# Increasing Electricity Availability From Coal - Fired Generation in the Near - Term May 2001

THE NATIONAL COAL COUNCIL Steam Clean Syngas End

Products Feeds Gas Cleanup



### Coal Oxygen Electricity

Sulfur Slag Gas & Steam Turbines Gasification Combined Cycle Power Block

SULFUR RECOVERY Byproducts: SULFUR REMOVAL 

# Coal IGCC Process 1

1 Texaco Gasification Process (TGP)

### ii 

# Increasing Electricity Availability From Coal - Fired Generation in the Near - Term

Chair: Mr. Steven F. Leer Vice Cha ir: Mr. Wes M. Taylor Study Work Group Chair: Ms. Georgia Nelson

The National Coal Council May 2001

### iii 

## THE NATIONAL COAL COUNCIL Steven F. Leer, Chairman Robert A. Beck, Executive Director 

## U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Spencer Abraham, Secretary of Energy

The National Coal Council is a Federal Advisory Committee to the Secretary of Energy. The sole purpose of the National Coal Council is to advise, inform, and make recommendations to the Secretary of E nergy on any

matter requested by the Secretary relating to coal or to the coal industry.

### iv



# Cover Letter to Secretary Abraham

### v

### vi



# Abbreviations AQRVs Air quality related values B&W Babcock & Wilcox BACT Best available control technology BGL British Gas /Lurgi Btu British thermal units Btu/kWh British thermal units per kilowatt - hour CAA Clean Air Act CFB Circulating fluidized bed CO 2 Carbon dioxide COS Carbonyl sulfide DOE Department of Energy EIA Energy Information Administration EPA Environmental Protec tion Agency EPRI Electric Power Research Institute FGD Flue gas desulfurization FLMS Federal land managers GADS Generation Availability Data System GW Gigawatts (10 9 watts) HHV Higher heating value HRSG Heat recovery steam generator IGCC Integrated gasific ation combined cycle kW Kilowatt lb/MBtu Pounds of emissions per million Btu of heat input LAER Lowest achievable emission rates LHV Lower heating value LNB Low NO x burners MACT Maximum achievable control technology Mbtu Million Btu MDGC Maximum demonstrat ed generating capacity MW Megawatts (10 6 watts) MWH Megawatt - hour NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards NCC National Coal Council NERC North American Electric Reliability Council NGCC Natural gas combined cycle NOVs Notices of violation NO x Nitrogen oxides NSPS New Source Performance Standards NSR New Source Review O&M Operating and Maintenance OEM Original Equipment Manufacturer PPM Parts Per Million PSD Prevention of significant deterioration SCR Selective catalytic reduction SO 2 Sulfur dioxide SO x Sulfur oxides tpy tons per year UDI Utility Data Institute WEPCo Wisconsin Electric Power Company

# Table of Contents

Preface 1 Executive Summary 2 Achieving Higher Availability/Reliability From Existing Coal - Fired Power Plants 5 Reducing Regulatory Barriers 27 Appendix A: Description of The National Coal Council 33 Appendix B: The National Coal Council Membership Roster 34 Appendix C: The National Coal Council Coal Policy Committee Roster 41 Appendix D: The National Coal Council Electricity A vailability Study Work Group 43 Appendix E: Correspondence Between U.S. Department of Energy and the National Coal Council 46 Appendix F: Correspondence From Industry Experts 48 Appendix G: Selected Comments on the Report 69 Appendix H: Acknowledg ements 83

### 1



# Preface The National Coal Council is a private, nonprofit advisory body, chartered under the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The mission of the Council is purely advisory: to provide guidance and recommendations as requested by the United St ates Secretary of Energy on general policy matters relating to coal. The Council is forbidden by law from engaging in lobbying or other such activities. The National Coal Council receives no funds or financial assistance from the Federal government. It relies solely on the voluntary contributions of members to support its activities. Members of the National Coal Council are appointed by the Secretary of Energy for their knowledge, expertise, and stature in their respective fields of endeavor. They refl ect a wide geographic area of the United States (representing more than 30 states) and a broad spectrum of diverse interests from business, industry, and other groups, such as: o large and small coal producers; o coal users such as electric utilities and indu strial users; o rail, waterways, and trucking industries as well as port authorities; o academia; o research organizations; o industrial equipment manufacturers; o state government, including governors, lieutenant governors, legislators, and public utility commissio ners; o consumer groups, including special women ’ s organizations; o consultants from scientific, technical, general business, and financial specialty areas; o attorneys; o state and regional special interest groups; and o Native American tribes. The National Coal C ouncil provides advice to the Secretary of Energy in the form of reports on subjects requested by the Secretary and at no cost to the Federal Government.

### 2



# Executive Summary Purpose By letter dated November 13, 2000, then - Secretary of Energy Bill Richards on requested that the National Coal Council conduct a study on measures which the government or the government in partnership with industry could undertake to improve the availability of electricity from coal - fired power plants. His letter requested that the Council address improving coal - fired generation availability in two specific areas:

o improving technologies at coal - fired electric generating plants to produce more electricity; and o reducing regulatory barriers to using these technologies. The Council

accepted the Secretary ’ s request and formed a study group of experts to conduct the work and draft a report. The list of participants of this study group can be found in Appendix D of the report. 

### Findings The study group found the following. o National ly, approximately 40,000 megawatts of increased electrical production capability is possible now from existing coal - fired power plants. o Such increased electricity supply can be available through the installation of standard improvements and clean coal tech nologies. This will have the important effect of increasing efficiency and decreasing emissions per megawatt from such modified plants, thereby improving air quality. o Such plant efficiency and increased electricity production capability may only be realiz ed if a return to historic regulatory policy is made. o Coal - based electricity will be important for many years into the future. Therefore, regulations and policies employed should encourage the clean use of this resource through accelerated installation of more efficient, cleaner technologies. The study was divided into two major sections: technology and regulatory reform. The focus of the technology section is on achieving more electricity from existing and new coal - fired power plants using technologies that improve efficiency, availability, and environmental performance. The discussion is divided into three subsections: a) achieving higher availability/reliability in the existing fleet of coal - fired plants; b) Increasing generation output of existing coal - f ired plants; and c) Determining opportunities for repowering existing facilities with clean coal technologies as well as building new advanced clean coal technology generation facilities. Analysis of the U.S. utility industry infrastructure of coal plants re veals a significant potential for increasing generation capacity by taking well - tested measures to improve the reliability/availability of older facilities. This effort, which will come mainly from improvements on the steam generators of these older plant s, can create 10,000 MW of new capacity. Techniques to recover lost capacity and increase capacity above nameplate have been collected from a combination of research studies by utility industry organizations such as EPRI and actual case studies which are detailed in the report. The nameplate capacity of coal units older than 20 years is approximately 220,000 MW; however, due to derating, the existing capacity is only about 200,000 MW.

### 3

This group of plants has the potential for both capacity restoration ( about 20,000 MW) and/or improvement (about 20,000 MW). It is estimated that this increased capacity of 40,000 MW could be recovered within 36 months. This can allow the economy to grow while new generation facilities are sited, constructed, and brought i nto service. For new coal - fired power generating capacity, Pulverized Coal Combustion in supercritical steam plants (a mature technology) is available with minimal emissions, high efficiency, and at very favorable total production cost. Repowering of an old existing coal fired power plant with a single modern steam generating unit, equipped with commercially proven emissions controls results in significant reductions in the total amounts of emissions even while substantially increasing the total MWh outpu t of the facility. Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) has become a commercially available technology for both greenfield and repowering applications. IGCC is a clean, new technology option insensitive to fuel quality variation. While natural gas will fuel the majority of new capacity additions during this time period there are currently about 321,000 MW of coal - fired capacity in service. While not all of this capacity can be targeted for the new technologies discussed in this report, it is es timated that 75% of it can be retrofitted with one of these technologies. This additional increase in capacity is estimated to be 40,000 MW and much of it could be brought on line in the next three years. This minimizes economic impacts while new generat ion facilities are sited, constructed, and brought into service without increasing emissions at existing facilities and, in some cases, lowering emissions. Approximately 25% of existing facilities can be targeted for repowering with much cleaner and more efficient coal - based power generation. However, unless there is a significant change in regulatory interpretation and enforcement regarding the installation of new technologies at existing power plants, it is not likely that any of this additional low cos t, low emission electricity will be produced. The recent change in enforcement procedures by EPA (reinterpreting as violations of the Clean Air Act what had heretofore been considered routine maintenance at power plants) has had a direct and chilling effe ct on all maintenance and efficiency improvements and clean coal technology installations at existing power plants. EPA has brought legal action against 11 companies and 49 generation facilities since 1998 under the New Source Review section of the 1990 C lean Air Act. The companies involved believe that they were conducting routine maintenance needed to keep these plants in good condition. The result has been that no new efficiency, availability, or environmental improvement has occurred since 1998 when EPA changed its enforcement policy. A return to the historic interpretation of this one regulation alone would allow plant operators the opportunity to install technologies discussed in the report. If just a three percent increase in capacity could be ac hieved through reducing outages and increasing plant efficiency, it could result in over 11,500 MW of coal - based capacity being added to the current fleet while continuing the downward trend in emissions. Several other existing regulations seem to be in c onflict with the country ’ s attempt to maximize the use of domestic energy sources. Environmental regulation should be harmonized with the energy and national security goals of the country.

