Coal-Fired Power Plant 

Construction Costs 

July 2008 

AUTHORS 

David Schlissel, Allison Smith and Rachel Wilson
Coal-Fired Power Plant Construction Costs ▪ 1

Introduction

Construction cost estimates for new coal-fired power plants are very uncertain and have 

increased significantly in recent years. The industry is using terms like “soaring,” 

“skyrocketing,” and “staggering” to describe the cost increases being experienced by 

coal plant construction projects. In fact, the estimated costs of building new coal plants 

have reached $3,500 per kW, without financing costs, and are still expected to increase 

further. This would mean a cost of well over $2 billion for a new 600 MW coal plant when 

financing costs are included. These cost increases have been driven by a worldwide 

competition for power plant design and construction resources, commodities, equipment 

and manufacturing capacity. Moreover, there is little reason to expect that this worldwide 

competition will end anytime in the foreseeable future. 

Cost Estimates for Proposed Coal-Fired Power Plants 

As recently as 2005, companies were saying that proposed coal-fired power plants 

would cost as little as $1,500/kW to $1,800/kW. However, the estimated construction 

costs of new coal plants have risen significantly since then. 

The following examples illustrate the cost increases that proposed projects experienced 

in the past two or three years: 

• Duke Energy Carolinas’ summer 2006 cost estimate for the two unit Cliffside 

Project was approximately $2 billion. In the fall of 2006, Duke announced that 

the cost of the project had increased by approximately 47 percent ($1 billion). 

After the project had been downsized because the North Carolina Utilities 

Commission refused to grant a permit for two units, Duke announced that the 

cost of the remaining single unit would be about $1.53 billion, not including 

financing costs. In late May 2007, Duke announced that the cost of building the 

single Cliffside unit had increased by yet another 20 percent. As a result, the 

estimate cost of the one unit that Duke is building at Cliffside is now $1.8 billion 

exclusive of financing costs. Thus, the single Cliffside unit is now expected to 

cost almost as much as Duke estimated for a two unit plant only two years ago 

in the summer of 2006. 

The increases in the estimated cost of the Cliffside Project are presented in Figure 1 

below. 
Coal-Fired Power Plant Construction Costs ▪ 2

Figure 1: Duke Energy Carolinas Cliffside Project Cost 

Increases 2006-2007 ($/kW) 

$0

$500

$1,000

$1,500

$2,000

$2,500

Summer 2006 Fall 2006 Winter 2007 Spring 2007

$/kW

Unit 1 Unit 2

North Carolina Utilities 

Commission approves only one 

unit of the Cliffside Project.

• As shown in Figure 2 below, the estimated cost of AMP-Ohio’s proposed 960 

MW coal-fired power plant project nearly doubled between May 2006 and 

January 2008. The estimated cost increased by 15 percent in just the six months 

between June 2007 and January 2008. The estimated cost of the 960 MW plant 

is currently estimated at nearly $3 billion, without any financing costs. This 

represents a construction cost of more than $3,100 per kW. And the available 

evidence suggests that plant costs will continue to rise. 
Coal-Fired Power Plant Construction Costs ▪ 3

Figure 2: AMP-Ohio AMPGS Cost Increases 2005-2008 ($) 

$0.0

$0.5

$1.0

$1.5

$2.0

$2.5

$3.0

$3.5

$4.0

October 05 May 06 June 07 January 08 Future

Billions of Dollar

s

• In mid-June 2008, Wisconsin Power & Light (“WPL”) announced a nearly 40 

percent increase in the estimated cost of its proposed 300 MW Nelson Dewey 3 

coal-fired power plant. The previous estimate had been prepared in late 2006. 

The estimated cost for this Circulating Fluid Bed plant is above $3,500/kW, in 

early 2008 dollars. The company has similarly estimated that the cost of 

building a new supercritical coal plant also would exceed $3,500/kW. In support 

of its new cost estimates, WPL presented testimony that noted that “EPC 

[Engineering, Procurement and Construction] pricing for other non-IGCC, 

primarily coal-fired generating projects under construction or in the planning 

stages have similarly increased with many projects falling in the $2,500 to 

$3,800/kW range, without AFUDC or uncommon owner’s costs (e.g., major 

railway additions.).”1

 

• In April 2008, Duke Energy Indiana announced an 18 percent increase in the 

estimated cost of its proposed Edwardsport coal plant just since the spring of 

2007. Duke said that “the increase in the cost estimate is driven by factors 

outside the Company’s control, including unprecedented global competition for 

commodities, engineered equipment and materials, and increased labor costs.”2

 

Duke noted in its Petition to the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission that this 

 

1

 Direct Testimony of Charles J. Hookham on behalf on Wisconsin Power & Light Company in Public 

Service Commission of Wisconsin Docket No. 6680-CE-170, June 2008, at page 21. 

