program/); and The United States Conference 

of Mayors (http://www.usmayors.org/uscm/best_practices/search.asp). Based on the 

information that is available on the Web, localities have pursued three general approaches 

to assuring energy supply and reducing energy cost: waste-to-energy innovations, 

achieving efficiency gains, and aggregated purchasing. 

Waste-to-Energy Innovations 

Systems that use methane gas from landfills, steam generated by the combustion of 

sludge, and gasified poultry litter to create electricity all exemplify local efforts to 

increase energy production and reduce costs in and around the Appalachian Region. 

The Wilkes County Germantown Landfill Gas Utilization Project (Wilkes County, North 

Carolina), the City of Greensboro (Greensboro, North Carolina), Green Power EMC 

(Fayette and Taylor Counties), and the Eastern Kentucky Power Cooperative (several 

sites throughout Kentucky) all use methane gas generated by landfills to produce energy. 

The City of Huntsville (Huntsville, Alabama) uses steam from the combustion of the 

city's dried sewage sludge to create electricity. The Green Power Electric Membership 

Corporation (Franklin County, Georgia) has developed a poultry litter-to-energy 

operation. Each of these activities is aimed at reducing energy costs and reducing waste. 

Achieving Efficiency Gains 

Many organizations and groups are identifying ways to improve infrastructure efficiency. 

Performance contracts provide one approach to financing capital improvements. The 

Tennessee Board of Regents (TBR) was recently awarded the Middle Tennessee Energy 

Award 2006 for its Energy Savings Performance Contracting (ESPC) efforts. Five 

energy-saving performance contracts—one for Middle Tennessee State University, one 

for Tennessee State University, and three regional system-wide contracts, are in place. 

Under the contracts, energy service companies work with participating institutions to 

identify, develop, and construct projects that replace aging equipment, improve the 

functionality of buildings, and save energy so that the project investment is offset in a 

few years by the savings from greater energy efficiency. Total TBR system-wide project 

implementation is projected to cost about $60 million, with corresponding energy savings 

of $8 million annually. 

Aggregated Purchasing 

Communities and other groups have aggregated their buying power to save money and 

buy green. For example, the Northeast Ohio Public Energy Council (NOPEC) is made up 
 12

of 118 member communities spread across eight Northeast Ohio counties. By banding 

together into one large energy buying group, the communities gain leverage in the 

marketplace. As a group, NOPEC participants benefit from bulk buying power and 

pooled professional expertise. NOPEC has more than 600,000 potential customers and is 

the largest public aggregation in the United States. 

Similar strategies have been employed by several school districts throughout the country, 

including the Moon Area School District in Pennsylvania, for the purchase of fuel. The 

Moon Area School District formed a consortium with other districts to buy fuel in bulk, 

thereby saving money. Also in Pennsylvania, the Allegheny Intermediate Unit created a 

joint-purchasing program that allowed schools to collectively obtain set fuel prices, 

saving schools more than $4 million each year. 

For More Information 

• City of Greensboro. City powers plant with landfill methane. 1997. Prism 

Business Media Publication: American City & County [Online: 

http://americancityandcounty.com/index.html]. 

• East Tennessee Power Cooperative. Landfill Gas: An “EnviroWatt” Renewable 

Energy Source [Online: http://www.ekpc.com/greenpower/index.html] 

• Wilkes County Germantown Landfill Gas Utilization Project 

State Energy Program Special Project, North Carolina, 2001. [Online 

http://www.eere.energy.gov/state_energy_program/]. 

• The City of Huntsville and Ogden Corporation Waste-to-Energy Facility Project. 

[Online 

http://www.usmayors.org/USCM/best_practices/bp99/01_1999_Awards13.htm] 

• Green Power EMC, EMCs Sign Unique Renewable Energy Agreement 

http://www.georgiaemc.com/poultrylitteragreement.asp 

http://www.greenpoweremc.com/

• Tennessee Board of Regents. [Online: http://www.tbr.state.tn.us/]. 

• Bird LA, Holt, EA. Aggregated purchasing—a clean energy strategy. Solar 

Today, November/December 2002. [Online: 

http://www.eere.energy.gov/greenpower/resources/pdfs/aggregated_purchasing.pdf]. 

• NOPEC. Home Page. [Online: http://www.nopecinfo.org/index.html]. 
 13

WORKSHOP FOCUS: SEDA-COG ENERGY RESOURCE CENTER

At the Morgantown workshop, Stacy Richards of SEDA-COG (Pennsylvania) spoke about 

regional efforts to increase near-term energy-related savings and long-term economic 

development. This is a summary of her presentation. 

Like other economic development agencies and council of government organizations, SEDACOG serves a very diverse clientele, which is one of our core strengths. To meet the needs of the 

local area, SEDA-COG owns railroads; administers the Community Development Block Grant 

program for many of the counties in the district; operates as a Regional Planning Office under the 

state Department of Transportation; administers one of the largest small business loan portfolios 

in the nation; and provides community and regional planning services to our clients, including the 

management of the Susquehanna Greenways project, which spans the Susquehanna River Basin 

region in Pennsylvania. Because SEDA-COG leverages public and private sector resources on 

behalf of their region, the delivery system of information and services can be powerfully efficient 

and economical. 

Two years ago, SEDA-COG began developing an Energy Resource Center when we realized that 

our rural region is a “fly over” zone in terms of energy efficient and renewable energy activities 

being voluntarily embraced by our clients. Because Pennsylvania is a leader in green buildings, 

SEDA-COG realized that our region could, and should, become a center of efficient and 

renewable energy technology and expertise. However, our clients were spending too much 

money on energy-related operating costs because we had (and have) very little energy expertise in 

our region. Several months ago, SEDA-COG launched the Energy Resource Center (ERC) with a 

$30,000 grant that was leveraged with state and private sector matching funds. 

The ERC’s goals are to reduce clients’ operating costs via energy conservation, develop local 

technical assistance firms, enhance the regional business base with an alternative energy market 

focus, and use our own green building as a teaching tool for best practices. Programs to meet 

these goals will focus on expanding SEDA-COG weatherization services to households spanning 

all income levels; providing home energy audit workshops to the private sector to encourage the 

development of regional expertise; providing green building training to the architects, engineers, 

local zoning officials and construction contractors in the region; and focusing on existing 

businesses that are, or have the potential to be, part of the alternative energy supply chain. The 

first two programs are designed to provide immediate energy cost savings for residential and 

business customers; the last will help develop longer-term economic opportunities in the region. 

In order to focus on businesses that could be part of the future of alternative energy, especially as 

part of the supply chain, SEDA-COG examined the Renewable Energy Policy Project’s 

projections about the future of energy (see repp.org). To date, REPP has studied the wind turbine 

and solar photovoltaic (PV) markets. The study broke these technologies into their major 

components and then identified parts or components suppliers, even if they are not currently part 

of the energy market. For example, one portion of a turbine may be comprised of parts made for 

many other processes, but the producers are not yet aware of this new application—or market 

potential. In fact, the REPP study identifies Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York, Tennessee, 

Alabama, Virginia, and Kentucky as among the leading states with the potential to excel in the 

wind and/or solar supply chain or production market. With the REPP findings, the ERC utilized 

their own small business database and identified specific businesses in almost every county of 

Pennsylvania that could be part of the wind turbine or solar PV supply chain. 
 14

With this information, the ERC and SEDA-COG will work to create business-to-business 

contacts, to build a supplier network, and to continue to assess where the energy market is 

heading to keep clients informed and positioned to succeed in the energy market. However, 

SEDA-COG also sees additional methods by which local agencies could help position their 

clients in the energy market. For example, regions and states could offer grants, provide technical 

assistance, and draw upon their existing strengths to build public-private partnerships to help 

small business thrive in the new alternative energy market. With proactive efforts like these now, 

versus following trends in the future, alternative energy could create long-term advantages for 

Pennsylvania’s economy. 

Example: Auditing Alabama’s Schools 

At the Huntsville workshop, Robert Mitchell’s presentation about conducting an energy 

audit of school buildings highlighted numerous other community issues. Specifically, 

Mr. Mitchell was part of a team funded by the Alabama Department of Economic and 

Community Affairs (ADECA) to assess energy use in 44 schools in 14 districts and to 

make recommendations about improvements. The team, part of the Waste Reduction and 

Technology Transfer (WRATT) non-profit organization, found that all the buildings 

could benefit from improvements ranging from better windows, insulation, vestibules at 

the front door, more efficient lighting, better lighting and thermostat controls/automation, 

etc. As part of the assessment, WRATT also computed the investment required to make 

these fixes (including using contractors that are paid over time from the cost savings) and 

the energy savings that could be realized per building. 

Since the report, ADECA has allotted almost $15,000 per school for repairs. However, 

this will not fund all of the improvements needed. In addition, schools to date have not 

demonstrated enthusiastic support for the program. Few have returned surveys about 

whether they have had any of the work completed. In the seriously distressed districts, 

local companies do not have the capital to undertake the work on a delayed payment plan, 

such as receiving funds as cost savings accrue. Each of these aspects points to problems 

at the community level. First, communities are not aware of how much can be gained by 

efficiency and reduced cost. Little consumer demand exists for energy savings at present 

due to a lack of public education about conservation and efficiency—or, as TVA noted, 

green power. Second, energy costs do not significantly change planning for principals. 

Funds are granted per school for specified expenditures. In addition, the WRATT report, 

though conducted last year has not been presented to the state association of school 

superintendents yet. Nor are other state-level departments a part of the energy audit for 

schools program. 

If the cost savings were explained instead in terms of additional teachers hired, new 

equipment purchased, or direct funding for a school, versus raw dollar figures (perhaps 

going back to the state), the prospect could garner additional support. In addition, if this 

worthwhile program was expanded to include collaboration with the state’s department of 

education, or others, perhaps more money or interest-free loans could be granted to 

schools for the improvements. While this Alabama program is just one example, it is a 

reflection of the information, education, collaboration, and capital problems that beset 

small communities wrestling with rising energy costs. 
 15

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

Investing in Appalachia 

From the opening presentation of the first workshop, economic development—creating 

new jobs and business deals—arose as a key issue. In each location, participants wanted 

to know how to turn old resources into new opportunities and how to get new projects off 

the ground. However, just as the inquiries were the same, the hindrances were also. 

Overwhelmingly, participants in all three locations pointed to the problem of risk 

reduction. Numerous governmental and private entities noted that the vicious cycle of 

reducing risk in order to attract capital, and having the capital in order to reduce risk, was 

omnipresent. Problems had been encountered trying to convince investors to invest in 

new technologies, especially those that were not yet cost competitive with existing 

energy production methods. In cases where long-terms contracts were achieved, and 

could have been used as proof of financial stability for investors, a key federal 

department had insisted that all contracts have a 30-day opt out clause. This clause, if 

activated, would give the company little time to secure new contracts. In addition, this 

type of contract did not inspire investors to believe in the long-term stability of the 

company. 

Even when the risk reduction issue was not foremost, participants noted the difficulty in 

raising venture capital simply due to a lack of it. In Oak Ridge, one participant noted that 

only two venture capital funds exist in the Appalachian area between Cincinnati and 

Atlanta. Others noted that small, local banks—a mainstay of the Region—are no longer 

prepared to invest in venture projects, only established firms. Indeed, as a matter of 

policy, the State of Tennessee, for example, will not invest in venture capital funds, 

whereas the State of Hawaii provides enormous tax credits for research and development 

conducted there. 