### 4

Recommendations The National Coal Council strongly recommends that the country, with the Department of Energy in the lead, develop a clear, comprehensive energy policy that supports the maximum use of domestic fuel sources, continues to protect the environment by implementing strong but balanced environmental regulat ions, and harmonizes conflicting regulations affecting energy development and use. Government and industry should work in partnership to achieve the desired goals and remove those regulatory barriers that create obstacles to achieving those goals while pr eserving environmental performance. Specifically, the Council recommends that the Department of Energy take the following actions. o Initiate and lead a dialogue with EPA, with the goal of returning to the traditional pre - 1998 interpretation of the New Source Review section of the 1990 Clean Air Act. o Promote accelerated installation of clean and efficient technologies at new and existing coal - fired power plants. o Initiate and lead a dialogue with EPA to promote coordinated regulations for ozone attainment into a single compliance strategy. o Initiate and lead a dialogue with EPA and electricity generators to establish credible and uniform emissions targets, which will provide regulatory certainty for a sufficient period in the future to assure electricity ge nerators that they can achieve a return on investments for performance and environmental improvements. o 

### Lead the country ’ s effort to develop a clear, comprehensive, and secure energy policy that maximizes the use of domestic fuels, including coal, while con tinuing the downward trend in emissions.

### 5



# Achieving Higher Availability/Reliability From Existing Coal - Fired Power Plants This section will focus on recommendations that will improve existing coal - fired power plants ’ reliability and availability to elim

inate or reduce forced outages and extend the time between planned maintenance outages. This suggested availability improvement program is meant to restore the plants ’ infrastructure to a level that restores the original reliability of the plants. Implem entation of these recommendations will allow the plants to increase generation output above recent historical output without increasing gross generating capability. We will show from the use of industry sources on reliability (GADS/NERC) and generation capacity (EIA) that there is a significant opportunity for the utility industry to increase the generation output from our existing fleet of coal - fired power plants by restoring portions of the plant infrastructure to their original condition. Analysis of

the U.S. utility industry ’ s coal - fired plant infrastructure reveals a significant opportunity for increasing electricity output from these plants by taking measures to improve the reliability/availability of the older facilities. Maintaining or restoring plants that are over 20 years old to a condition similar to plants that are under 20 years old can result in more reliable facilities that will be available to play an important role in supporting the increasing strain on our electrical system ’ s reserve m argins and electrical demand growth. Specifically, our analysis has shown that this reliability improvement effort can create 10,000 MWs of equivalent generation capacity within our existing coal - fired fleet of plants. Of particular note is that over 90% of these MWs of capacity will come from component replacement and material upgrades of the boiler/steam generator at our facilities that are more than 20 years old. The U.S. EPA has focused on boiler/steam generator component replacement projects in its recent enforcement actions, applying New Source Review ( “NSR ” ) standards to repairs formerly considered routine maintenance, repair, or replacement. The potential regulatory consequences of the EPA's enforcement actions may prevent the utility industry fr om taking full advantage of this relatively inexpensive way to increase the availability of our national electric generating capacity, which could be implemented in a two to three year time frame. The U.S. electric generating system ’ s reserve margins have declined dramatically over the last 20 years. This situation has put pressure on the operators of our existing coal - fired fleet to restore, maintain, or improve the reliability and availability of their facilities to keep pace with the growing demand for electricity in the face of limited new capacity coming on line. The mandate for higher availability, lower forced outage rates, and longer time spans between planned outages is more critical today than ever in our history. The causes of plant unavailabi lity are well defined, and sound, technology - based solutions are commercially available to improve plant availability and help restore our historic reserve margins. Causes of plant unavailability and recommendations for solutions have been generally categ orized according to the magnitude of their impact on plant availability in the following list: Area 1: Boiler/Steam Generator The primary cause of unavailability of our coal - fired plants is the reliability of the boiler/steam generator. Severe duty on both the fire side and the water/steam side of the various heat transfer surfaces in the boiler/steam generator cause frequent unplanned outages and lengthening of planned outages to repair

### 6

failures to these critical components of the power plant. Replace ment of these components will significantly reduce outages and increase the facility's availability and total generation output capability. Examples of our recommendations for improving the availability of the boiler/steam generator are: a. furnace wall pan el replacements; b. reheater component replacements; c. primary superheater component replacements; d. secondary superheater component replacements; e. economizer replacements; f. various header replacements; g. furnace floor replacements; h. cyclone burner replacements; and i. i ncorporation of improved materials of construction for items a - h. This area represents between 50% and 70% (depending on age, design, and operating history of the unit) of all lost generation from our coal - fired fleet. The industry data sources reference d above indicate that if improvements to the boilers/steam generators on our plants that are older than 20 years can be made to restore these facilities to the condition of plants that are under 20 years, we will benefit from an attendant improvement in re liability/availability. To help quantify this finding, plants older than 20 years are, on average, currently experiencing nearly 10% loss of achievable generation due to problems in the boiler/steam generator. This compares to approximately 5% loss for p lants that are less than 20 years old. If we can recover only this differential through restoration of the boiler/steam generator, we will be taking advantage of nearly 9,000 MWs of available generation capacity in our existing coal - fired generating fleet . This figure is expected to increase significantly as our older generating units are dispatched more often to meet the growing demand for electricity considering the less than adequate new capacity coming on line. Although the implementation of any (or all) of these recommendations will significantly increase plant availability, recent regulatory treatment of previously routine repairs, maintenance, and replacement as modifications by the EPA discourages utilities from pursuing these kinds of projects in their future plans for availability improvement for fear of triggering NSR with accompanying permitting and modeling requirements. NSR can radically undermine the economic feasibility of these projects, preventing recapture of lost generating capacity or increased reliability. Area 2: Steam Turbine/Generator Problems with the steam turbine/generator represent the second largest source of reduced generation capability in coal - fired plants. This area represents a 3% loss of generation compared to up t o 10% for the boiler/steam generator. An interesting finding from our analysis is that the data sources referenced above show very little difference in loss of generation capability due to turbine/generator problems between plants older than 20 years and plants younger than 20 years. This phenomenon may be due to the regimented safety and preventative maintenance program typically mandated by turbine manufacturers and followed by plant owners for the steam turbine/generator. Section 2 describes turbine /generator improvements (e.g., uprating) that can change gross plant outputs without changing the turbine/generator's relatively good track record on availability. In addition to turbine uprating, some of the general improvements that have occurred in ste am turbine design will also improve the availability/reliability of existing steam turbines. Recommendations include:

### 7

a. turbine blading replacements with improved shapes (CFD modeling) and materials of construction to increase turbine efficiency and reliab ility; b. implementation of measures to reduce or eliminate droplet formation and the resultant blade erosion preserving turbine reliability and performance; and c. turbine/generator inclusion in plant diagnostic and data acquisition system for predictive mainte nance (reference area 7c below) to reduce unnecessary maintenance and associated outage time. Area 3: Plant Auxiliaries This area focuses on plant auxiliaries including the air heater, feedwater system, cooling water systems, electrical systems, etc. P lant auxiliaries cause approximately 1 - 2% of lost megawatt - hour (MWh) generation from our coal - fired plants over 20 years old. This can be improved to under 1% with restoration of critical components in this area of the plant. Some examples of recommendat ions for improved reliability and increased operating efficiencies in these areas are: a. air heater or air heater basket replacement with the attendant modern sealing systems; b. improved air heater surface design and cleaning system installation to address fo uling; c. feedwater heater retubing or replacement with upgraded materials to reduce failure rates; and d. cooling tower fill improvements. Area 4: Environmental (Focus on Electrostatic Precipitators) Precipitator performance has the fourth largest impact on loss of plant availability. This problem almost always manifests itself in the form of load curtailment caused by the potential for opacity excursions. To exacerbate the problem, these curtailments typically occur at very critical capacity supply situati ons such as periods with high load requirements. Recommendations for mitigation are: a. collection plate and electrode upgrades and/or replacement; b. collection surface additions (new fields); c. various flue gas treatment system installations; d. addition of moder n control system installations; and e. general correction of leakage and corrosion problems. Area 5: Fuel Flexibility Many utilities have expanded their coal purchase specifications to leverage the variability in the cost of coal as a means of providing lo w - cost electricity to their customers. This practice, however, can have an adverse affect on plant reliability due to stress on the plant. It should be noted that although this area is not statistically recognized as a cause of loss of plant availability , fuel related problems are a major part of loss of availability from Area 1 "boiler/steam generator" due to such phenomena as boiler slagging/fouling, limited pulverizer throughput, reduced coal grindability, inadequate primary air systems, etc. Recommen dations to reduce or eliminate these limitations are: a. coal handling system upgrades to accommodate lower Btu coal; b. mill upgrades to accommodate reduced grindability of coal; c. ash (bottom and/or fly) system upgrades to accommodate higher ash coal or differe nt ash classes; d. additional furnace - cleaning equipment to mitigate different slagging and fouling characteristics of the coals; e. draft system upgrades including FD fans, ID fans, combustion air temperature, and related electrical systems to accommodate highe r gas volume flow rates; and