2

 Verified Petition in Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission Cause No. 43114 IGCC-1, filed on May 1, 

2008, at pages 3-4 
Coal-Fired Power Plant Construction Costs ▪ 4

projected increase in cost “is consistent with other recent power plant project 

cost increases across the country.”3

 

Nor are coal-fired power plants that are under construction immune to further cost 

increases. For example, Kansas City Power & Light just announced a 15 percent price 

increase for the Iatan 2 power plant that has been under construction for several years 

and is scheduled to be completed by 2010. This shows that one cannot assume that the 

cost of a plant will be fixed when construction begins. 

Indeed, in the past utilities were able to secure fixed-price contracts for their power plant 

construction projects. However, it is not possible to obtain fixed-price contracts for new 

power plant projects in the present environment. The reasons for this change in 

circumstances has been explained as follows by a witness for the Appalachian Power 

Company, a subsidiary of American Electric Power in testimony before the West Virginia 

Public Service Commission: 

Company witness Renchek discusses in his testimony the rapid 

escalation of key commodity prices in the [Engineering, 

Procurement and Construction] industry. In such a situation, no 

contractor is willing to assume this risk for a multi-year 

project. Even if a contractor was willing to do so, its estimated 

price for the project would reflect this risk and the resulting price 

estimate would be much higher.4

 [Emphasis added.] 

A fall 2007 assessment of AMP-Ohio’s proposed coal-fired power plant similarly noted 

that the reviewing engineers from Burns and Roe Enterprises: 

agree that the fixed price turnkey EPC contract is a reasonable 

approach to executing the project. However, the viability of 

obtaining a contract of this type is not certain. The high cost of the 

EPC contract, in excess of $2 billion, significantly reduces the 

number of potential contractors even when teaming of engineers, 

constructors and equipment suppliers is taken into account. Recent 

experience on large U.S. coal projects indicates that the major EPC 

Contractors are not willing to fix price the entire project cost. This is 

the result of volatile costs for materials (alloy pipe, steel, copper, 

concrete) as well as a very tight construction labor market. When 

asked to fix the price, several EPC Contractors have commented 

that they are willing to do so, but the amount of money to be added 

to cover potential risks of a cost overrun would make the project 

uneconomical.5

 

3

 Id, at page 7. 

4

 Ibid, at page 16, lines 16-20. 5

 Consulting Engineer’s Report for the American Municipal Power Generating Station located in Meigs 

County, Ohio, for the Division of Cleveland Public Power, Burns and Roe Enterprises, Inc., October 

16, 2007, at page 11-1. 
Coal-Fired Power Plant Construction Costs ▪ 5

In fact, rising commodity prices and increasing construction cost risks have been 

responsible, at least in part, for the cancellation or delay of more than fifty proposed 

coal-fired power plants since mid-2006. The following examples are illustrative of the 

factors and risks which have contributed to these cancellations and delays: 

• Tenaska Energy cancelled plans to build a coal-fired power plant in Oklahoma in 

2007 because of rising steel and construction prices. According to the 

Company’s general manager of business development: 

“.. coal prices have gone up “dramatically” since Tenaska 

started planning the project more than a year ago. 

And coal plants are largely built with steel, so there’s the 

cost of the unit that we would build has gone up a lot... At 

one point in our development, we had some of the steel 

and equipment at some very attractive prices and that 

equipment all of a sudden was not available. 

We went immediately trying to buy additional equipment 

and the pricing was so high, we looked at the price of the 

power that would be produced because of those higher 

prices and equipment and it just wouldn’t be a prudent 

business decision to build it.”6

• Westar Energy announced in December 2006 that it was deferring site selection 

for a new 600 MW coal-fired power plant due to significant increases in the 

facility’s estimated capital cost of 20 to 40 percent, over just 18 months. This 

prompted Westar’s Chief Executive to warn: “When equipment and construction 

cost estimates grow by $200 million to $400 million in 18 months, it’s necessary 

to proceed with caution.”7

 As a result, Westar Energy has suspended site 

selection for the coal-plant and is considering other options, including building a 

natural gas plant, to meet growing electricity demand. The company also 

explained that: 

most major engineering firms and equipment 

manufacturers of coal-fueled power plant equipment are at 

full production capacity and yet are not indicating any 

plans to significantly increase their production capability. 

As a result, fewer manufacturers and suppliers are bidding 

on new projects and equipment prices have escalated and 

become unpredictable.8

 

6

 Available at www.swtimes.com/articles/2007/07/09/news/news02.prt. 