Finally, participants noted that small businesses and communities are often not aware of 

the approaches they need to take to succeed or the tools and techniques that already exist 

for them to use. For example, when a new venture does arrive, such as a coal gasification 

plant, a research project, or a wind farm, the community should look at how it could 

reorganize itself to take full advantage of the jobs (e.g., repair, accounting, energy/other 

supplies, manufacturing parts), spinoff opportunities, etc., that are present from this 

“lynchpin” entity. Similarly, if the community is not prepared to take advantage of or 

assist new business ventures, they may relocate. East Tennessee, for example, has an 

unfortunate history of having locally created businesses relocate elsewhere to receive the 

support, connectivity, and infrastructure needed. 

WORKSHOP FOCUS: FUTURE FUELS

At the Huntsville workshop, Brad Taylor of Future Fuels (Alabama) spoke about starting his own 

biodiesel production firm. This is a summary of his presentation. 

Today, Future Fuels is a growing biodiesel business in Haleyville, Alabama. Each week, the twoperson operation produces and sells 4500 gallons of 100% biodiesel derived from soybean oil. 

However, challenges getting to this point were numerous, as are the challenges ahead if Future 

Fuels is to expand and thrive. 
 16

Several years ago, a small trucking company had a problem: the rising cost of fuel for its fleet. In 

response, Brad Taylor and Marlon Wakefield began to investigate the use of biodiesel for their 

fleet. Over the course of a year, they researched the production process, became registered with 

the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), and began perfecting a formula they could use for fuel. First, 

they experimented with cooking oil from restaurants, but that did not generate enough supply nor 

did it facilitate consistency between batches. In addition, some restaurants were scared they could 

get in trouble with the health department for donating their oil for fuel. Taylor and Wakefield 

contacted enough local agencies to find out this was incorrect, but like all of their research for the 

process, little information existed in government to help them. Each inquiry took several steps, 

several levels of government, and multiple people to find an answer. Finally, with little external 

guidance, a 55-gallon drum, some oil from soybeans purchased almost 200 miles away—and lots 

of trial and error—Taylor and Wakefield found a process that worked. 

While they used the fuel in their own trucks at first, they also kept refining their process. Taylor 

and Wakefield were keenly aware of the damage to their reputation if they ever sold a fuel that 

damaged a vehicle. Since there is no standardization or certification process for biodiesel yet, 

they voluntarily sent their fuel to a government lab to be certified as glycerin-free (and thereby 

suitable for fuel). With this certification in hand, Future Fuels began to increase its production 

and look for other purchasers. 

Fortunately, other businesses around Haleyville were also looking for fuel alternatives and liked 

the idea of helping farmers. Today, Future Fuels has several regular customers who would like to 

buy more than 4500 gallons a week from the operation. While the venture would like to expand 

its production capability and improve its process with new technologies, capital and risk create 

hurdles. Although Future Fuels maintains consistent quality standards (and keeps samples from 

every batch), and its customers are happy, the company is only surviving through IRS incentives. 

The cost of soybeans and their transport, washing, and preparing, etc., make the biodiesel the 

same price as gasoline at present. Through rebates from the IRS, Future Fuels is able to make the 

fuels slightly lower in price than gas in order to be competitive, but it leaves little money for 

capital investments. Indeed, the IRS rebate for each quarter is not received until 135 days after 

the quarter began and taxes and bills must be paid in the interim. In addition, soybean costs are 

volatile and Future Fuel is considering importing palm oil from overseas to maintain price and 

quality. 

As a result, banks are not yet ready to loan to a business with limited funding, and venture capital 

from private sources is hard to locate. Now Future Fuel will begin research a variety of federal 

and state government programs that might help the company raise money to expand and become 

self-sustaining. 
Appendix A: Workshop Agendas 

1. Morgantown, WV June 21, 2006 

2. Oak Ridge, TN June 27, 2006 

3. Huntsville, AL July 13, 2006 

Workshop Agendas A-1
Making a Blueprint for Energy and Economic 

Development in Appalachia

10 AM Welcome and Introduction Anne B. Pope, Federal Co-Chair

Appalachian Regional Commission 

10:15 Roundtable Kickoff Paul Gilman, Director, Oak Ridge 

Center for Advanced Studies

10:20 Energy Sectors

10:20-11:05 Presentations

The Future for Fossil Energy - A National Perspective, James Ekmann, US DOE

The Future for Fossil Energy - A Regional Perspective, Richard Bajura, NRCCE

The Future for Fossil Energy - An Industry Perspective, Claudia Banner, AEP

11:05-12:00 Discussion

12:00 Pick up box lunches

12:15 Communities Coping with Energy Issues

12:15-12:30 Presentation

Energy Efficiency, Stacy Richards, SEDA-Council of Governments

12:30-1:15 Discussion

1:15 Economic Development and Energy

1:15-1:30 Presentation

Energy and Jobs in Appalachia, Tim Considine, Penn State University

1:30-2:15 Discussion

2:15 Summary and Wrap-Up

3 PM Conclusion

Morgantown, WV 

June 21, 2006

AGENDA

Workshop Agendas A-2
Making a Blueprint for Energy and Economic 

Development in Appalachia

10 AM Welcome and Introduction Anne B. Pope, Federal Co-Chair

Appalachian Regional Commission 

10:15 Roundtable Kickoff Paul Gilman, Director, Oak Ridge 

Center for Advanced Studies

10:25 Energy Sectors

10:25-11:00 Presentations

The Future for Energy Efficiency – Marilyn Brown, Oak Ridge National Laboratory

The Future for Transportation – Wayne Davis, University of Tennessee

11:00-12:00 Discussion

12:00 Pick up box lunches

12:15 Communities Coping with Energy Issues

12:15-12:30 Presentation

Heather Dawes, EnergyXchange

12:30-1:00 Discussion

1:00 Economic Development and Energy

1:00-1:30 Presentations

Jim Campbell, East Tennessee Economic Council

Joe Rizzi, Bioten

1:30-2:15 Discussion

2:15 Summary and Wrap-Up

3 PM Conclusion

Oak Ridge, TN

June 27, 2006

AGENDA

Workshop Agendas A-3
Making a Blueprint for Energy and Economic 

Development in Appalachia

10 AM Welcome and Introduction Richard Peltz, Alternate Federal 

Co-Chair, Appalachian Regional 

Commission 

10:25 Roundtable Kickoff Paul Gilman, Director, Oak Ridge 

Center for Advanced Studies

10:30 Energy Sectors

10:30-11:00 Presentations

The Future for Renewable Energy - A National Perspective, Jim Powell, US DOE 

The Future for Renewable Energy - A Regional Perspective, John Shell, TVA

11:00-12:00 Discussion

12:00 Pick up box lunches

12:15 Communities Coping with Energy Issues

12:15-12:30 Presentation

Robert Mitchell, Waste Reduction and Technology Transfer Foundation

12:30-1:15 Discussion

1:15 Economic Development and Energy

1:15-1:45 Presentations

Brad Taylor, Future Fuels

Skip Laitner, American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy

1:45-2:30 Discussion

2:30 Summary and Wrap-Up

3 PM Conclusion

Huntsville, AL 

July 13, 2006

AGENDA

Workshop Agendas A-4
Workshop Attendees by Location B-1 

Appendix B: Workshop Attendees by Location 

Morgantown, WV

Rashpal Ahluwalia 

Rashpal.Ahluwalia@mail.wvu.edu 

Dan Alexander 

West Virginia University 

Department of Mining Engineering 

359 East Mineral Research Building 

P.O. Box 6070 

Morgantown, WV 26506-6070 

(304) 293-7680 ext. 3309 

dwalexander@mail.wvu.edu

Brian Anderson 

West Virginia Universtiy 

Chemical Engineer 

brian.anderson@mail.wvu.edu 

Lisa Atkinson Brown 

Deputy Secretary for Administration 

PA Dept. of Community & Economic Development 

400 North St. 

Commonwealth Keystone Bldg. 

Harrisburg, PA 17120 

latkinsonb@state.pa.us 

Phone: 717-787-3003 

Fax: 717-787-6825 

Richard Bajura 

Director, National Research Center for Coal and Energy 

West Virginia University 

385 Evansdale Drive 

P. O. Box 6064 

Morgantown, WV 26506-6064 

bajura@wvu.edu 

Phone: 304-293-2867 ext. 5401 

Fax: 304-293-3749 

Claudia Banner 

Senior Engineer 

Renewable Energy Team Lead 

1 Riverside Plaza 
Workshop Attendees by Location B-2 

American Electric Power 

cjbanner@aep.com 

Phone: 614-716-2894 

John Cartwright 

Director, Regional Planning and Research 

Appalachian Regional Commission 

1666 Connecticut Ave. NW, Suite 700 

Washington, DC 20009 

jcartwright@arc.gov

Phone: 202-884-7700 

Ismail Celik 

Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering Department 

ibcelik@mail.wvu.edu

Jeff Colwell 

Battelle 

505 King Avenue 

Columbus, OH 43201 

colwell@battelle.org 

Phone: 614-424-4528 

Fax: 614-458-4528 

Timothy J. Considine 

Center for Economic and Environmental Risk Assessment 

Department of Energy, Environmental, and Mineral Economics 

The Pennsylvania State University 

203 Eric A. Walker Building 

University Park, PA 16802 

cpw@psu.edu

Phone: 814-863-0810 

Bob Creese 

IMSE Dept. 

P.O. Box 6070 

(304) 293-4607 ext. 3711 

Robert.creese@mail.wvu.edu

Jeffrey Daniels 

Associate Dean - Research 

The Ohio State University 

1947 College Road 

425 Stillman Hall 

Columbus, OH 43210 

daniels.9@osu.edu 
Workshop Attendees by Location B-3 

Phone: 614-292-1039 

Fax: 614-292-3639 

James Ekmann 

Director, Office of System, Analyses and Planning 

National Energy Technology Laboratory 

Mail Stop: 920-L 

626 Cochrans Mill Road 

P.O. Box 10940 

Pittsburgh, PA 15236-0940 

james.ekmann@netl.doe.gov

Phone: 412-386-5716 

Loreto I. Ferrada 

Graduate Student, Planning Studies 

Political Science Department 

University of Tennessee 

lferrada@utk.edu

Neil Fowler 

Director, Appalachian Development Center 

PA Dept. of Community & Economic Development 

400 North St. 

Commonwealth Keystone Bldg. 