### 8

f. precipitator upgrades to accommodate changes in fly ash resistivity and/or quantity. Area 6: Boiler Water Treatment This issue goes hand - in - hand with Area 1 described above. Performance of boiler heat transfer surface is hi ghly dependent on the chemistry of the water/stream that keeps the surface cool. Upgrades of the boiler water treatment system should be coordinated with the upgrades described in Area 1. An added benefit of higher water purity standards is faster plant start - ups; and, therefore, a unit can come on - line more quickly and ramp up generation faster resulting in a higher overall generation output. In addition, water purity has a cascading effect increasing the reliability of feedwater heaters and turbine bla des and improving condenser performance. Area 7: Controls and Plant Diagnostic Systems Modern digital control and diagnostic systems can improve heat rates (generation efficiency), lower emissions, reduce plant startup times, and provide valuable inform ation for outage planning. Recommendations in this regard include: a. replacement of outdated analog control with advanced digital control systems; b. replacement and/or addition of instrumentation for better control of the unit over a wider range of loads and improved monitoring of critical system components for outage planning; c. installation of plant diagnostic and data acquisition systems to perform predictive maintenance reducing unplanned outages and extending on - line time durations between planned outages; and d. installation of turbine bypass system hardware and controls to facilitate lower load capabilities, faster unit start - ups and faster ramp rates increasing overall unit productivity. Area 8: Plant Heat Rejection For many plants, the highest capacity requirements of the year occur at the same time that they experience severe heat rejection limitations. Summertime cooling lake and river temperatures/water levels can cause load curtailments. Recommendations include: a. water intake structure modification s to provide more flexibility during low water levels; b. cooling tower additions to provide an alternate heat rejection mechanism; and c. cooling lake design modifications (additional surface, redirected flow path, etc.) to increase heat rejection capability. 

### Summary Restoration of our 20+ - year - old coal - fired plants to a condition similar to those that are under 20 years through the recommendations described in these eight areas can create approximately 10,000 MWs of additional availability from existing asse ts. We would expect this number to grow significantly as we increase utilization of our older plants to meet growing demand. Without implementing these recommendations, the forecasted increases in utilization will accelerate failures in these older facil ities increasing the need for the recommendations we have identified here.

### 9

Of particular interest is that 90% of the increased availability identified will come from component replacement and other projects involving the boiler/steam generator. The boile r/steam generator has been the focus of the EPA ’ s allegations in its recent reinterpretation of the New Source Review program as part of its power plant enforcement initiative.



## Increasing Generation Output of Existing Units The maximum demonstrated g enerating capacity (MDGC) of coal units older than 20 years, as identified above, is conservatively estimated to total approximately 220,000 MWs. The existing operating capacity is estimated to be 200,000 MWs (due to deratings). This group of plants has th e potential for both capacity restoration (20,000 MWs) and/or capacity maximization (20,000 MWs). Thus, the total amount of potential increased MW output of this existing group of units is approximately 40,000 MWs. This increased capacity could be achiev ed within 36 months. If all existing conditions resulting in a derating could be addressed, approximately 20,000 MWs of increased capacity could be obtained from regaining lost capacity due to unit deratings. This increase would be achieved using the ap proaches and techniques in Table 1 below. Approximately an additional 20,000 MWs of capacity could be gained if it were possible to increase heat input and/or electrical output from generating equipment while still maintaining the acceptable design margin s and allowable code ratings of the equipment. The approaches and techniques would be similar to those for regaining capacity, as indicated in Table 1. These approaches and techniques could only be logically pursued by the facility owners if it was clea rly understood that the increased availability and/or electrical output would not trigger New Source Review (NSR) and if repowering or construction of new clean coal technologies would be subject to the streamlined permitting authorized by the 1990 CAA Ame ndments. The techniques to recover lost capacity and to increase capacity above MDGC have been collected from a combination of research studies by utility industry organizations (such as EPRI) and actual case studies (such as those outlined below) which h ad benefits for plant owners. They are summarized in Table 1 below.

### 10 

## TABLE 1 Techniques and Approaches for Coal - Fired Power Plants Capacity Restoration and Increase Capacity Increase Method Capacity Restoration Efficiency/

Capacity Increase Fuel

Conversi on/ Repowering Installation of improved air pollution control equipment X X X Steam turbine modernization improvements and upgrades X X Coal washing X X Coal switching X X Repowering with CFB technology X Consolidation of multiple, smaller ineff icient units to larger, more efficient units X X Operating above the nameplate but within the plant design X X Control system improvements X X Plant efficiency improvements X X The techniques and approaches listed in Table 1 have been implemented with proven results. The following highlights are from case studies. o SCR and FGD emissions control equipment was installed on a coal - fired generating station to reduce emissions of SOx and NOx. In order to offset the increased auxiliary load (16 MWs) of these new systems, an upgrade of the original 500 - MW (nominal rating) steam turbine was performed. The upgrade consisted primarily of a new high - efficiency, high - pressure rotor with increased number of stages and an optimized steam path. The upgrade re sulted in an output increase of approximately 15 MWs, almost offsetting the auxiliary load increase from the new emission controls. o Turbine upgrades were completed on two 400 - MW rated units to obtain an additional 25 MWs per unit. No additional steam was required from the boiler. No changes were made to the boiler. A more aerodynamic steam path through the turbine was designed and installed. o Turbine upgrades were incorporated into another unit, nominally rated at 500 MWs achieving an additional 25 MWs. I

n this case, more steam had to be generated in the boiler and the steam turbine was upgraded. o Coal cleaning is a process whereby a coal that is high in ash and sulfur is “washed. ” As a result, the coal is lower in both ash and sulfur content and higher in thermal value. The method consists of a multi - circuit wet process where water is used for screening and separation. Coal cleaning is a cost effective means of separating ash and sulfur from coal, which in turn reduces opacity and SO 2 

### emissions. This en ables one facility to continue to use local, lower cost, higher ash and sulfur coal and meet environmental limits. Without this coal cleaning process, the facility ’ s load would be limited by approximately 10% due to opacity restrictions. o Coal switching is an alternative to coal cleaning. In some cases where coal has been switched to reduce SOx emissions, the capacity may be impaired unless fuel handling systems are upgraded to allow efficient use of lower sulfur fuels. o Repowering with CFB technology is an alternative to installing NOx and SOx emissions equipment. The use of this technique is highly site and fuel specific. o Capacity increases can be accomplished by taking a brownfield site with several smaller old units, and repowering the site with a single large unit. This will require the full environmental permitting

### 11

process. It is a technique that is highly site specific and economically driven. To make the economics attractive, it is important that the units are running at low dispatch levels, so income losses are minimized, and the site can be readily cleared for construction of the larger unit. o Control system improvements can increase capacity in older plants. Modern control systems can improve efficiency and reduce emissions by optimizing the combusti on process. General improvements to plant efficiency can be obtained by improved operating and maintenance practices along with targeted equipment improvements. Note: The additional 20,000 MW that can be achieved by capacity restoration described in this section includes the 10,000 MW of capacity that can be recovered due to deteriorated availability described earlier in the report.



## Opportunities for Greenfield Sites and Repowering Existing Facilities with Pulverized Coal Power Generation As a result o f ongoing technology development, new and retrofitted pulverized coal power plants have achieved outstanding emissions performance for NOx, SOx, and particulates. Similarly, continued advances in the steam cycle continue to provide higher net plant effici encies. As a result, new pulverized coal - fired power plants are now commercially available with minimal emissions and with very favorable total production cost. Repowering of an old existing coal - fired power plant with a single modern generating unit equi pped with commercially proven emissions controls results in significant reductions in total tons of emissions, even while substantially increasing the total megawatt - hour output of the facility. A case study of repowering an actual old coal - fired plant wit h a unit utilizing current technology showed a 32% higher design capacity, achieving triple the total electrical output, an 87% reduction in tons of NOx and SOx up the stack, and a 42% reduction in total electricity production costs. 