7

 Available at 

http://www.westarenergy.com/corp_com/corpcomm.nsf/F6BE1277A768F0E4862572690055581C/$fi

le/122806%20coal%20plant%20final2.pdf. 8

 Id. 
Coal-Fired Power Plant Construction Costs ▪ 6

The increases in construction costs being experienced by proposed coal-fired power 

plants are due, in large part, to a significant increase in the worldwide demand for power 

plant design and construction resources, commodities and equipment. This worldwide 

competition is driven mainly by huge demands for power plants in China and India, by a 

rapidly increasing demand for power plants and power plant pollution control 

modifications in the United States required to meet SO2 and NOx emissions standards, 

and by the competition for resources from the petroleum refining industry. 

The limited capacity of EPC firms and equipment manufacturers also has contributed to 

rising power plant construction costs. This has meant fewer bidders for work, higher 

prices, earlier payment schedules and longer delivery times. The demand for and cost of 

both on-site construction labor and skilled manufacturing labor also have escalated 

significantly in recent years. 

In addition, the planned construction of new nuclear power plants is expected to 

compete for limited power plant design and construction resources, manufacturing 

capacity and commodities. 

It is reasonable to expect that the factors that have led to skyrocketing power plant 

construction costs in recent years will lead to further increases in costs and construction 

delays in the five or more years before the projects are scheduled to be completed. For 

example, a May 15, 2008 story in the Wall Street Journal noted that “escalating steel 

prices are halting and slowing major construction projects worldwide and limiting 

shipbuilding and oil and gas exploration.” The same article noted that “Steel prices are 

up 40 percent to 50 percent since December, and industry executives say they have not 

reached a peak” and “raw materials prices have surged in the past year, fueled in part 

because of the rapid industrialization of China, India and other developing nations.” 

Indeed, there is no reason to expect that the worldwide competition for resources or the 

existing supply constraints and bottlenecks affecting coal-fired plant construction costs 

will clear anytime in the foreseeable future. 

The Virginia State Corporation Commission denied the request of Appalachian Power 

Company to build a coal-fired power plant in West Virginia. The Commission found that 

the proposal was neither “reasonable” nor “prudent.” In its order denying the request to 

build the new coal-fired power plant, the Virginia Commission also found that the 

Company’s cost estimate for the project was not credible and that the Company had not 

updated its cost estimate since November 2006. The Commission further noted that the 

Company (“APCo”) will not obtain actual or firm prices for components of the project until 

after receiving regulatory approval.9

 The Virginia Commission Final Order included the 

following language concerning risk: “Indeed APCo has no fixed price contract for any 

appreciable portion of the total construction costs; there are no meaningful price or 

performance guarantees or controls for this project at this time. This represents an 

extraordinary risk that we cannot allow the ratepayers of Virginia in [Appalachian Power 

 

9

 April 14, 2008 Final Order of the Virginia State Corporation Commission in Case No. PUE-2007-00068, at page 5. 
Coal-Fired Power Plant Construction Costs ▪ 7

Company’s] service territory to assume.” This is the very same “extraordinary” risk that 

the customers and ratepayers of investor-owned companies and publicly-owned utilities 

building new coal-fired power plants are being asked to assume because there are no 

fixed prices or contracts for the projects. 

Finally, there is no currently commercially available technology for post-combustion 

capture of carbon dioxide from pulverized coal power plants. Moreover, it is estimated 

that such technology may not be commercially available until 2020 or 2030, if then. 

However, it is expected that the addition of carbon capture and sequestration technology 

will greatly increase the cost of generating power at coal-fired power. In fact, a number 

of independent sources agree, as illustrated in Table 1 below, that adding and operating 

CCS equipment will raise the cost of generating electricity at new coal-fired power plants 

by perhaps as much as 60% to 80%. 

Table 1: Projected Increase in the Cost of Generating Power Due to 

Carbon Capture and Sequestration 

Source 

Projected Increase in 

Cost of Electricity from 

Addition of CCS 

Duke Energy Indiana10 68% 

MIT Future of Coal Report11 61% 

Edison Electric Institute12 75% 

National Energy Technology 

Laboratory13 81% 

 

10 Testimony of James E. Rogers in Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission Cause No. 43114, Joint 

Petitioners’ Exhibit No. 1, at page 13, lines 6-11. 11 The Future of Coal, Options for a Carbon-Constrained World, Massachusetts Institute of 

Technology, 2007, at page 19. 12 Letter to Hon. Edward J. Markey, Chairman, Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global 

Warming, from Thomas R. Kuhn, Edison Electric Institute, September 21, 2007, at page 4. 13 Cost and Performance Baseline for Fossil Energy Plants, Revised August 2007, DOE/NETL – 

2007/1281, at page 17.