Harrisburg, PA 17120 

nfowler@state.pa.us 

Phone: 717-214-5395 

Fax: 717-783-4663 

Paul Gilman 

Director, Oak Ridge Center for Advanced Studies 

PO Box 2008 

Oak Ridge, TN 37831-6173 

paul.gilman@orau.org

Phone: 865-241-4659 

Fax: 865-241-5936 

Jack Gleason 

Acting Administrator for Rural Business and Cooperative Programs 

Rural Development Division 

US Department of Agriculture 

Jack.gleason@wdc.usda.gov

Tony Goff 

West Virginia University 

Department of Forestry 
Workshop Attendees by Location B-4 

gofftony@hotmail.com

(304) 293- 2941 ext. 2429 

Morgantown, WV 26505 

Paul Hardesty 

Director, West Virginia Public Energy Authority 

West Virginia Development Organization 

Capitol Complex, Building 6, Room 553 

1900 Kanawha E. 

Charleston, WV 25305-0311 

PHardesty@wvdo.org

Phone: 304-558-2234 

Fax: 304-558-0362 

Laurie Heitz 

Research Associate 

Oak Ridge Center for Advanced Studies 

PO Box 2008 

Oak Ridge, TN 37831-6173 

laurie.heitz@orau.org

Phone: 865-574-2803 

Fax: 865-241-5936 

Thomas M. Hunter 

Executive Director 

Appalachian Regional Commission 

1666 Connecticut Ave. NW, Suite 700 

Washington, DC 20009 

Phone: 202-884-7700 

James Kotcon 

West Virginia Chapter of Sierra Club 

414 Tyrone Avery Road 

Morgantown, WV 26508 

jkotcon@wvu.edu 

Phone: 304-293-8822 

Bobby Lewis 

Director, Community Development Division 

West Virginia Development Organization 

Capitol Complex, Building 6, Room 553 

1900 Kanawha E. 

Charleston, WV 25305-0311 

blewis@wvdo.org 

Phone: 304-558-2234 

Fax: 304-558-0449 
Workshop Attendees by Location B-5 

Tom Mahoney 

Tmahoney.wvmep.wvu.edu 

James Mayes 

Systems Coordinator 

NCPRPDC 

651 Montmorenci Road 

Ridgway, PA 15853 

bmayes@ncentral.com 

Phone: 814-773-3162 

Fax: 814-772-7045 

Bruce G. Miller 

Associate Director, The Energy Institute 

The Pennsylvania State University 

C214 Coal Utilization Laboratory 

University Park, PA 16802 

bgm3@psu.edu 

Phone: 814-865-3093 

Fax: 814-863-7432 

Richard Peltz 

Alternate Federal Co-Chair 

Appalachian Regional Commission 

1666 Connecticut Ave. NW, Suite 700 

Washington, DC 20009 

rpeltz@arc.gov 

Phone: 202-884-7660 

Fax: 202-884-7693 

Anne B. Pope 

Federal Co-Chair 

Appalachian Regional Commission 

1666 Connecticut Ave. NW, Suite 700 

Washington, DC 20009 

Phone: 202-884-7660 

Fax: 202-884-7693 

Concepción "Crunch" Reyna 

Policy Advisor 

Appalachian Regional Commission 

1666 Connecticut Ave. NW 

Washington, DC 20009-1068 

email: creyna@arc.gov 

Phone: 202-884-7666 

Fax: 202-884-7693 
Workshop Attendees by Location B-6 

Stacy Richards 

Director, Energy Resource Center 

SEDA-Council of Governments 

201 Furnace Road 

Lewisburg, PA 17837 

srichards@seda-cog.org

Phone: 570-524-4491 

Fax: 570-524-9190 

Nino Ripepi 

Graduate Research Assistant 

Virginia Center for Coal and Energy Research 

Virginia Tech 

Blacksburg, VA 24061 

nripepi@vt.edu 

Phone: 540-231-5458 

Fax: 540-231-4078 

Floyd (Rusty) Russsell 

Research Program Coordinator 

West Virginia University 

886 Chestnut Ridge Road 

Research Office - 702H 

Morgantown, WV 26506-6216 

rusty.russell@mail.wvu.edu 

Phone: 304-293-5037 

Fax: 304-293-7498 

Louis Segesvary 

Appalachian Regional Commission 

1666 Connecticut Ave. NW 

Washington, DC 20009-1068 

lsegesvary@arc.gov 

Phone: 202-884-7700 

Fax: 202-884-7693 

Sherwood Shankland 

Shankland and Associates 

Leslie Nichols: summer student 

Joe Sherrick 

Air Quality Program Specialist 

Division of Pollution Prevention and Energy Promotion 

PA Department of Environmental Protection 

400 Market Street, 15th Floor 
Workshop Attendees by Location B-7 

Harrisburg, PA 17101 

josherrick@state.pa.us 

Phone: 717-772-8499 

Allan Tweddle 

3903 Virginia Ave., S.E. 

Charleston WV, 25304 

allantweddle@msn.com

Phone: 304-25-9184 

Trina Wafle 

Associate Director, National Research Center for Coal and Energy 

West Virginia University 

385 Evansdale Drive 

P. O. Box 6064 

Morgantown, WV 26506-6064 

tkwafle@mail.wvu.edu 

Phone: 304-293-2867x5402 

Fax: 304-293-3749 

Cameron D. Whitman 

States’ Washington Representative 

Appalachian Regional Commission 

1666 Conn. Ave., NW, Suite 700 

Washington, DC 20009 

cwhitman@arc.gov 

Phone: 202-884-7762 

Fax: 202-884-7695 

Kathryn Whiteman 

Regional Planner 

Appalachian Regional Commission 

1666 Connecticut Ave. NW, Suite 700 

Washington, DC 20009 

kwhiteman@arc.gov

Phone: 202-884-7756 

Oak Ridge

Sam Aceil 

Alcorn State University 

2056 Gramercy Cir 

Atlanta, GA 30341 

saceil@bellsouth.net 

Phone: 404-444-6426 

Fax: 601-877-2343 
Workshop Attendees by Location B-8 

Kenneth Ball 

Department Head and Professor 

Virginia Tech 

Mechanical Engineering Department 

100S Randolph Hall 

Mail Code 0238 

Blacksburg, VA 24061 

ball@vt.edu 

Phone: 540-231-6661 

Fax: 540-231-9100 

Jack Barkenbus 

Executive Director, Energy, Environment and Resources Center 

University of Tennessee 

311 Conference Center 

Knoxville, TN 37996-4134 

barkenbu@utk.edu 

Phone: 865-482-4621 

Fax: 865-974-1838 

Dan Beasley 

Director, Business Programs 

USDA, Rural Development, Tennessee 

3322 West End Ave. Ste 300 

Nashville, TN 37203 

dan.beasley@tn.usda.gov 

Phone: 615-783-1341 

Fax: 615-783-1395 

Larry Biles 

Director 

Southern Forest Research Partnership, Inc. 

101 Tuxedo Drive 

Commerce, GA 30530 

lbiles@forestry.uga.edu 

Phone: 706-542-3098 

Fax: 706-542-3342 

Marilyn Brown 

Engineering Science and Technology Division 

Oak Ridge National Laboratory 

brownma@ornl.gov 

Phone: 865-574-0355 

Fax: 865-574-7671 
Workshop Attendees by Location B-9 

Bruce A. Burney 

Director of Development 

The Center for Transportation and the Environment 

1401 Peachtree Street, Suite 440 

Atlanta, GA 30309 

bruce@cte.tv 

Phone: 678-244-4159 

Fax: 678-244-4151 

Jim Campbell 

East Tennessee Economic Council 

1201 Oak Ridge Turnpike, Suite 100 

Oak Ridge, TN 37830 

campbell@eteconline.org 

Phone: 865-483-3047 

John Cartwright 

Director, Regional Planning and Research 

Appalachian Regional Commission 

1666 Connecticut Ave. NW, Suite 700 

Washington, DC 20009 

jcartwright@arc.gov

Phone: 202-885-7700 

Glenn Cunningham 

Associate Prof ME 

Tennessee Technological University 

Box 5014 

Cookeville, TN 38505 

gcunningham@tntech.edu

Phone: 931-372-3826 

Wayne T. Davis 

Associate Dean for Research and Technology 

 and Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering 

College of Engineering 

124 Perkins Hall 

University of Tennessee 

Knoxville, TN 37996-2010 

wtdavis@utk.edu 

Phone: 865-974-5321 

Fax: 865-974-8890 

John Davies 

Kentucky Office of Energy Policy 

500 Mero Street 
Workshop Attendees by Location B-10 

12th Floor, CPT 

Frankfort, KY 40601 

John.davies@ky.gov 

Heather Dawes 

Executive Director 

EnergyXchange 

66 Energy Exchange Drive 

Burnsville, NC 28714 

dawes@EnergyXchange.org 

Phone: 828-675-5541 ext 5-# 

Fax: 828-675-5542 

Subramaniam Deivanayagam 

Associate Dean of Engineering 

Tennessee Technological University 

Clement Hall 

1010 N. Peachtree Ave 

Cookeville, TN 38501 

deivy@tntech.edu 

Phone: 931-372-3172 

Fax: 931-372-6172 

William Dodson 

Loan Specialist 

USDA Rural Development 

3322 West End Ave Suite 300 

Nashville, TN 37203 

will.dodson@tn.usda.gov 

Carol Eimers 

Manager, Government Relations 

Tennessee Valley Authority 

400 W. Summit Hill Drive, WT7 

Knoxville, TN 37902 

ceimers@tva.gov 

Phone: 865-632-8328 

Fax: 865-632-9304 

Loreto I. Ferrada 

Graduate Student, Planning Studies 

Political Science Department 

University of Tennessee 

lferrada@utk.edu
Workshop Attendees by Location B-11 

Paul Gilman 

Director, Oak Ridge Center for Advanced Studies 

PO Box 2008 

Oak Ridge, TN 37831-6173 

paul.gilman@orau.org

Phone: 865-241-4659 

Fax: 865-241-5936 

David Glasgow 

USDA 

Nashville, TN 

Cheryl Hargrove 

President 

The HTC Group 

PO Box 20463 

St. Simons Island, GA 31522 

Cheryl@thehtcgroup.com

Phone: 912-638-6078 

Laurie Heitz 

Research Associate 

Oak Ridge Center for Advanced Studies 

PO Box 2008 

Oak Ridge, TN 37831-6173 

laurie.heitz@orau.org

Phone: 865-574-2803 

Fax: 865-241-5936 

Brian Hensley 

Director 

Tennessee Energy Division 

312 Eighth Avenue North, Tenth Floor 

Tennessee Tower 

Nashville, TN 37243 

brian.hensley@state.tn.us 

Phone: 615-741-2994 

Richard Hirsh 

Professor 

Dept. of History (and Program in Science & Technology in Society) 

Virginia Tech 

Rhirsh@vt.edu

Phone: 540-231-5601 
Workshop Attendees by Location B-12 

Thomas M. Hunter 

Executive Director 

Appalachian Regional Commission 

1666 Connecticut Ave. NW, Suite 700 

Washington, DC 20009 

Phone: 202-884-7700 

Guy Land 

Appalachian Regional Commission 

1666 Connecticut Ave. NW, Suite 700 

Washington, DC 20009 

guyland@arc.gov 

Phone: 202-885-7700 

Paula Lovett 

Grants Program Manager 

Dept. of Economic and Community Development 

312 Eighth Avenue 

Nashville, TN 37243 

Paula.Lovett@state.tn.us 

Phone: 615-235-1895 

Fax: 615-253-1870 

Betsy Maples 

Director, Claiborne County Economic/Community Development 

1708 Church Street 

P.O. Box 318 

Tazewell, TN 37879 

bmaples62@yahoo.com 

Phone: 423-626-2592 

Fax: 423-626-1661 

Talina Mathews 

Kentucky Office of Energy Policy 

500 Mero Street 

12th Floor, CPT 

Frankfort, KY 40601 

talina.mathews@ky.gov

Phone: 502-564-7192 

Monty Montgomery 

Director, Office of Natural Resources 

MS Development Authority 

mmontgomery@mississipi.org
Workshop Attendees by Location B-13 

Robert A. Morris, P.E. 