### Pulverized Coal Techn ology Options The configuration of today ’ s state - of - the - art pulverized coal power plant is primarily dependent on the sulfur quantity of the coal to be utilized. Low sulfur coals will most economically utilize a dry scrubber and baghouse for SO 2 

### and parti culate control. Wet scrubbers can also be utilized with the benefit of producing a useful byproduct (gypsum). Higher sulfur coals will utilize a wet scrubber and precipitator or baghouse for SO 2 

### and particulate control. NOx emissions will be controlled by both Low NOx Burners (LNB )and Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR). The boiler/turbine steam cycle will vary from a standard subcritical cycle to an advanced supercritical cycle depending on project requirements and fuel costs.

### 12

Example: Low Sulfur Coal Configuration with representative emissions performance.

Subcritical or 90% + NOx 90 - 95% SO 2 Removal Particulate Supercritical Removal SO 2 < 0.25 lb/MBtu 0.03 lb/MBtu NOx = 0.15 lb/MWh 

### Example: High Sulfur Coal Config uration with representative emissions performance.

Subcritical or 90% + NOx Particulate 95%+ SO 2 Removal Supercritical Removal 0.03 lb/MBtu SO 2 = 0.25 lb/MBtu NOx = 0.15 lb/MWh 

### Heat Rate Over the last 10 years, h igher efficiency pulverized coal plants have been placed in commercial operation. The higher efficiencies are due not only to advanced pressure and steam cycles, but also to improvements in turbines and reductions in auxiliary power requirements. Pulveri zed coal power plant heat rate improvements versus steam parameters are shown below. (The actual operating plants have steam parameters close to the examples under which they are listed.)

slide #6

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

3600psi,

1000F/1000F 3600psi, 1000F/1050F 3600psi, 1050F/1050F 3600 psi, 1050F/1100F 3600 psi, 1100F/1100F 4500psi, 1100F/1100F 4500 psi, 1100F/1150F 4500psi,

1100F/1100F/1100FNet Plant Efficiency Improvement(percentage points) HHV

Matsuura 2-1997 Misumi 1-1998 Haramachi 2-1998 Tachibana Bay-2000 Bexbach -2002 Nordjylland -1998 Nanaoota 1-1995 Noshiro 2-1995 Haramachi 1-1997 Millmerran-2002 Lubeck -1995 Alvedore 1-2000 Westfalen -2004 

### Net Plant Efficiency Improvement Advanced Supercritical Plants versus Subcritical 2400psi/1000F/1000F Boiler SCR Dry Scrubber Baghouse

Boiler SCR Precipitator or Baghouse Wet Scrubber

### 13

The summary point is that higher ef ficiency cycles are now being demonstrated with commercially required availability/reliability. Higher efficiency cycles will reduce the production cost by reduced fuel consumption and will result in a lower capital cost for all of the environmental equip ment (on a $/kW cost basis). The ambient air emissions levels (NOx, SOx, particulate, and mercury) will primarily be a function of the emissions control devices installed (SCR, scrubber, baghouse, etc.). More efficient plants will provide an emissions re duction as well. For the U.S. market, the economically optimum cycle efficiency will be very project specific. However, today ’ s advanced cycles have been demonstrated commercially and can be applied where project economics dictate. Emissions Performanc e NOx Significant improvements in NOx emissions are being achieved in pulverized coal - fired power plants today. This is through both advances in Low NOx Burner Combustion technology and advances in Selective Catalytic Reduction systems, both of which are being widely applied. Low NOx Burner Combustion technology has resulted in combustion NOx levels being in the range of 0.15 to 0.30 lb/MBtu, depending on the coal. Selective catalytic reduction systems are in operation with NOx removal efficiencies up t o 90 - 95%. An existing plant retrofit this year with an SCR will result in NOx emissions of approximately 0.30 lb/MWh, (approximately .03 lb/MBtu which is lower than the best natural gas combined cycle unit utilizing dry Low NOx Combustion, according to th e most recent EPA actual operating data). New pulverized coal power plants, through the application of commercially demonstrated Low NOx Burners and SCRs, can achieve NOx emissions as shown in the table below. In order to compare NOx emissions with nat

ural gas - based power generation, the performance is reported in lb NOx per MWh. 

## NOx Emissions Performance New Pulverized Coal Power Plant

0 1 2 3 4 5 6NOx Emissions lb/MWh 5.5

1.68 0.29 to 0.70 0.19 to 0.70

5,407,999 tons 1998

Ck/NCC2-26-01. ppt

1998 National* Average Coal EPA New Source Perf New Bitiminous Coal Low NOx Brnr SCR New Powder River Basin Coal Low NOx Brnr SCR *EPA Actual 1998 

## } Project Dependent

### 14

The NOx emissions performance represented in this section of the report and in the two case studies is derived from applying the state of the technology, Low NOx Burners, with the state of the technology Selective Catalytic Reduction Controls. These are applied to representative Eastern and Western coals and typical project parameters. The actual NOx emissions that can be obtained from a given new coal fired project will depend on the analysis of the actual coal to be burned. It will also depend to some extent on the local ambient air conditions and condenser water availability and temperatures, which will impact the available heat rate of the cycle. The actual achievabl e NOx emissions rate for a given project can only be determined after the specific project and fuel parameters have been defined. It should also be noted that this section of the report only addresses new, coal - fired generating plants. Whereas significan t NOx reductions can be achieved from retrofits to an existing coal - fired generating unit, in many cases constraints from the original furnace design or other project constraints that cannot be modified will result in it not being possible to achieve the s ame NOx reductions on a retrofit as will be available for a greenfield generating unit that has maximum design flexibility for the boiler and environmental equipment. SOx Similarly, outstanding performance is being demonstrated on low SOx emissions techno logy, from a number of pulverized coal - fired power plants ranging from high sulfur Eastern bituminous coals to low sulfur Western coals. The graph shown below reflects actual SOx emissions from a number of coal - based power generating facilities as reporte d in the EPA 1998 Annual Emissions. In summary, the technology is available and is being commercially demonstrated to achieve extremely low SO 2 

### emissions. 

## SOx Emissions Performance EPA 1998 Annual Emissions

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5SOx Emissions lb/Mbtu 1.22

.51

.09 .06 .04

Ck/1-22-01. ppt 98 National Average Coal 98 Avg .

Wet Scrubbers Harrison WVA Bituminous Coal 3.4%S WFGD Navajo AZ Sub-Bit. 0.52% S WFGD Intermountain Utah Sub-Bit. 0.52%S WFGD 12.4M TonsSO 2

Clover VA Bituminous Coal 1.1%S WFGD .06 .09 .10 Craig 3 Colorado Sub-Bit. Coal 0.39% S DFGD Rawhide

Colorado Sub-Bit. Coal 0.25% S DFGD WFGD = Wet Scrubber DFGD = Dry Scrubber

### 15

Particulate High efficiency precipitators and baghouses are routine ly achieving particulate emissions levels under .020 lb/MBtu. Mercury Significant mercury removal research from pulverized coal power plants has been underway over the last 10 years. In 2001, this will culminate in plant demonstrations for Advanced Mer cury Removal Systems at Alabama Power ’ s Gaston Station, Michigan South Central ’ s Endicott Station, and Cinergy ’ s Zimmer Station. These demonstrations are aimed at positioning coal - fired power plants for the announced future regulation of mercury emissions . Additionally, aggressive research and plant demonstrations are underway to substantially reduce mercury emissions.



## Pulverized Coal Power Plant Applications Following are two cases, which illustrate the impact of building new pulverized coal power g eneration plants. 1. Greenfield site or addition of a new generating unit to an existing power plant. This case shows typical plant efficiencies, emissions levels, electricity produced, and production costs for new pulverized coal power plants for both a l ow and high sulfur coal options. 2. Repowering of an old existing pulverized coal - fired power plant. This case examines the performance emissions and production cost of repowering an entire old, coal - fired power plant consisting of multiple old, low - efficie ncy units that have high emissions rates with a single modern pulverized coal - fired generating unit. 

### Case 1 This case examines the efficiency, emissions performance, and production cost for adding a new coal fired generating unit, either to a Greenfield site or to an existing power plant. Performance is shown for both an eastern bituminous coal and a Powder River Basin Coal Plant.