Vice President, Valley Relations 

Tennessee Valley Authority 

400 Summit Hill Drive 

Knoxville, TN 37902-1401 

ramorris2@tva.gov 

Phone: 865-632-4884 

Fax: 865-632-4881 

Jeff Muhs 

Oak Ridge National Laboratory/Sunlight Direct 

P.O. Box 2008 

Oak Ridge, TN 37831 

muhsjd@ornl.gov 

Phone: 865-574-9328 

Fax: 865-576-0279 

Wolf Naegeli 

Senior Research Scientist 

University of Tennessee 

Energy, Environment & Resources Center 

4425 Balraj Lane 

Knoxville, TN 37921-2938 

wolf@naegeli.net 

Phone: 865-584-4806 

John Nemeth 

Vice President, Partnership Development 

Oak Ridge Associated Universities 

P.O. Box 117 MS-29 

130 Badger Avenue 

Oak Ridge, TN 37831 

ann.farler@orau.org 

Cindy O’Reilly 

Tennessee Valley Authority 

26 Century Boulevard, 1 Century Place 

Nashville, TN 37214 

Richard Peltz 

Alternate Federal Co-Chair 

Appalachian Regional Commission 

1666 Connecticut Ave. NW, Suite 700 

Washington, DC 20009 

rpeltz@arc.gov 

Phone: 202-884-7660 
Workshop Attendees by Location B-14 

Fax: 202-884-7693 

Anne B. Pope 

Federal Co-Chair 

Appalachian Regional Commission 

1666 Connecticut Ave. NW, Suite 700 

Washington, DC 20009 

Phone: 202-884-7660 

Fax: 202-884-7693 

Susan Reid 

First Tennessee Development District 

207 N. Boone Street, Suite 800 

Johnson City, TN 37604-5699 

sreid@ftdd.org

Phone: 423-928-0224 

Concepción "Crunch" Reyna 

Policy Advisor 

Appalachian Regional Commission 

1666 Connecticut Ave. NW 

Washington, DC 20009-1068 

email: creyna@arc.gov 

Phone: 202-884-7666 

Fax: 202-884-7693 

Ruth Pless Rizzie 

Bioten 

PO Box 1203 

Gatlinburg, TN 37738 

plessdew@yahoo.com 

Phone: 865-617-4496 

Joe Rizzie 

Bioten 

PO Box 1203 

Gatlinburg, TN 37738 

Phone: 865-617-4496 

Phillip Sanger 

Center for Integrated Technologies 

Western Carolina University 

164 Belk 

Cullowee, NC 28723 

sanger@wcu.edu

Phone: 282-227-2435 
Workshop Attendees by Location B-15 

Fax: 828-227-7838 

Louis Segesvary 

Appalachian Regional Commission 

1666 Connecticut Ave. NW 

Washington, DC 20009-1068 

lsegesvary@arc.gov 

Phone: 202-884-7700 

Fax: 202-884-7693 

Theodore Settle 

Director 

Office of Economic Development, Virginia Tech 

702 University City Blvd. 

Blacksburg, VA 24061 

settle@vt.edu 

Phone: 540-231-9940 

Fax: 540-231-8850 

Kelly Tiller 

Assistant Professor 

University of Tennessee 

Agricultural Policy Analysis Center 

310 Morgan Hall 

2621 Morgan Circle 

Knoxville, TN 37996-4519 

ktiller@utk.edu 

Phone: (865) 974-3669 

Fax: (865) 974-7298 

Allan Tweddle 

3903 Virginia Ave., S.E. 

Charleston WV, 25304 

allantweddle@msn.com

Phone: 304-25-9184 

Grady Vanderhoofven 

Executive Vice President 

Southern Appalachian Management Company, LLC. 

1020 Commerce Park Drive 

Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 

grady@southappfund.com 

Phone: 865-220-2020 

Fax: 865-220-2030 
Workshop Attendees by Location B-16 

David Paul Vogt 

Distinguished R&D Staff 

Manager, Regional Studies Program 

Economics and Social Sciences Group 

Environmental Sciences Division 

Oak Ridge National Laboratory 

vogtdp@ornl.gov

Phone: 865-574-5192 

Katie Whiteman 

Appalachian Regional Commission 

1666 Connecticut Ave. NW 

Washington, DC 20009-1068 

kwhiteman@arc.gov 

Phone: 202-884-7700 

Fax: 202-884-7693 

Huntsville

Terri Adams 

Division Director Energy, Weatherization 

 and Technology Div. 

Dept. of Economic and Community Affairs 

401 Adams Avenue, Suite 560 

Montgomery, AL 36104 

Terri.Adams@adeca.alabama.gov 

Phone: 334-242-5292 

Fax: 334-242-0552 

Kwabena Agyepong 

Chairperson 

Alcorn State University 

100 ASU Drive #360 

Alcorn State, MS 39096 

kagyepon@yahoo.com 

Phone: 601-877-6489 

Fax: 601-877-3941 

John Cartwright 

Director, Regional Planning and Research 

Appalachian Regional Commission 

1666 Connecticut Ave. NW, Suite 700 

Washington, DC 20009 

jcartwright@arc.gov

Phone: 202-884-7700 
Workshop Attendees by Location B-17 

Walter Cartwright 

Assistant Director, Forest Management Division 

Alabama Forestry Commission 

513 Madison Avenue 

Montgomery, AL 36104 

Walter.Cartwright@forestry.alabama.gov 

Phone: 334-240-9331 

Fax: 334-240-9346 

Mary Clayton 

Energy Coordinator 

USDA Rural Development 

4121 Carmichael Road 

Suite 601 

Montgomery, AL 36106 

mary.clayton@al.usda.gov 

Phone: 334-279-3615 

Fax: 334-279-3627 

Ray Daffner 

Entrepreneurship Initiative Manager 

Appalachian Regional Commission 

1666 Connecticut Ave. NW, Suite 700 

Washington, DC 20009 

rdaffner@arc.gov

Phone: 202-884-7777 

Larry Denman 

Huntsville Utilities 

Bonnie Durham 

ARC Program Manager 

ADECA 

P. O. Box 681093 

Fort Payne, AL 35968 

bdurham@wavemasters.com 

Phone: 256-845-3472 

Fax: 256-997-9405 

Burton English 

Professor 

Department of Agricultural Economics 

University of Tennessee 

2621 Morgan Circle 

301 Morgan Hall 

Knoxville, TN 37996-4518 

benglish@utk.edu 
Workshop Attendees by Location B-18 

Phone: 865-974-3716 

Fax: 865-974-4829 

Donna Fathke 

Principal Planner 

East AL Regional Planning Commission 

P.O. Box 2186 

1130 Quintard Ave., Suite 300 

Anniston, AL 36202 

dfathke@adss.state.al.us 

Phone: 256-237-6741 

Fax: 256-237-6763 

Gary Garrett 

Southern States Energy Board 

Paul Gilman 

Director 

Oak Ridge Center for Advanced Studies 

PO Box 2008 

Oak Ridge, TN 37831-6173 

paul.gilman@orau.org

Phone: 865-241-4659 

Fax: 865-241-5936 

Kimberly Hammond 

Research Assistant 

Top of AL Regional Council of Governments 

5075 Research Dr. NW 

Huntsville, AL 35805 

khammond@adss.state.al.us

Cheryl Hargrove 

President 

The HTC Group 

PO Box 20463 

St. Simons Island, GA 31522 

Cheryl@thehtcgroup.com

Phone: 912-638-6078 

Laurie Heitz 

Research Associate 

Oak Ridge Center for Advanced Studies 

PO Box 2008 

Oak Ridge, TN 37831-6173 

laurie.heitz@orau.org
Workshop Attendees by Location B-19 

Phone: 865-574-2803 

Fax: 865-241-5936 

Brian Hensley 

Director, Energy Division 

TN Dept. of Econ. & Community Dev. 

Tennessee Tower, 10th Flr. 

312 Eighth Avenue North 

Nashville, TN 37243-0405 

Brian.hensley@state.tn.us 

Phone: 615-741-2994 

Fax: 615-741-5070 

Lawrence Hoffman 

Project Manager 

International Applied Engineering, Inc. 

1165 Allgood Rd., Suite 6 

Marietta, GA 30062 

leh@iaeinc.com 

Phone: 770-977-4248 

Fax: 770-977-2832 

Thomas M. Hunter 

Executive Director 

Appalachian Regional Commission 

1666 Connecticut Ave. NW, Suite 700 

Washington, DC 20009 

Phone: 202-884-7700 

Doni Ingram 

Assistant Director 

Alabama Dept. of Economic and Community Affairs 

401 Adams Avenue 

Montgomery, AL 36104 

Doni.ingram@adeca.state.al.us

Keith Jones 

Executive Director 

Northwest Alabama Council of Local Governments 

P.O. Box 2603 

Muscle Shoals, AL 35661 

kjones@nwscc.cc.al.us

Phone: 256-389-0500 

Fax: 256-389-0599 
Workshop Attendees by Location B-20 

T.J. Justice 

Director, Governor’s Office of Appalachia 

77 South High Street 

Floor, P.O. Box 1001 

Columbus, Ohio 43216-1001 

tjustice@odod.state.oh.us

Phone: 614-644-9228 

John A. "Skip" Laitner 

Resident Scholar and Senior Economist 

American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy 

1001 Connecticut Avenue, NW Suite 801 

Washington, DC 20036 

jslaitner@aceee.org

Phone: 202-478-6365 

Fax: 202-429-2248 

Guy Land 

Appalachian Regional Commission 

1666 Connecticut Ave. NW, Suite 700 

Washington, DC 20009 

guyland@arc.gov 

Phone: 202-885-7700 

Jack Lesko 

Associate Professor 

Engineering Science & Mechanics 

Virginia Tech 

120 Patton Hall (0219)

Blacksburg, VA 24061 

jlesko@vt.edu

Phone: 540-231-5259

Fax: 540-231-9187 

Holly McClain 

Communications Director 

Chamber of Commerce of Huntsville/Madison County 

225 Church Street 

Huntsville, AL 35801 

hmcclain@hsvchamber.org 

Phone: 256-535-2086 

Robert Mitchell 

Projects Director 

WRATT Foundation 

501 Little Rock Avenue 

Sheffield, AL 35660 
Workshop Attendees by Location B-21 

rmitchell@wratt.org 

Phone: 256-248-0191 

Fax: 256-314-1751 

J. Russell Moore 

Section Chief 

ADECA-EWT (Alabama Energy Office) 

401 Adams Avenue 

P. O. Box 5690 

Montgomery, AL 36103-5690 

Russell.Moore@adeca.alabama.gov 

Phone: 334-242-5294 

Fax: 334-242-0552 

John Nemeth 

Vice President, Partnership Development 

Oak Ridge Associated Universities 

P.O. Box 117 MS-29 

130 Badger Avenue 

Oak Ridge, TN 37831 

ann.farler@orau.org 

Phone: 865-576-1898 

Fax: 865-576-3816 

Eric Ogle 

University of Tennessee 

311 UT Conference Center 

Knoxville, TN 37996 

eogle@tennessee.edu 

Richard Peltz 

Alternate Federal Co-Chair 

Appalachian Regional Commission 

1666 Connecticut Ave. NW, Suite 700 

Washington, DC 20009 

rpeltz@arc.gov 

Phone: 202-884-7660 

Fax: 202-884-7693 

James Powell 

Program Manager 

Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy 

US Department of Energy 

Washington, DC 20585 

jim.powell@ee.doe.gov

Phone: 202-586-3648 
Workshop Attendees by Location B-22 

Fax: 202-586-1233 

Jeff Pruitt 

Top of AL Regional Council of Governments 

5075 Research Dr. NW 

Huntsville, AL 35805 

jpruitt@adss.state.al.us

Concepción "Crunch" Reyna 

Policy Advisor 

Appalachian Regional Commission 

1666 Connecticut Ave. NW 

Washington, DC 20009-1068 

email: creyna@arc.gov 

Phone: 202-884-7666 

Fax: 202-884-7693 

Louis Segesvary 

Appalachian Regional Commission 

1666 Connecticut Ave. NW 

Washington, DC 20009-1068 

lsegesvary@arc.gov 

Phone: 202-884-7700 

Fax: 202-884-7693 

Heather Shar 

Office for Economic Development 

University of Alabama in Huntsville 

sharh@uah.edu 

Phone: 256-824-6248 

John Shell 

Marketing Manager 

energy right® Program & 

Green Power Switch 

TN Valley Authority 

jmshell@tva.gov 

Phone: 256-762-9708 

Don Short 

International Applied Engineering, Inc. 

1165 Allgood Rd., Suite 6 

Marietta, GA 30062 

Phone: 770-977-4248 

Fax: 770-977-2832 
Workshop Attendees by Location B-23 

Susan Sladden 

Research Asst., Bioenergy 

Auburn University 

202 Funchess Hall 

Auburn, AL 36849 

sladdse@auburn.edu

Fred Slover 

Tennessee Valley Authority 

400 W. Summit Hill Drive, WT9B 

Knoxville, TN 37902 

Benjamin K. Sovacool 

Oak Ridge National Laboratory 

PO Box 2008 MS6173 

Oak Ridge, TN 37831-6173 

sovacoolbk@ornl.gov

Phone: 865-574-4730 

Fax: 865-574-0279 

Marilyn Smith 

Northwest AL Council of Local Governments 

P.O. Box 2603 

Muscle Shoals, AL 35661 

msmith@nwscc.cc.al.us

Phone: 256-389-0550 

Fax: 256-389-0599 

Brad Taylor 

Future Fuels 

3307 Fondren Avenue 

Haleyville, AL 35565 

bradleyrtaylor@hotmail.com 

Phone: 205-269-3039 

James Thompson 

GDCA - ARC Program Manager 

60 Executive Park South, NE 

Atlanta, GA 30329 

jthompso@dca.state.ga.us 

Gregory Torrence 

Area Director 

USDA Rural Development 

4890 University Square, Suite 3-G 

Huntsville, AL 35816 
Workshop Attendees by Location B-24 

greg.torrence@al.usda.gov 

Phone: 256-544-5795 

Fax: 256-544-2158 

Jingxin Wang 

West Virginia University 

PO Box 6125 

Division of Forestry and Natural Resources 

Morgantown, WV 265506 

jxwang@wvu.edu 

Phone: 304-293-2941 

Fax: 304-293-2441 

Cameron D. Whitman 

States’ Washington Representative 

Appalachian Regional Commission 

1666 Conn. Ave., NW, Suite 700 

Washington, DC 20009 

cwhitman@arc.gov 

Phone: 202-884-7762 

Fax: 202-884-7695 

Katie Whiteman 

Appalachian Regional Commission 

1666 Connecticut Ave. NW 

Washington, DC 20009-1068 

kwhiteman@arc.gov 

Phone: 202-884-7700 

Fax: 202-884-7693 
 

Appendix C: Energy Project Abstracts 

Appendix C includes one-page abstracts about energy-related projects that were 

submitted by researchers and institutions across the country. ORCAS gathered these 

project papers through an open call for submissions on completed research, current 

projects, and/or visionary programs in energy and/or energy-related economic 

development. Specifically, ORCAS was seeking innovative projects that could be used 

in Appalachia to help meet its energy, efficiency, and energy-related job-creation goals. 

The submissions are in no order other than being roughly divided by subject area. 

Energy Project Abstracts C-1
Renewable Energy Production in Appalachia

The Appalachian region has long been associated with this nation’s energy supply, in the 

form of coal mining. The region now has the opportunity to contribute to the nation’s 

energy supply from a new source; namely, from renewable energy supplies. The author, 

and colleagues from the University of Tennessee’s College of Agriculture, has just 

completed a draft report that details how the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) could 

meet a 10 percent renewable energy requirement by 2020, under the auspices of a 

federally-mandated Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS). Over 20 states now have an 

RPS requirement and the U.S. Senate has advocated a federal RPS in recent years. 

Significant amounts of biomass and wind power would have to be generated, much of it 

in the Appalachian region. The employment impacts associated with meeting the RPS 

requirement have also been estimated. Particularly promising could be the production of 

energy crops, namely switchgrass. This crop has the potential for use in both electricity 

and liquid fuel production. 

Jack Barkenbus, Executive Director 

Energy, Environment and Resources Center 

University of Tennessee, Knoxville 

Energy Project Abstracts C-2
Biomass and Bioenergy Research in the Southeast 

Dr. Timothy G. Rials, University of Tennessee (trials@utk.edu, 865-946-1106) 

The Sun Grant Initiative is a concept to solve America's energy needs and revitalize rural 

communities with land-grant university research, education, and extension programs on 

renewable energy and biobased, non-food industries. The University of Tennessee Agricultural 

Experiment Station is one of five regional centers across the nation and serves as the coordinator 

of the program to the states of Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North 

Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia as well as the territories of Puerto Rico and 

the U.S. Virgin Islands. 

The Sun Grant Initiative enables researchers throughout the southeast to explore the potentials of 

biomass, bioenergy, bioproducts, and associated fields through a competitive grants program and 

other research funding mechanisms. 

Currently at the University of Tennessee, at least three major Sun Grant related research 

programs are underway. To facilitate the collection of a comprehensive review of the current 

state of biomass/bioenergy in the nation, a biomass monograph is being developed. The effort is 

focusing on two distinct audiences, the academic research community and public stakeholders in 

general, but specifically those influencing policy decisions. Another project focuses on the use of 

fluidized beds for chemical modification of lignocellulosic biomass and will demonstrate the use 

of biomass as a raw material for durable goods through a highly efficient conversion process. A 

third focused research effort includes focuses on biomass deconstruction and evaluation. The 

research aim is to develop a database to improve biomass feedstock selection and conversion 

processes, especially pretreatment processes involving physical deconstruction. 

Energy Project Abstracts C-3
Impacts to the Southern U.S. and the Nation as a Result 

of Moving Towards a Bio-Energy Future. 

Burton C. English, Daniel G. De La Torre Ugarte, Kim Jensen, 

Jamey Menard, and Chad Hellwinckell 

Department of Agriculutral Economics, The University of Tennessee 

2621 Morgan Circle, Knoxville, TN 37996-4518 

The Bio-based Energy Analysis Group (BEAG) at the University of Tennessee has 

worked on numerous renewable energy studies during the past several years. Two such 

studies are summarized. An analysis of co-firing cellulosic material in the South East 

Reliability Council Region indicated that currently there are power plants that could use 

wood waste from MSW, forest residues, and/or mill wastes to generate electricity. 

Applying a value for carbon savings would competitively allow up to a 15% co-fire in 

many of the region’s power plants. In a recent analysis conducted for the 25 X ’25 

organization, BEAG found that the nation could replace 25% of the btu content of 

projected 2025 gasoline consumption without impacting food security resulting in 

increased farm income, reduced federal government commodity payments, increased 

rural economic development, enhanced environmental benefits, and reduced foreign oil 

dependency. The national economy would increase nearly 1⁄2 a trillion dollars as a result 

of manufacturing ethanol instead of purchasing it oversees. Average commodity prices 

for corn would increase about $0.75/bushel over the baseline and farmers would receive a 

projected $65/ton for their dedicated energy crops. 

Energy Project Abstracts C-4
Soybean Based Transformer Oil 

 

The Tennessee Valley Authority has been conducting research, development, and 

demonstration of a soybean-based transformer oil. Demonstrations have been 

conducted at three power distributor locations within the Tennessee Valley Region. The 

transformer oil is biodegradable, environmentally preferred oil that is less expensive to 

clean up should there be a spill. The technology was first developed at Waverly Light 

and Power in Iowa and supported by the American Public Power Association. 

 

Further development and testing within the Appalachian Region provides many benefits. 

Successful demonstration and testing on a larger scale could have far-reaching benefits 

to the utility industry across the country by retrofitting larger scale transformer 

applications. Impacts could include: 

 

Agricultural development - The successful deployment would encourage the 

growing and sale of soybeans in the Appalachian region. 

 

Economic development - Since the successful deployment could become an industryaltering technology, expansion of manufacturing and jobs in the region is likely to occur. 

 

Involvement of academic institutions - Further research and testing could be 

accomplished with a few selected community colleges where students would have the 

opportunity to conduct testing with utilities, develop marketing plans, transportation 

studies, and environmental assessments. 

 

The proposed plan would be sponsored by the Tennessee Valley Authority, the nation's 

largest public power provider, in conjunction with regional power distributors.

 

Contact information: Vickie L. Ellis, 865-632-8935 or vlellis@tva.gov. 

Energy Project Abstracts C-5
ADECA Biomass Energy Program

The Alabama Department of Economic and Community Affairs – Energy, 

Weatherization, and Technology Division (ADECA-EWT) sponsors the Biomass 

Energy Program to assist businesses in installing biomass systems. This 

program is open to any industry participant in Alabama who is utilizing a biomass 

fuel source as a replacement for traditional fossil fuels, including waste wood, 

switchgrass, and landfill gas. The target audience includes industrial, 

commercial and institutional facilities, agricultural property owners, and city, 

county, and state entities. Program participants can receive up to $75,000 in 

interest subsidy payments to help defray the interest expense on loans to install 

approved biomass projects. Technical assistance and feasibility studies may 

also be provided through the program. 

The Biomass Energy Program has installed over 35 projects using wood waste 

as the primary fuel for generating process heat, process steam, and/or electric 

power. Over $1.5 million has been invested in installing new equipment or 

converting existing equipment to burn wood waste. As a result, Alabama 

businesses are saving over $10 million annually in fuel costs. 

The Biomass Energy Program is currently accepting applications from entities 

that would like to participate in the program. For more information, please 

contact Clarence Mann at (334) 242-5330 or Clarence.mann@adeca.alabama.gov. 

Energy Project Abstracts C-6
Switchgrass Growing and Conversion Trials in Tennessee: Year Two 

Burton C. English, Don Tyler, Roland Roberts, and Larry Steckel 

The University of Tennessee currently has 124.5 acres under switchgrass 

cultivation. The experiments are planted on both Ag. Experiment station lands and 

farmer owned lands. The experiments are designed to eventually provide guidance to 

producers and extension personnel by developing recommended best management 

practices. Currently information on fertilization, varieties, seeding rate, and herbicide use 

is being developed on four different landscapes typically found in Tennessee. The five 

producers that are growing switchgrass bid their land into the program and began 

growing it last year. Seventy-five of the ninety two acres were established is year one 

with the remainder of the acres not established as a result of a number of problems with 

the number one problem being weed control, primarily switchgrass competition with 

other grasses. Herbicide experiments are being conducted to find a herbicide that will 

kill the grass competition, but not impact the switchgrass stand. It is hoped that the effort 

conducted on the weed trials will provide information for getting a herbicide labeled for 

use in the establishment year of switchgrass. 