### 16 TABLE 2 New Pulverized Coal Power Plant

Low Sulfur PRB Coal High Sulfur Bit. Coal Coal Heating Value Btu/lb 8,000 12,5 00 Coal % Sulfur % 0.4 3.5 Steam/Turbine Cycle Supercritical Subcritical Supercritical Subcritical Net Plant Heat Rate Btu/kWh 8900 9600 8500 9200 Net Plant Efficiency HHV 38.3% 35.6% 40.1% 37.1% Net Plant Efficiency LHV 41.6% 39.8% 42.2% 39.0% Emissions - Ranges Combustion NOx lb/Mbtu 0.20 to 0.40 same 0.40 to 0.50 same SCR % NOx Removal % 80 to 90 same 85 to 92 same Outlet NOx lb/Mbtu 0.020 to .080 same 0.032 to .075 same Outlet NOx @ 3% 0 2 ppm 14 to 58 same 23 to 54 same Outlet NOx @ 15% 0 2 ppm 5 to 20 same 8 to 18 same Outlet NOx lb/MWh .18 to .70 .19 to .75 .28 to .66 .29 to .69 Uncontrolled SO 2 lb/Mbtu 1.0 same 5.6 same Scrubber % SO 2 Removal % 90 same 95 same Outlet SO 2 lb/Mbtu .10 same .28 same Outlet SO 2 lb /MWh .89 .96 2.38 2. 58 Coal Cost $/MBtu 1.22 1.22 1.22 1.22 Fuel Production Cost $/MWh 10.86 11.71 10.37 11.22 Non - Fuel O&M Cost $/MWh 3.50 3.50 3.50 3.50 Total Production Cost $/MWh 14.36 15.21 13.87 14.72 

### Total Production Cost The curve below shows the variab le production cost (Fuel + O&M, excluding capital investment costs) for all the coal - fired power plants in the U.S. in 1998 (UDI data). The curve is a plot of the variable production cost of every coal - fired power plant, ranked from the lowest to the hi ghest. It only shows the fuel and O&M cost, and not the sunk capital costs. This would also indicate the relative order of competitive dispatch. Also shown on the curve is the variable production cost for the two plants discussed in the case studies. T his shows that the total production costs for a new pulverized coal plant will be significantly lower than most of the existing coal fleet and will assure high capacity factors.

### 17 Case 1

Total Emissions Level The total NOx and SOx emissions are significantly lower than what is being achieved in the existing coal - fired power plants today. Total Emissions Performance Table 3 (below) places a value on the total NOx and SOx emissions based on assumed allowance values for the examples in this case. To illustrate the low emissions level, the total outlet NOx and SOx emissions are given a monetary cost based on assumed allowance costs. When the emissions costs are stated as a production cost in $/MWh, it can be seen that thes e do not change the very favorable total production cost of electricity. Ck/1-22-01. ppt $/Mwh



### US Coal Plant Production Costs (UDI 1998) Excluding capital charges for past Investment (sunk costs)

New PC Coal Plants

### 18 TABLE 3 Low Sulfur PRB Coal Eastern Bituminous Coal Supercritical Subcritical Supercritical Subcritica l NOx Allowance Value (assumed) $/ton 1000 1000 1000 1000 Outlet NOx lb/MWh . 18 .19 .28 .29 NOx Allowance Cost $/MWh .09 .10 .14 .15 SOx Allowance Value (assumed) $/ton 200 200 200 200 Outlet SO 2 lb/MWh .89 .96 2.38 2.58 SOx Allowance Cost $/MWh .09 .10 .24 .26 Total Emission Allowance Cost $/MWh .18 .20 .38 .41 

### Case 2: Coal Power Plant Repowering This case considers the repowering of an existing Eastern U.S. coal - fired power plant, burning low sulfur Eastern bituminous coal. The plant consists of six generating units that were built between 1949 and 1956, with a compos ite average net plant efficiency of 29.4%. The total gross generating capacity from all six units is 387 MW. The plant has no emission controls for NOx and SOx except for Low NOx Burners on one of the units. The plant is repowered by replacing the boi ler and turbine islands for all six units with a single 506 - MW supercritical boiler/turbine, with an average net plant efficiency of 38.8%. The plant ’ s coal receiving and handling, ash disposal, and electrical distribution infrastructure is retained where possible. The repowered unit is redesigned for the same heat input as the original six units; Low NOx Burners, an SCR, a dry SO 2 

### scrubber, and baghouse are added. The same coal is used in the repowered unit as is currently being burned. Table 4 shows t he actual operating performance from this plant for 1998 and the projected repowered performance in 2004. In summary, with the plant repowered at the same heat input, it will now be rated at 31% higher megawatt output and operating efficiency. Both the NOx and SOx emissions will be reduced by 87% of the actual 1998 emissions in tons. The total production cost per megawatt - hour will be reduced 42%. Because of the low production cost, the unit will be base loaded with a high capacity factor, which will result in more than triple the actual megawatt hours produced during the year.

### 19 TABLE 4 Case 2 Repowering Existing Coal Plant

Existing Plant 1998 Actual Operating Data Repowere d 2004 Performan ce Improve

ment % Design Plant Total Heat Input MBtu/hr 41 40 4140 Nameplate MW 387 506 Total # of Units 6 1 Total Actual MWh 1,082,180 3,544,296 +327% Total Actual Capacity Factor 31% 85% Heat Rate

–Annual Average Btu/kWh 11,594 8,800 Average Plant Efficiency HHV 29.4% 38.8% +32% Average Plant Effi ciency LHV 30.9% 40.8% NOx Tons

–annual 3536 468 - 87% NOx Emission Rate lb/MBtu 0.509 .03 NOx Emissions Rate lb/MWh 5.9 0.26 Coal % S 1.08 1.08 SOx Tons Annual 12,881 1565 - 88% SOx Emissions Rate lb/MWh 23.8 0.88 Fuel Cost $/MBtu 1.05 1. 05 Fuel Production Cost Annual Avg $/MWh 12.18 9.26 Non - Fuel (OEM) Production Cost Annual Average $/MWh 9.87 3.57 Total Production Cost $/MWh $22.04 $12.83 - 42%

### 20 

## Opportunities for Greenfield Sites and Repowering Existing Facilities with Coal - Based Power Generation When considering coal - based technologies for both greenfield applications and repowering of existing facilities, utilities have several primary options to consider. In addition to the modern pulverized coal technologies described earlier, integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) has become a viable, commercially available technology. With successes from the Clean Coal Technology Program in both new and repowered projects, much has been learned about IGCC performance, heat rate, cost, and emissions performance. This information, which has been widely published, has become an important tool for evaluation of this technology by electric utilities. 

### IGCC Technology Options The diagram below shows a typical IGCC plant. The coal gasificati on process replaces the conventional coal - burning boiler with a gasifier, producing syngas (hydrogen and carbon monoxide) that is cleaned of its sulfur and particulate matter, and used as fuel in a gas turbine. The power generation cycle is completed throu gh the use of the Heat Recovery Steam Generator (HRSG) and steam turbine, just as in a natural gas - fired combined cycle (NGCC) plant, offering the high efficiency and continual advances achieved with this equipment configuration.

The two primary tech nologies which have had the most success in the U.S. are Texaco ’ s oxygen - blown, entrained - flow gasifier (Tampa Electric Company ’ s Polk Power Station, a greenfield plant) and the Global Energy E - Gas (formerly Destec) oxygen - blown, entrained - flow gasifier (C inergy/PSI Energy ’ s Wabash River Station, a repowering project at an existing power plant). In the Texaco gasification process, a down - flow slurry of coal, water, and oxygen, are reacted in the process burner at high temperature and pressure to produce a medium - temperature syngas. The syngas moves from the gasifier to a high - temperature heat recovery unit, which cools the syngas while generating Steam Clean Syngas End

Products Feeds Gas Cleanup



### Coal Oxygen Electricity

Sulfur Slag Gas & Steam Turbines Gasification Combined Cycle Power Block

SULFUR RECOVERY Byproducts: SULFUR REMOVAL 

# Coal IGCC Process 1

1 Texaco Gasification Process (TGP)

### 21

high - pressure steam. The cooled gases flow to a water wash for particulate removal. Molten ash flows out of the bottom of the gasifier into a water - filled sump where it is forms an inert solid slag. Next, a COS hydrolysis reactor converts COS into hydrogen sulfide. The syngas is then further cooled in a series of heat exchangers before entering a conventional amine - based acid gas removal system where the hydrogen sulfide is removed. The sulfur may be recovered as sulfuric acid or molten sulfur. The cleaned gas is then reheated and sent to a combined - cycle system for power generation. The Global Energy E - Gas proces s uses a slurry of coal and water in a two - stage, pressurized, upflow, entrained - flow slagging gasifier. About 75% of the total slurry is fed to the first (or bottom) stage of the gasifier. All the oxygen is used to gasify this portion of the slurry. This stage is best described as a horizontal cylinder with two horizontally opposed burners. The gasification/oxidation reactions take place at temperatures of 2,400 to 2,600 o 

### F. Molten ash falls through a tap hole at the bottom of the first stage into a water q uench, forming an inert vitreous slag. The hot raw gas from the first stage enters the second (top) stage, which is a vertical cylinder perpendicular to the first stage. The remaining 25% of the coal slurry is injected into this hot raw gas. The endothermi c gasification/devolatilization reaction in this stage reduces the final gas temperature to about 1,900 o 