After growing the switchgrass on the 124 plus acres, the switchgrass is 

transported to Gadsden Alabama where emissions testing are being conducted under a cofire situation. In addition, switchgrass is being converted to bio-oil at Iowa State 

University at 3 temperature levels, 3 particle size levels, and 3 moisture levels. 

Energy Project Abstracts C-7
Logistics for Delivery of Biomass to a Plant in Appalachia 

 Much work has been done to develop potential feedstocks which will meet the 

national goal for bioenergy production. These results are being collected by the 

Southeastern Regional Bioenergy Partnership in a database that is continuing to evolve. It 

is very important that the “Blueprint” be a component of the evolving effort. 

 An equivalent database for biomass logistics in the Southeast is needed, and 

initial efforts to develop this database are also underway. ( Logistics is defined as harvest, 

storage, and subsequent delivery to a processing plant. This plant may be a preprocessing plant or a plant producing a bulk commodity product, fuel and/or chemical.) 

The ultimate deliverable will be comprehensive outline that a business development 

authority can use to provide a bioenergy company with the following site-specific 

information. 

• List of different feedstocks available 

• Quantities of these feedstocks and their geographic distribution 

• Average harvesting cost ($/dry ton) for different feedstocks 

• Average hauling cost (including loading and unloading cost) for each feedstock 

• Suggested design of receiving facility (rail may supplement trucks for some 

locations, particularly as fuel costs increase) 

The utility of this database is its contribution to the business plan for a company 

being attracted into the community. Production of the biomass(landowner part) is 

important, and processing of this biomass(company part) is important. Logistics links the 

production and processing, thus it is of equal importance in the business plan. By having 

a strong logistics plan, the Southeast can be the region that leads the nation in bioenergy 

production. 

Appalachia, particularly as a producer of woody biomass, has a very important 

role to play in the Southeast. This presentation outlines the production/logistical plan for 

Appalachia to attract an industry that will provide a market for some of the relatively 

poor quality hardwood currently left on the site after a high-end harvest. This market will 

encourage better management of thousands of acres of Appalachian woodland and, of 

equal importance, will provide jobs in the rural community. 

 John S. Cundiff Biological Systems Engineering Department (0303) Virginia Tech 

Blacksburg, VA 24061 

jcundiff@vt.edu(540) 231-7603 (540) 231-3199 (fax) 

Energy Project Abstracts C-8
Developing new knowledge and education systems for development of forest 

bioenergy systems 

Jianbang Gana

, Larry Bilesb, Daniel Cassidyc, Darwin Fostera, William G. Hubbardd, Ben 

Jacksonc

, J. Bryan Jordine, Chyrel Mayfielda, H. Michael Rauschere, C.T. Smithf, and 

Eric Taylora

a Department of Forest Science, Texas A&M University 

b Southern Forest Research Partnership, Inc. c Daniel B. Warnell School of Forestry and Natural Resources, The University of Georgia

d Southern Regional Extension Forestry e USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station 

f Faculty of Forestry, University of Toronto, Canada 

ABSTRACT 

 The current challenges facing outreach and extension professionals in North 

America include high diversity in clients, rapid advances in knowledge, and changes in 

markets associated with new products, new buyers and sellers. These factors create an 

urgent need for a versatile, yet responsive and effective technology transfer system. 

Meanwhile, advances in information technology have enhanced our ability to meet such a 

challenge. This paper describes the development of a knowledge base and a delivery 

system for forest biomass and bioenergy development. Under the framework of the 

Forest Encyclopedia Network (www.forestryencyclopedia.net), the knowledge base, the 

Encyclopedia of Southern Bioenergy, is developed in six interrelated modules 

representing the key components in the forest biomass and bioenergy supply chain. 

These modules can be further rescaled, integrated, and tailored to meet various 

educational needs. A variety of tools/means ranging from the Internet to printed 

materials and to workshops will be employed to disseminate the knowledge to different 

groups of audiences. Building on the strengths of the Southern Forest Research 

Partnership and the Southern Regional Extension Forestry, we expect to effectively 

integrate research and outreach to help meet the educational needs for forest biomass and 

bioenergy development in the South. 

KEY WORDS: Knowledge base, technology transfer, Forest Encyclopedia Network, 

forest bioenergy, US South. 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: 

 This project was funded by the USDA and DOE Biomass Development and 

Research Initiatives program (grant no.: 68-3A75-4-143) with additional financial 

supports provided by the institutions and organizations the authors are associated with. 

Energy Project Abstracts C-9
Bennett Lumber Company Biomass Fuel Project 

With the rise in natural gas prices over the last few years, Bennett Lumber Company in 

Piedmont, Alabama, found its gas bill rising from $12,000/month to over $50,000/month. 

The company uses natural gas to run its kiln to dry green lumber, an essential step before 

shipping the product to market. Owner James Bennett, realizing that his company 

would not survive under these circumstances, put on his research cap in search of an 

alternative. 

One by-product of a sawmill is sawdust. Bennett had long been selling this by-product as 

animal bedding. But he also knew that he could convert sawdust to energy, given the 

right equipment. The equipment was not cheap, but neither were his escalating gas bills. 

It can be difficult, if not impossible, to find governmental financial aid for a private forprofit business, but fortunately, Bennett’s plans fell within the requirements of the 

Alabama Department of Economic and Community Development’s (ADECA) Biomass 

Renewable Fuels program. Although Bennett Lumber had to finance his project through 

a commercial loan, the ADECA program will pay $75,000 of his loan interest for up to 3 

years. The Biomass program enabled him to purchase a fuel storage silo, transfer 

system, and boiler that will use the sawdust as fuel, generating steam which then is 

pumped through a heat transfer coil in his dry kiln. After all is said and done, this project 

will save Bennett Lumber upwards of $50,000 each month. 

Submitted by: 

Donna Fathke 

Principal Planner 

East Alabama Regional Planning Commission 

P.O. Box 2186 

1130 Quintard Ave., Suite 300 

Anniston, AL 36202 

dfathke@adss.state.al.us 

Phone: 256-237-6741 

Fax: 256-237-6763 

Energy Project Abstracts C-10
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

Huber Renewable Energy Works (HREW) is a proposed renewable energy project to be 

located at the Huber Engineered Woods, LLC (Huber) plant in Spring City, TN. The 

project consists of a biomass power conversion and heat recovery facility which will 

provide a clean, alternative energy source to the East Tennessee area. 

The primary functions of the HREW facility are to produce heat and electric power. This 

production will be implemented by consuming the wood wastes generated from the 

normal operations of the Huber plant through the means of the patented Bioten 

combustion process. Net electrical power generated as a result of this process will be 

sold to the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). The electricity will be connected to the 

grid at an adjacent 13 kV substation. Heat generated as a by-product of the combustion 

process will be captured and sold to Huber. The heat will be transferred to the existing 

Huber thermal fluid heating system and integrated into the plant process which shall 

serve to increase Huber plant efficiency. 

Preliminary engineering has been performed as a part of this study to provide a general 

facility layout and to identify the equipment required to realize the above HREW 

functions. Vendors have been included in the preparation of this study to establish costs 

associated with these equipment requirements. A general contractor has also been 

included in the preparation of this study by supplying a cost estimate to provide full 

construction services including material, erection, sitework, and labor costs. Plant 

startup, engineering, and other ancillary costs have also been included in the cost 

estimate. 

Operating costs have been projected based on historical data for similar power plant 

projects including a recent Bioten capital project. These costs will vary due to inflation 

throughout the life of the project, which has been defined as fifteen (15) years. The 

operating cost in 2006 dollars is projected to be approximately $1.4 million dollars 

annually. 

Since HREW involves the production of renewable energy, financing for this project will 

be established through zero-interest Clean Renewable Energy Bonds instituted through 

the Energy Policy Act of 2005. Additional tax incentives and credits have yet to be fully 

realized in the financial analysis of this study. 

Energy Project Abstracts C-11
Making A Blueprint for Energy and Economic 

Development in Appalachian 

Landfills as a Source of Fuel 

For Community Energy Parks 

Purpose – As organic matter in landfills decomposes, methane gas is produced is a 

serious greenhouse gas, but an excellent fuel. With concerns over national energy 

security and greenhouse gas emissions, landfill gas utilization makes sense. 

The EnergyXchange Renewable Energy Center near Burnsville, NC is now a world-wide 

model for community-based landfill gas development. Numerous other landfill owners 

are attempting to follow this model. 

The EnergyXchange process recognizes the usefulness of the landfill as a sustainable fuel 

source, and the wisdom of building community energy parks around available existing 

energy sources. 

Scope – The EnergyXchange model is a 4 acre energy park built by non-profit partners at 

the tiny Yancey/Mitchell landfill. The investment is $1.3 million – all grants. 

Methods – Partners were, Mayland Community College, Blue Ridge Resource 

Conservation and Development Council, HandMade In America, NC Energy Office, 

EPA’s Landfill Methane Outreach Program, and the NC Cooperative Extension Service. 

Results – A business incubator for glass-blowers and potters was created as well as 

community greenhouses that produce native shrubbery seedling for local nurserymen. In 

its first 4 years of operation EnergyXchange has saved over $800,000 in energy costs, 

created 38 temporary jobs, 6 permanent jobs, 10 new businesses, and expanded 27 

existing businesses. Replication – Landfills are well distributed and most are still 

undeveloped for landfill gas. Many have buffer lands that can be used as “Energy 

Parks”. To reach energy self sufficiency, we need to identify all untapped energy 

resources in our communities and build the infrastructure to utilize that energy near the 

sites. 

Contact Information: 

Stan Steury Becky Anderson 

Blue Ridge RC&D & EnergyXchange HandMade In America 

1081-2 Old US Hwy. 421 PO Box 2089 

Sugar Grove, NC 28679 Asheville, NC 28802 

stan.steury@nc.usda.gov beckyanderson1@aol.com

828-297-5805 828-252-0121 

Energy Project Abstracts C-12
Michael Karmis, Jason Abiecunas, Jeffrey Alwang, Stephen Aultman, Lori Bird, Paul 

Denholm, Donna Heimiller, Richard F. Hirsh, Anelia Milbrandt, Ryan Pletka, Gian Porro 

and Benjamin K. Sovacool. A Study of Increased Use of Renewable Energy Resources in 

Virginia (Blacksburg, VA: Virginia Center for Coal and Energy Research, November 11, 

2005), accessed July 2006 at 

http://www.energy.vt.edu/Publications/Incr_Use_Renew_Energy_VA_rev1.pdf. 

Abstract: There is general need for greater understanding of the feasibility, costs, 

benefits and risks associated with the use of renewable energy and environmentally 

beneficial resources to generate electricity. Despite claims that these resources have a 

variety of benefits, such energy sources make a relatively small contribution to power 

generation in Virginia and the nation. This study examines the existing barriers to 

deployment of such resources, and determines the cost of generating electricity from such 

sources and then compares it with the cost of power generated from traditional sources, 

for both the case of existing capacity and new capacity additions. This information can be 

used to estimate the scale of incentives or subsidies needed to encourage investment in 

renewable resources. In addition the study reviews incentives that have been employed 

elsewhere for expanded deployment of renewable energy systems and analyzes the 

effectiveness of such incentives. 

Energy Project Abstracts C-13
Benjamin K. Sovacool. The Power Production Paradox: Revealing the Socio-technical 

Impediments to Distributed Generation Technologies (Blacksburg, VA: Virginian Tech, 

Doctoral Dissertation, April 17, 2006), accessed July 2006 at 

http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/available/etd-04202006-172936/. 

Abstract: Dramatic improvements in renewable energy and small-scale distributed 

generation (DG) technologies have been made in the last twenty years. Nevertheless, 

they remain underutilized in the American electric utility system. Despite the immense 

environmental, technical, and financial promise of renewable energy systems and DG 

technologies, such generators still constitute a very small percentage of electricity 

generation capacity in the United States. This relative neglect occurs despite remarkable 

gains in their technical performance and reductions in their cost of producing power—the 

result (in part) of dramatic government support for several decades. Moreover, the 

technologies often demonstrate great environmental benefits that appeal to policymakers 

and consumers. At the same time, they offer ways to enhance strained distribution and 

transmission networks. 

This project attempts to answer the paradoxical question: why do new energy 

technologies that offer such impressive benefits also find the least use? The dissertation 

emphasizes how the history and culture of the community of electricity producers and 

users helps explain why the new technologies have seen little use. Going beyond 

technical explanations of alleged low capacity factors and high capital costs, it focuses on 

the social nature of decision making among participants in the electric utility system. 

The approach not only helps us understand the glossing over of renewable energy and 

distributed generation technologies, but also suggests ways of overcoming the barriers 

faced by their advocates. 

Energy Project Abstracts C-14
Waste Reduction Partners 

– Advancing Energy Efficiency Field Assistance in WNC 

 

 

Waste Reduction Partners is an award winning, innovative technical assistance program 

serving 32 counties in Western North Carolina. Waste Reduction Partners (WRP) is a 

program of the Land-of-Sky Regional Council in Asheville, which utilizes the ‘brain power” 

of NC’s growing baby-boomer demographics. The program employs the expertise of 50 

retired, volunteer engineers and scientists, working in conjunction with program staff. 

Since 2000, this nationally recognized WRP program has provided over 74,000 hours of 

no-cost technical assistance to WNC industries, businesses and public institutions to cut 

utility costs, reduce energy and water use, improve solid waste management, create new 

business opportunities, and promote pollution prevention strategies– achieving savings 

over $12 million. 

In partnership with the State Energy Office and the NC Division of Pollution Prevention and 

Environmental assistance, WRP assessors work on-site, one-on-one with business, 

industry, and institutional clients on energy efficiency strategies, energy auditing, and 

implementation guidance. The technical assistance is free and confidential. WRP staff 

conducts traditional level one and two energy audits, assists organization with energy 

strategic planning, ISO 14001, performance contracting, and related business 

development assistance; and provides energy saving outreach in the commercial sector. 

Staff has also produced energy savings self-assessment tools, fact sheets, awareness 

posters, etc. WRP engineers are currently developing a Lessons-Learn Performance 

Contacting Manual for K-12 School and Local Governments. 

Performance Measures: Since 2000 

 Energy Efficiency Audits (business, industry, institutions): > 225 

 Average Energy Saving (Recommended): 750 MMBtu per Assessment 

Client Implementation Rate: 30% - 50% 

 Simple Payback on Grant Funding investment: less than 2 months 

 Estimated Client Savings (implemented): $760,000/year 

Contact Information: 

 Terry Albrecht, P.E. 

 WRP Program Director 

 Land-of-Sky Regional Council 

 25 Heritage Drive 

 Asheville, NC 28806 

 (828) 251-6622 

 e-mail: terry.albrecht@ncmail.net

 web: www.landofsky.org/wrp 

 

 

Energy Project Abstracts C-15
 

WVU’s Advanced Power and Electricity Research Center uses a multidisciplinary 

approach to develop innovations in transmission system-wide control with the goal of 

ensuring reliability, availability, security, and profitability for large- and small-scale 

systems. 

APERC has extensive experience and a well-established record researching integrated 

communications and distributed controls for the management of electric power systems 

in a restructured market. Researchers focus on common power industry issues such as 

security, self-healing, energy management, distributed resource applications and 

economics for power systems. As a natural extension of the self-healing grid research, 

microgrids and intelligrids have been added to the research activities of this group. 

APERC researchers are examining distributed resources and microgrid technologies 

integrated with communications and distributed controls to encourage the assimilation of 

these technologies into the distribution network. Researchers seek to improve power 

quality and reliability, increase energy efficiency, reduce peak loads, or improve 

productivity through the adoption of control and automation technologies for industrial 

equipment and residential appliances. 

APERC economists and engineers also model markets for energy and ancillary services. 

Research areas include markets and trading; load control through price signals; ancillary 

service markets, and rates and tariffs for green power. Economic models include a model 

that explains and assesses the pattern and prices of power plant divestiture by regulated 

utilities, a model that compares the efficiency of dispatch under market-oriented and 

traditional vertically-integrated systems and a model that examines the spatial and 

temporal linkages and patterns in electricity price determination in regional operations 

like PJM. 

Energy Project Abstracts C-16
Project Title: Sun Grant BioWeb 

Description:

The Sun Grant BioWeb is an online resource for bioenergy and bioproducts. Currently under 

development, the BioWeb is designed to be a comprehensive educational resource for 

information about biomass feedstocks, biofuels, biopower, bioproducts, and biorefineries. It is 

essentially an online encyclopedia of everything biomass. 

Leading researchers and experts in various aspects of bioenergy and bioproducts—representing 

academic institutions, federal and state agencies, national labs, private industry, and other 

stakeholder groups—are contributing information to the BioWeb and reviewing submissions. 

All of the information in the BioWeb will be accessible in three levels of detail: (1) an academic 

version, (2) a general public version, and (3) an abstract version, and users can switch among 

versions at any time displaying more or less detail. Use of innovative software and content 

management system applications will make the BioWeb user-friendly and current. 

The project is being funded and coordinated by the Sun Grant Initiative, led by the Southeastern 

Regional Sun Grant Center. Content authors are currently preparing research material for 

submission to the BioWeb, while a team of programmers is working on development of the 

content management system databases and web templates. A national Sun Grant conference will 

be held in Knoxville in February 2007 to review the BioWeb content prior to the system being 

made publicly available in March 2007. The Sun Grant BioWeb will be fully functioning by 

March 2007, accessible at www.bioweb.sungrant.org. 

Submitted by/ contact:

 Dr. Kelly Tiller (865) 974-3669 - phone 

 Agricultural Policy Analysis Center (865) 974-7298 - fax 

 The University of Tennessee ktiller@utk.edu 

 310 Morgan Hall 

 Knoxville, TN 37996-4519 

Energy Project Abstracts C-17
Innovations for Sustainable Residential Development:

Partnership to Meet the Challenges of the 21st Century

• Accelerate implementation and commercialization of research results for 

sustainable residential development.

• Place-based adaptation of scientifically sound technologies and practices.

• Highly integrated and coordinated approach designed to overcome:

 environmental, social, and economic problems of current inefficient and 

harmful development and building practices

 administrative, awareness, educational, and market barriers to better, more 

sustainable solutions

• Initial focus on East Tennessee, one of the fastest growing and most 

environmentally sensitive areas of the nation

Our partners from the education, government, and private sectors will cooperate to promote 

and facilitate development that is far more sustainable than current practice. We use the latest 

research results and technological advances to assesses full life-cycle impacts of vertically 

integrated methods and practices that protect our environment and lead to ‘net-zero energy’ 

housing, healthier homes, and more livable communities.

The partnership will develop and demonstrate methods for systematic optimization of 

ecological, social, economic, and technological factors in site selection and site preparation; 

design; manufacturing, and transportation of building materials and components; construction, 

operation and maintenance; hazard resistance, repair, remodeling, and decommissioning/reuse of 

buildings, components, and infrastructure.

The partners will develop comprehensive portfolios of easy-to-use guidelines; manuals; 

check lists; design and evaluation tools; educational opportunities; workforce training materials 

and programs; information for community leaders, stakeholders, homeowners, and the general 

public; model ordinances and public policies; legal and financial services; incentive packets; 

implementation recommendations; product and service ratings; community assistance; technical 

support; and consulting services.

For more information, please contact:

Wolf Naegeli, PhD

Senior Research Scientist

Energy, Environment, and Resources Center

The University of Tennessee--Knoxville

wnn@utk.edu

865.584.4806

Energy Project Abstracts C-18
Rapid Manufacturing for Economic Development and Energy Reduction via Metal 

Casting 

 A new process for making molds for casting via 3-D printing can produce 

products more quickly, reduce energy requirements, increase workforce skills, and make 

a cleaner workplace. The process is viable for prototype products and small batches of 

parts, which is a major goal of lean manufacturing. The major advantage is that 3-D 

printing can produce the mold without conventional tooling, which takes approximately 

50 percent of the time from concept to product. Other major advantages are less 

intensive labor requirements; simultaneous production of cores and molds; elimination of 

storage of conventional patterns and core boxes; lower core and scrap losses; more 

complex molds and cores are possible; and the ability to run the machine with minimal 

supervision and thus 24-7 operation is possible with one 40 hour shift operation. It is 

possible to produce multiple small parts in a single mold, and thus production of a batch 

of small parts is possible. 

 A closely related process makes a consumable pattern via the 3-D printing process 

which is then placed in a chemically set molding material to produce the mold. The 

advantages of the process are very similar to the 3-D molding process. The time for 

pattern production may be somewhat shorter, but the mold must still be made and thus 

the total production times would be similar. It is desired to have a rapid manufacturing 

casting technology center to promote these technologies in the metal casting industry. 

Robert C. Creese, Professor 

Industrial & Management Systems Engineering 

401 Mineral Resources Building - P.O. Box 6070 

College of Engineering & Mineral Resources 

West Virginia University 

Morgantown, West Virginia 26506-6070 

Energy Project Abstracts C-19
Development of High Temperature Corrosion Resistant Materials for Next 

Generation Coal-Fired Ultrasupercritical Energy Systems. 

Xingbo Liu 

Mechanical & Aerospace Engineering Department, West Virginia University 

Morgantown, WV 26506-6106 

Abstract 

To improve energy efficiency, reduce operating cost, and lower emissions, coal-fired 

boiler/steam turbines will be operated at higher temperatures than the current available 

ones. A major challenge in the development of these new energy systems has been in 

the area of materials technology, such as increasing temperature capability, corrosion 

resistance of current materials. Currently, WVU is working with other universities, 

national labs, and industrial partners on developing nano-structured metallic materials 

for next generation Ultrasupercritical (USC) boiler/steam turbine systems. 

The objectives of this research are (1) to improve the temperature capability; (2) to 

enhance the creep resistance and long-term stability; (3) to maintain enough corrosion 

resistance of key candidate alloys for USC boiler and turbine systems. Two nanostructured alloys will be investigated in the proposed research, Ni-base Inconel 740 

(wrought) alloy for boiler tubes, steamheaders, and steam turbine rotors, and Fe-base 

CF8C-Plus (casting) alloy for USC turbine casings, centrifugal cast headers, and 

auxiliary high-temperature steam piping, thus developing new alloys suitable for next 

generation USC boiler and turbine applications. The goals of this research are 

increasing temperature capability from 700°C to 750°C for Inconel 740 and from 650°C 

to 700°C for CF8C-Plus. 