### F. The 1,900 o 

### F hot gas leaving the gasifier is cooled in the fire - tube product gas cooler to 1,100 o 

### F, generating saturated steam for the steam power cyc le in the process. Particulates are removed in a hot/dry filter and recycled to the gasifier. The syngas is further cooled in a series of heat exchangers. The syngas is water scrubbed to remove chlorides and passed through a COS hydrolysis unit. Hydrogen sulfide is removed in the acid gas columns. A Claus unit is used to produce elemental sulfur as a salable by - product. The clean syngas is then moisturized, preheated, and sent to the power block. In Europe, Global Energy has successfully used the Britis h Gas/Lurgi (BGL) gasification process. In the BGL process, the gasifier is supplied with steam, oxygen, limestone flux, and coal. During the gasification process, the oxygen and steam react with the coal and limestone flux to produce a raw coal derived fu el gas rich in hydrogen and carbon monoxide. Raw fuel gas exiting the gasifier is washed and cooled. Hydrogen sulfide and other sulfur compounds are removed. Elemental sulfur is reclaimed and sold as a by - product. Tars, oils, and dust are recycled to the g asifier. The resulting clean, medium - Btu fuel gas is sent to a gas turbine. Based on the success of the BGL process at the Schwarze Pumpe GmbH plant in Germany, Global Energy is building two plants in the U.S. The 400 - MW Kentucky Pioneer Project and the 54 0 - MW Lima Energy Project will both use BGL gasification of coal and municipal solid waste to produce electric power. The Kentucky project is being partially funded by DOE. Heat Rate DOE reports the Polk Power Station heat rate to be 9,350 Btu/kWh, with Wabash River at 8,910 Btu/kWh. These equate to about 38.4% and 40.2% (LHV) respectively. Overall IGCC plant efficiency of 45% LHV is likely to be demonstrated with the enhancements developed from the Clean Coal Technology Program projects and continued adv ances in gas turbine technology. As part of its Vision 21 Program, DOE has set a 2008 performance target of 52% on an HHV basis (about 55% LHV) for IGCC. Emissions Performance With gas becoming the fuel of choice for most new units, permitting agencies and environmental groups have become used to seeing very low emission limits for new units. Further, they have come to expect that repowering existing units should also meet those same low levels, regardless of economics or fuel choice. IGCC can approach the environmental performance of natural gas - fired power plants, opening the door for its application in new and repowered plants. As part of the Vision 21 Program, DOE has set a

### 22

2008 performance target of 0.06 lb/mmBtu for SO 2 

### , 0.06 lb/mmBtu for NOx, and 0.003 lb/mmBtu for particulate matter. Conventional power plants that are candidates for repowering are typically 40 - 50 years old. Historically, the small upgrades and modifications that were made to maintain capacity or increase efficiency did not subj ect the utility to the New Source Review (NSR) process. With EPA ’ s coal - fired power plants enforcement activities, many utilities are under enforcement pressure to meet very strict NSR limitations for SO 2 

### , NOx, and particulates. Compliance with these limit ations usually means retrofit with flue gas desulfurization (FGD) for SO 2 

### control, selective catalytic reduction (SCR) for NOx control, and possibly even upgrades to the electrostatic precipitator for increased particulate control. With such units being ne ar the end of their economically useful lives, adding additional controls may not make economic sense for a unit that may be shut down in a few years. Repowering with IGCC allows the utility to maintain or increase capacity, while significantly improving environmental performance and producing low - cost power. The coal gasification process takes place in a reducing atmosphere at high pressures. In the gasifier, the sulfur in the coal forms hydrogen sulfide, which is easily removed in a conventional amine - t ype acid gas removal system. The concentrated hydrogen sulfide stream can then be recovered as elemental sulfur or sulfuric acid, and sold as a commercial byproduct, eliminating the need to dispose of large amounts of combustion byproducts. The clean synga s is sent to the gas turbine to be burned. With the addition of nitrogen into the turbine for power augmentation, the combustion flame is cooled, minimizing NOx formation and eliminating the need for SCR. Many existing coal - fired plants are also affected by the NOx SIP call, and utilities are facing the installation of SCR on these existing units in order to comply. With changes in utility regulation, and the age of the units, the economics of these retrofits presents a challenge to continued operation of the units. Further, the possibility of stricter limitations on SO 2 

### or other emissions in the next few years presents another layer of economic decisions. While the unit may still be economic to dispatch following the installation of SCR, the addition of F GD may not allow that to continue. In that case, the utility would face the stranding of its SCR assets after only a few years of operation. Repowering with IGCC would provide the utility with the ability to maintain or even increase capacity, meet NOx lim itations, and prepare for stricter SO 2 

### emission limitations. While the retrofit of emission controls reduces emissions, it leads to secondary environmental issues, such as the large amounts of land needed to dispose of the new FGD byproduct and groundwat er protection. The SCR system raises issues regarding local exposure to risks of accidental release of ammonia and disposal of the SCR catalyst. In the gasifier, the ash in the coal melts, and is recovered as a glassy, low permeability slag which can be sold for use in making roofing shingles, as an aggregate, for sandblasting grit, and as an asphalt filler. With the sulfur also recovered as a commercial byproduct, repowering with IGCC can eliminate the solid waste issues that utilities might face when re trofitting conventional coal - fired plants with FGD and SCR. With EPA ’ s recent determination to regulate mercury emissions from coal - fired units, utilities will face additional potential requirements for the retrofit of control equipment. With the reducin g atmosphere, and by operating a closed system at high pressures, IGCC releases of mercury are minimized. Initial information from EPA ’ s mercury - based Information Collection Request shows promising results for IGCC, with as much as 50% of the mercury in th e coal feedstock reduced or removed, much of it bound in the slag and sulfur byproducts.

### 23

Another issue that utilities will potentially face in the near future is the need to reduce CO 2 

### emissions. The existing coal - fired fleet in the U.S. is responsible fo r about one - third of all of the CO 2 

### emissions. While automobiles and other industries make up a large portion of U.S. CO 2 

### emissions, coal - fired power plants are an easier target to identify, measure, and control. Due to its high overall efficiency, repower ing an existing coal - fired power plant with IGCC can reduce CO 2 

### emissions by as much as 20%. Overall, repowering with IGCC provides a utility with significant increases in environmental performance. By reducing SO 2 

### and NOx emissions, minimizing solid was te disposal issues, and addressing potential near - term emission limitations for mercury and CO 2, 

### repowering with IGCC allows the utility to move forward with the knowledge that it has addressed environmental issues effectively. For capacity additions and repowering over the next five years, IGCC is an option that utilities can seriously consider. 

## IGCC Power Plant Applications Recent History and Applications Coal gasification technology has been used for over a hundred years. The production of town gas worldwide is a simple form of gasification. Coupling this proven technology with efficient combined cycle technology was seen as a way to enjoy the advantages of using low - cost coal with the high efficiency of combined cycle technology. The 100 - MW Cool Wa ter IGCC project, which went in service in 1984, was the first commercial - scale demonstration of IGCC. That project was done in a consortium of EPRI, Southern California Edison, Texaco, GE, Bechtel, and others. The plant operated for more than four years, achieving good performance, low emissions, and developing a base of design for full - scale IGCC plants. Since then, IGCC technology has improved greatly through DOE ’ s Clean Coal Technology program. The Wabash River IGCC Project and Polk Power Station IGCC Project are in operation as a part of this program. Installations in other countries include the Buggenum plant in the Netherlands and the Puertollano plant in Spain. IGCC performance and reliability continues to see significant improvements. In the fourth

year of operation of Tampa Electric ’ s Polk Power Station, the gasifier had an on - stream factor of almost 80%, a considerable improvement over previous years. This project no longer suffers from the serious problems encountered over the first three years, including convective syngas cooler pluggage, piping erosion and corrosion, and sulfur removal problems. The on - going pluggage problems in the convective syngas coolers have been resolved by modifying start - up procedures to minimize sticky ash deposits, and by making configuration changes in the inlet to the coolers to reduce ash impingement at the tube inlets. In the fourth year, the coal gasification portion of the plant became so reliable that the leading cause of unplanned downtime was not there, but rat her in the distillate oil system for the gas turbine (problem has been addressed). Reliable performance has also been achieved at the Wabash River plant. During 2000, the gasification plant reached 92.5% availability, with the power block at 95%. In fact, the gasification technology caused no plant downtime at all. Other areas of the plant, such as coal handling and the air separation unit were available more than 98% of the time. 