This project is a key step toward the succeed of the overall U.S. USCl program, which 

has significant energy efficiency and environmental improvement. For instance, 

according to the prediction of Clean Coal Technology Roadmap, comparing with current 

steam boiler/turbine systems, USC systems will increase plant-wide efficiency from 40% 

to 50-60%; reduce NOx emission from 0.15 to <0.01 lb/106

 Btu. 

Energy Project Abstracts C-20
TITLE: Sequestration of Carbon Dioxide in Appalachian Coal Deposits 

ABSTRACT 

CO2 sequestration is one way to reduce the content of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. 

In this process CO2 is captured from the atmosphere, possibly at the source of its 

production, like fossil fuel power plants, and pumped into underground reservoirs, such 

as deep saline aquifers or un-mineable coal seams. The latter can provide an additional 

benefit of residual methane recovery. In order to plan the 

CO2 sequestration operations in each particular area it is important to predict the storage 

capacity of a reservoir, and the feasibility of long-term containment of CO2. The purpose 

of this research is to conduct such feasibility study for Appalachian region using 

advanced computer simulations. A large 

A long term projection of CO2 transport and possible escape from deep coal seams is an 

important problem associated with CO2 sequestration. 

Many factors can affect the process of CO2 transport, such as bounding layers 

permeabilities, porosities, fracture densities, etc. Within this projects computer 

simulations are conducted with a purpose of predicting CO2 transport in a multi-layer 

environment of typical unmineable coal seams. The San Juan, Appalachian and Powder 

River basins were considered as examples. TOUGH2 and OpenFOAM simulators were 

used in the study. In preliminary analysis a four layer sand-shale-coal-shale system was 

considered with the overlying and underlying medium to be the shales. Fracture zones 

might present local escape points. Locating faults and fracture zones is one of the 

objectives of the geophysical characterization and monitoring efforts. 

However, a lot of this will be site dependent. Thus, a number of different scenarios was 

considered: tight (low to zero permeability), seal versus leaky (higher permeability) seal, 

etc. The results indicate that the diffusion of CO2 may be affected by the properties of the 

seal layers. For a tight seal shale scenarios with the reasonable assumptions used there 

was no considerable CO2 leakage beyond the shale layers after 50 years or more. The 

study can provide long term projections for the CO2 sequestration operations in known 

coal seams. 

A.Smirnov, PhD. 

West Virginia University 

Morgantown, WV 26506-6106 

Tel: 304-2933111x2345 

Energy Project Abstracts C-21
Energy and Energy-Interdependent Critical Infrastructure Resilience 

and Economic Development Initiatives: Economic Growth and 

Sustainability for Critical Services and Job Development and Protection 

Richard A. Bajura, Timothy McNulty, Kenneth Sochats, and Floyd Russell 

Risks to critical infrastructure are not well recognized. Policy development and 

technology forecasting are as important to understanding infrastructure interdependencies 

as are the physical linkages and interdependencies for supply chains from production to 

consumer. The Interim National Infrastructure Protection Plan (NIPP) calls for a variety 

of security partnerships that cross jurisdictional and sector boundaries and that support 

national infrastructure protection objectives. The Report of the Homeland Security 

Advisory Council Critical Infrastructure Task Force emphasizes a focus on infrastructure 

resilience to ensure the functioning of the economy, the continuity of business operations, 

and the successful execution of emergency response. 

Inattention to the potential impact of natural disasters and low-probability events 

has a profound effect of the ability of society to prepare for uncertainty and be resilient in 

withstanding disasters. Collaborations for infrastructure protection and resilience by 

local and regional government organizations in cooperation with private sector entities 

are essential to long-term economic sustainability and life safety. Energy infrastructure 

that is not resilient cannot support essential services. Jobs based on non-resilient 

infrastructure may not exist after a disaster or a prolonged recovery period. 

Carnegie Mellon University, University of Pittsburgh, and West Virginia 

University, in association with the U. S. Department of Energy’s National Energy 

Technology Laboratory, lead an initiative that brings together selected regional experts to 

examine public/private sector coordination for energy and energy-interdependent critical 

infrastructure resilience. The initiative is forming the basis for wider regional 

public/private sector collaboration and development of research agendas for energy 

infrastructure resilience. 

For additional information, please contact:

Floyd K. Russell 

Research Program Coordinator 

Office of Research and Economic Development 

West Virginia University 

PO Box 6216 

Morgantown, WV 26506 

rusty.russell@mail.wvu.edu

304.293.5037 304.293.7498 (FAX) 

Richard A. Bajura, National Research Center for Coal and Energy at West Virginia University; Timothy 

McNulty, Assistant to the Provost for Strategic Technology Initiatives at Carnegie University; Kenneth 

Sochats, Center for national Preparedness at the University of Pittsburgh; Floyd K. Russell, Office for 

Research and Economic Development at West Virginia University. 

Energy Project Abstracts C-22
1

SOLUTION OF THE DISCRETE AGGLOMERATION MODEL

 WITH A TIME VARYING KERNEL

Agglomeration of particles in a fluid environment (e.g., a chemical reactor) is an integral

part of many industrial processes (e.g., Goldberger, 1967) and has been the subject of scientific

investigation (e.g., Siegell, 1976). The fundamental mathematical problem is the determination

of the number of particles of each particle-type as a function of time for a system of particles

that may agglutinate during two particle collisions. Little or no work has been done for systems

where particle-type requires several variables. Efforts have been focused on a particle-type list

with only one variable, size (or mass). This allows use of what is often referred to as the

coagulation equation which has been well studied in aerosol research (Drake, 1972). Original 

work on this equation was done by Smoluchowski (1917) and it is also referred to as

Smoluchowski's equation. The agglomeration equation is perhaps more descriptive since the

term coagulation implies a process carried out until solidification whereas we focus on the

agglomeration process; that is, on the determination of a time-varying particle-size distribution

even if coagulation is never reached. 

In his original work Smoluchowski considered the agglomeration equation in a discrete

form. Later it was considered in a continuous form by Mu(ller, (1928). In either case, an initial 

particle-size distribution to specify the initial number of particles for each size is needed to

complete the initial value problem (IVP) which we refer to as the agglomeration model. Since

both forms have an infinite number of sizes, the state (or phase) space is infinite dimensional. 

The probability that any two particles will collide and adhere (i.e., agglutinate) is taken into

account by the kernel. Solution of the model yields an updated particle-size distribution giving

number densities as time progresses. Existence and uniqueness results have been obtained by

Melzak (1957), Marcus (1965), Morganstern (1955), and McLaughlin, Lamb, and McBride

(1997) for bounded kernels and by Mcleod (1962), White (1980), and Treat (1990) for special

unbounded kernels. For a general coagulation-fragmentation equation which allows a timevarying kernel, Spouge (1984) provides a local existence theorem for the physical case. 

Formulas for solutions are known for specific examples of kernels and initial particle sizes for

both the discrete and continuous models (see Drake,1972, Treat (1990) and Yu, 1990) although

the correspondence of results is not always clear. However, for a time-varying kernel, formulas

for the solution have not been thoroughly investigated, particularly in the general (not necessarily

physical) case.

Let R be the real numbers, Into={IfR: I is a finite, infinite or semi-infinite open interval},

and for I0Into, A(I,R) = (f:I6R:f is analytic on I}. To develop the discrete model, assume that all

particles are a multiple of a particle of smallest size (volume), say )v. Thus a particle made up

of i smallest-sized particles has size i)v. Let ni(t) be a real-valued function that approximates

the number of particles of size i)v in the reactor at time t. Assume the initial number density

 is known. As time passes, particles collide with one

another, agglutinations occur, and larger particles result. The net rate of increase in ni(t) with

Energy Project Abstracts C-23
2

time, dni /dt, is the rate of formation minus the rate of depletion (conservation of mass). Now let

t

00I00Into

 , Into(I0) = {I0Into: IfI0}, and Into(t0,I0)= {I0Into: t00IfI0}. The kernel,

, is a doubly infinite array of real-valued functions of time, all defined on I0 =

(t0!,t0+)0Into containing the arbitrary initial time t0. We indicate this by the extended interval

notation I0 = (t0!,t0,t0+). The resultant mathematical model is an IVP consisting of an infinite

system of Ordinary Differential Equations (ODE’s) each with an Initial Condition (IC) that may

be written in scalar form as:

 System of ODE’s: , t0I0 = (t0!,t0,t0+) (1.1)

IVP i0N={1, 2, 3,...}

 IC’s , t00I0 = (t0!,t0,t0+). (1.2)

where N = {1, 2, 3, ...}, 0A(I0,R

4×4

) = { :for all i,j0N, Ki,j((t)0

A(I,R)}, and for i = 1 the empty sum on the right hand side of (1.1) is

assumed to be zero. The first sum in the discrete agglomeration equation (1.1) is the (average)

rate of formation of particles of size i by agglutinations of particles of size i ! j with particles of

size j. The second sum is the (average) rate of depletion of particles of size i by agglutinations of

particles of size i with particles of all other sizes. Thus we model a stochastic process as a

deterministic process. The physical system is often stationary so that each Ki,j is constant and

the model is autonomous. 

Smoluchowski solved this problem when Ki,j(t) = A0 is a constant. The solution is:

 = , i 0N (1.3)

 for t in the interval of validity 0Into(t0.I0) where

, M(t0) = . (1.4)

In the physical case where ni

0$0, Mn0>0, and A0>0, contains [t

0

,4). Since the

moment of the solution is 

M(t) = = . (1.5)

Energy Project Abstracts C-24
3

one might expect in this case that would be . Surprisingly, a

consequence of our main result is that the infinite series in (1.5) only converges for

t0 = .

For a general (not necessarily physical) time-varying kernel, Ki,j(t) = A(t)0A(I0,R), this

paper provides a new solution procedure by first solving related problems. We obtain uniqueness

of all problems as Ki,j(t) is analytic. First we solve the moment problem. Next we use the first

order linear technique to solve three (simultaneously-solvable) related problems recursively. We

then solve one of the problems (and hence all three) explicitly using a generating function. The

solution of the agglomeration problem (recursively and explicitly) is then found along with its

interval of validity as an often proper subset of the interval of validity of the moment problem. 

Breaking down the general procedure using several problems should allow additional progress

for unbounded kernels. 

Reviewing, in this paper we assume for all i and j that Ki,j(t) = A(t)0A(I0,R) = {f:I06R:f is

analytic on I0} and look for analytic solutions. This assures uniqueness via Taylor series, but not

local or global existence (e.g., information about the radius of convergence for each ni(t) and the

infimum of all such radii). We focus on obtaining a finite process for computing ni(t) (e.g., a

formula) using algebraic and analytical (e.g., integral) operations when Ki,j(t) = A(t) (and

provides a blueprint for more general kernels). This is fundamentally different from solving via

Taylor series or numerical techniques that yield approximations at grid points. 

As examples, we are particularly interested in the following time-varying analytic

kernels:

 A(t) = A0 A0  0 Constant Kernel (1.3)

 A(t) = A0 + b0t A0  0, b0  0 Linearly Time Varying Kernel (1.4)

 A(t) = A0 + b0 cos(T0 t + N0) A0  0, b0 > 0, T0>0 Oscillating Kernel. (1.5)

Energy Project Abstracts C-25