### IGCC for New and Repowered Plants These examples show that IGCC has met th e challenges of the Clean Coal Technology program. Further, with almost 4,000 MW of IGCC in operation worldwide, and another 3,000 MW planned to go into

### 24

operation over the next four years, this technology is commercially proven and ready for the repowering market. The U.S. now has about 320,000 MW of coal - fired power plants, just over one - third of all installed capacity. These coal - fired power plants generate over half of all of the electricity in the U.S. Many of these plants are over 30 years old, with some over 50 years of age. With a growing need for additional capacity in many parts of the country, and rising operation and maintenance costs on existing units, many utilities are looking hard at repowering with technologies that can increase capacity, w hile decreasing operation and maintenance costs. Repowering with IGCC can meet those challenges. Repowering older, less efficient generating units with IGCC, results in capacity increases, lower production costs, higher efficiency, and environmental comp liance. Since the IGCC plant uses coal as its feedstock, much of the existing coal - fired plant ’ s coal handling and steam turbine equipment and infrastructure can be utilized, lowering the overall cost of repowering. With greater than 95% of the sulfur emis sions removed, and further improvements in combustion turbine low - NOx burner technology, emissions of SO 2 

### and NOx now approach the performance of NGCC plants. By using low - cost and/or low - quality coals, the cost of electricity generated from a plant repowe red with IGCC technology can meet or beat that produced by NGCC plants. One of the key efficiency advantages comes with oxygen - blown IGCC technology. In this type of gasification system, air is first separated into its main constituents: oxygen and nitr ogen. The oxygen is used in the gasifier, and the nitrogen is injected into the gas turbine, where it increases the mass flow through the gas turbine, increasing power output, and minimizing NOx formation during combustion. Efficiency increases through fur ther integration can be realized by using extraction air from the gas turbine in other areas of the plant. Since this extraction air leaves the gas turbine at high temperature and pressure, it can be used to preheat boiler feed water. After the heat is rem oved, the cooled air, still at high pressure, is used to feed the air separation unit, reducing the amount of energy expended there to compress air. A typical method of repowering an existing unit is to remove the coal - fired boiler and replace it with a gas turbine, re - using the steam turbine in combined cycle mode. In a combined cycle plant, the steam turbine usually provides about one - third of the total output. In a recent study conducted for DOE, a large number of plants with twin 150 MW units were id entified as good candidates for repowering. There, the utility could repower one of the units with two 170 MW natural gas - fired gas turbines. The steam produced by the HRSGs for these units would power the existing 150 MW steam turbine, for a total of almo st 400 MW. A typical F class gas turbine produces about 170 MW when firing natural gas. At high ambient temperatures, output may fall to only 150 MW. In an IGCC plant, the syngas is fired in the gas turbine along with the nitrogen, providing significantl y higher overall mass flow over a wide range of ambient temperatures. When firing syngas, this same F class gas turbine produces about 20% more output, reaching 190 MW or more. This additional capacity from firing syngas is valuable when additional peaking power is needed during hot, summer days. The additional exhaust flow results in more steam production in the HRSG, making up for steam uses in the gasification area. By firing syngas, the overall capacity is increased to almost 550 MW, more than tripling the capacity of the unit. Repowering the twin 150 - MW unit could increase the overall capacity from the original 300 MW to almost 1,100 MW. While the typical repowering study targets coal - fired boilers, existing NGCC units also provide a technical and eco nomic opportunity for repowering with IGCC. In the case of NGCC units presently firing natural gas, rising fuel costs have lead to increases in the cost of producing electricity. This

### 25

typically results in a lower capacity factor, and the unit generates few er MW - hours and revenues. Given the inherent high efficiency of the gas turbines, and the ability to utilize low - cost coal, repowering with IGCC can turn an NGCC unit with a high dispatch price into a unit that dispatches at a much lower cost. As described

above, the additional 20% capacity gained from firing syngas instead of natural gas can have significant economic value in areas where there is insufficient peaking power capacity. IGCC technology has become a more attractive option for new capacity b ecause: o the technology has been successfully demonstrated at commercial scale in the U.S. and worldwide; o the enhancements made by the companies operating these IGCC plants, as well as by the technology suppliers, have decreased the cost and complexity of IGCC, while at the same time substantially improving the efficiency and reliability; and o the price differential between natural gas and coal has risen sharply over the last year. 

### Economics The ability to repower units and gain the capacity increases not ed in the previous section is a major economic driver for repowering with IGCC. Another advantage of repowering with IGCC is the ability to reuse a significant amount of the existing infrastructure at the plant. Areas such as buildings, coal unloading, coa l handling, plant water systems, condenser cooling water, transmission lines, and substation equipment can be incorporated into the repowered IGCC plant This helps to minimize the time for repowering and can reduce the overall cost by about 20%. With unc ertainty in the pace and extent of utility industry restructuring, as well as with changes in environmental regulations, utilities have been reluctant to make large capital expenditures for new capacity. Almost all of the capacity installed over the last f ew years has been natural gas - fired gas turbines and NGCC. With ongoing decreases in the cost per kW for NGCC technology, along with forecasts of low natural gas prices, NGCC has been the choice for almost all of the new planned baseload capacity in the U. S. Most of this new generation has been built and is being planned in states that have completed their electric utility industry restructuring, making for easier entry into power markets. Unfortunately, the greatest needs for new generation have been in Ca lifornia and the Southeast where deregulation has either been incomplete, inconsistent, or delayed. With recent increases in the price of natural gas, and stability or even decreases in coal costs, the electric utility industry has renewed its interest i n coal - based technologies. Announcements by Tucson Electric Power and Wisconsin Electric Power to build the first coal - fired power plants in years puts coal back in the picture for new capacity. One important result of the improved performance of existing IGCC plants has been an overall decrease in second - generation IGCC plant capital costs. If the current differential price between coal and natural gas continues or grows larger, the economics for repowering with IGCC will become even more attractive. In the paper “EPRI Analysis of Innovative Fossil Fuel Cycles Incorporating CO 2 

### Removal, ” various power generation technologies were analyzed with and without CO 2 

### removal systems, in a study performed by Parsons. The allowable capital costs were analyzed to de termine a break - even cost of electricity based on a range of gas prices. For IGCC, the break - even point with $5/mmBtu gas was found to be about $1,200/kW, dropping to about $1,000/kW with $4/mmBtu gas prices. As IGCC plant costs continue to decrease, it wi ll become an even more serious choice for repowering. If CO 2 

### removal is required in the future, the costs shown in the study for CO 2 

### removal and the cost of producing electricity from IGCC will be competitive with NGCC at gas prices of only $3.70 - 4.00/mmBt u.

### 26



# Reducing Regulatory Barriers The Clean Air Act ( “CAA ” ) imposes a number of regulatory burdens on the expansion of electric generating capacity. EPA ’ s recent interpretations of several existing laws have led to confusion and perhaps additional burd ens. Formally proposed EPA revisions to existing CAA programs may impose further burdens if they are adopted. These burdens impact three activities that increase U.S. generating capacity: (1) the construction of new units; (2) efficiency and availability improvements at existing units; and (3) the repowering or reactivation of existing units. 

### New Construction The CAA provides two main programs to control emissions from new coal - fired sources: New Source Performance Standards ( “NSPS ” ) and New Source Revi ew ( “NSR ” ). Both programs are intended to require the adoption of controls at the time it is most economical to do so

–when a new unit is designed and built. A utility wishing to construct a new coal - fired generating station must comply with NSPS. NSPS require new sources to meet numerical emissions limitations based on the best technology that EPA determines has been “ adequately demonstrated. ” EPA revises these standards periodically to reflect advances in emissions control technology. In areas that are in attainment with National Ambient Air Quality Standards ( “NAAQS ” ), a new major source also must comply with prevention of significant deterioration ( “ PSD ” ) requirements. PSD rules require new sources to adopt the “ best available control technology ” (“BACT ” ) and to undergo extensive pre - construction permitting. This includes air quality modeling and up to one year of air quality monitoring to determine the impact of the new source on air quality. EPA or state permitting authorities determine what ty pe of control constitutes BACT on a case - by - case basis. BACT may require control beyond NSPS for that source category, but may not be less stringent than applicable NSPS. A company that constructs a new major source near a “Class I ” attainment area must satisfy additional requirements. Class I areas include most national parks, and federal land managers (“FLMs ” ) are charged with protecting air quality in these areas. PSD rules require that FLMs receive copies of PSD permit applications that may impact a ir quality in Class I areas. In cases where the new source will not contribute to emissions increases beyond allowable levels for the attainment area ( i.e., beyond the PSD “ increment ” for that area), the FLM may still object to issuance of the permit base d on a finding that construction of the source will adversely impact “ air quality related values ” (“AQRVs ” ) (including visibility) for that area. The FLM bears the burden of making that adverse impact demonstration. If the state concurs with the determi nation, then a permit will not be issued. In cases where the new source would contribute to emissions beyond the PSD increment, the company must satisfy both the FLM and the permitting authority that the unit will not adversely impact any AQRVs, before th e permit may be issued. A company that constructs a new major source in a nonattainment area must satisfy NSR requirements similar to, but more stringent than, PSD requirements. Instead of adopting BACT, the source must adopt control as needed to meet th e Lowest Achievable Emission Rate ( “ LAER ” ) for that source category. LAER is based on the most stringent emissions limitation found in the state implementation plan ( “ SIP ” ) of any state, or the most stringent emission limitation achieved in practice in th e source category, whichever is more stringent. A new major source in a

### 27

nonattainment area also must demonstrate that any new emissions caused by the source will be offset by greater emissions reductions elsewhere. In July 1996, EPA proposed changes to t hese new source programs that would increase the burdens on the construction of new generating stations. EPA ’ s proposal would give FLMs the authority to require companies to perform AQRV analyses even where their new units would not cause exceedence of th e PSD increment. A company ’ s PSD application would not be considered complete until it had completed these analyses. EPA ’ s proposal also would transfer authority from EPA to FLMs to define AQRVs and determine what qualifies as an “ adverse impact ” on thos e values. These changes, as a whole, would increase the ability of FLMs to control the timing and eventual issuance of PSD permits. EPA also would require state and federal permitting authorities to adopt a “ top down ” method for determining BACT. Under this method, a PSD applicant must adopt as BACT the most stringent control available for a similar source or source category, unless it can demonstrate that such level of control is technically or economically infeasible. The effect of the policy is to ma ke BACT more similar to LAER in the stringency of control required. The proposed rule is now under review by the Bush EPA. Following another recent EPA determination, new sources may be required to meet technology based emission limitations for mercury a nd other air toxics. On December 20, 2000, EPA indicated that it would regulate emissions of mercury and possibly other air toxics from coal - and oil - fired utilities under the CAA ’ s maximum achievable control technology ( “MACT ” ) program. Depending on the basis for the determination, state and federal permitting authorities may be required to impose unit - specific MACT limits on new coal - and oil - fired units until a categorical federal standard is promulgated in 2004. As its name implies, MACT would requir e units to meet a numerical emissions limitation consistent with the use of the maximum control technology achievable for regulated pollutants. New source permitting is a lengthy process. The permit must be issued within one year of the filing of a “ comp lete ” application. Developing a “ complete ” application, however, can take another year or longer, as a source negotiates with the permitting authority, FLM, and others regarding modeling, monitoring, control technology, AQRVs, and other issues. If the pr oposed revisions to the NSR rules are finalized and if case - by - case MACT determinations are required, this permitting process for new sources will take even longer. Even without these proposed revisions, it will be important to consider how this permittin g process can be streamlined and expedited. 

### Efficiency/Availability Improvements at Existing Units Utilities have many opportunities to increase electrical output at existing units without increasing fuel burn by improving efficiency or reducing forced outages through component replacement and proper maintenance. In some cases, utilities do so as a reaction to unexpected component failures (reactive replacement). In others, utilities replace worn or aging components that are expected to fail in the fut ure or whose performance is deteriorating (predictive replacement). In some cases, utilities replace components because more advanced designs are available and would improve operating characteristics at the unit. Such component replacement can restore a unit ’ s original design efficiency or, in some cases, improve efficiency beyond original design. Babcock & Wilcox ( “B&W ” ), industry experts on the construction, operation, and maintenance of coal - fired boilers, identify a number of components that electric generating stations typically replace or upgrade during their service lives to maintain or improve operations. These include

### 28

economizers, reheaters, superheaters, furnace walls, burner headers and throats, and other assorted miscellaneous tubing. In the ir book Steam , the B&W authors identify predictable ages for the failure of these components and offer a variety of upgrade options to be incorporated as replacement parts. Other components that utilities frequently replace or upgrade include fans, turbin e blades and rotors, feed pumps, and waterwalls. NSR rules apply to “modifications ” of existing facilities that result in new, unaccounted for pollution. For the first 20 years of these programs, EPA identified only a handful of “modifications. ” In 199 9, however, EPA sued several major utility companies for past availability and efficiency improvement projects like those described above, characterizing them as modifications subject to NSPS and NSR. EPA has further indicated that it will treat innovativ e component upgrades that increase efficiency or reliability without increasing a unit ’ s pollution producing capacity as modifications as well. EPA ’ s current approach to these projects strongly discourages utilities from undertaking them, due to the signi ficant permitting delay and expense involved, along with the retrofit of expensive emission controls that are intended for new facilities. This is the greatest current barrier to increased efficiency at existing units. NSR rules define a modification as a physical change or change in the method of operation that results in a significant increase in annual emissions of a regulated pollutant. However, the rules exclude activities associated with normal source operation from the definition of a physical or operational change, including both "routine maintenance, repair, and replacement" and increases in the production rate or hours of operation. For more than a decade following the establishment of these programs, EPA made very few determinations that proje cts triggered NSR as “modifications. ” These determinations involved sources that: (1) added new capacity beyond original construction, for example by adding an entirely new generating unit; or (2) reactivated a long - shutdown unit. In 1988, EPA concluded that a collection of component replacements intended to extend the lives of five Wisconsin Electric Power ( “WEPCo ” ) generating units that had been formally derated and were at the end of their useful lives triggered NSR. Pointing to the project ’ s “massiv e scope, ” unusually high cost ($80 million spent on five 80 - MW units) and “ unprecedented ” nature, EPA concluded that the project was not “ routine, ” and calculated an emissions increase for purposes of NSR. Following the WEPCo decision, utility companies a nd the Department of Energy asked EPA to clarify the impact of its ruling for common component replacement projects in the industry. Through a series of communications with Congress and the General Accounting Office, EPA assured utilities that “WEPCo ’ s li fe extension project is not typical of the majority of utility life extension projects, and concerns that the agency will broadly apply the ruling it applied to WEPCo ’ s project are unfounded. ” In 1992, EPA issued regulations that confirm the historical me aning of the modification rule and provide special guidance on the application of the rule to electric utilities. Under the 1980 rules, the method used to determine an emissions increase for NSR purposes depends on whether a unit is deemed to have “ begun n ormal operations. ” The preamble to the 1992 rule states that units are deemed not to have begun normal operations only when they are “ reconstructed ” or replaced with an entirely new generating unit. Units deemed not to have begun normal operations must m easure an emissions increase by comparing pre - change actual emissions to potential emissions after a change. Since few facilities operate at full capacity around the clock before a change, this test

–if applied to existing sources -- nearly always shows an apparent emissions increase (even where

### 29

emissions in fact decline after the change). Sources that have begun normal operations may compare actual emissions before the change to a projection of actual emissions after it. For utilities, the 1992 rule al lows a comparison of past actual to “ future representative actual emissions, ” a term defined to allow elimination of projected increases in utilization due to demand growth and other independent factors (provided that post - change utilization confirms the p rojections). Other units make a more generic comparison of pre - and post - project emissions holding production rates and hours of operation constant. In the decade following the WEPCo decision, utilities continued to undertake the replacements described a

bove without incident. In November 1999, however, EPA commenced a major PSD enforcement initiative against seven utility companies and the Tennessee Valley Authority alleging violations of PSD provisions. In complaints and notices of violation ( “NOVs ” ), EPA alleged that replacements of deteriorated components undertaken at these units over the past 20 years were non - routine and triggered emissions increases under NSR rules. The complaints and NOVs target component replacements common in the industry, inc luding economizers, superheaters, reheaters, air heaters, feedwater pumps, burners, turbine blades and rotors, furnace and water wall sections, and other components. EPA has since expanded the enforcement initiative to cover more than 20 companies, with p lans to add more. EPA ’ s claim that these projects are now non - routine has left utilities highly uncertain about the coverage of the modification rule. In particular, EPA now suggests that it has discretion to classify projects as non - routine for several new reasons, including the fact that the replacement restores availability, improves efficiency, or involves a major component. At the same time, EPA has raised the stakes for a finding that a project is non - routine by assuming an emissions increase from all non - routine projects. Specifically, in contrast to the NSR rule, EPA now asserts that any non routine change makes a unit into one that has not “ begun normal operations ”

–necessitating use of an "actual to potential" emissions increase test that the unit is sure to fail. This is true even where such units have an extensive past operating history that would allow reliable predictions of future actual emissions. A utility considering projects similar to those targeted in the complaints and NOVs must c onfront the fact that EPA has claimed broad discretion to classify availability and efficiency improvement projects as non - routine modifications subject to NSR. NSR requires the retrofit of BACT technology, which can cost hundreds of millions of dollars, and can delay projects by several years while permits are obtained and/or controls installed. Accordingly, EPA ’ s actions strongly discourage utilities from undertaking projects that improve efficiency, and thereby increase generation without any increase in pollution. B&W ’ s Steam

suggests the scope of projects blocked by EPA ’ s current approach to modification. In order to reach a standard 55 to 65 year operating life, B&W estimates that a typical utility will replace its superheaters and burners at least twice, its reheaters at least once or twice, the economizer and lower furnace at least once, and all other tubing at least three times. Turbine blades are replaced more frequently still. Industry - wide, this means thousands of major component replacement s may be prevented or delayed by EPA ’ s approach, as well as other categories of projects EPA has not yet addressed but may find non - routine under its new discretion. Moreover, EPA has extended its approach to innovative component upgrades that improve uni t efficiency and other operating characteristics. In a letter dated May 23, 2000, EPA concluded that a plan by the Detroit Edison Company to replace worn turbine blades with new, improved blades was non - routine. Detroit Edison proposed to replace existin g blading with a new, more durable

### 30

blading configuration that would increase the efficiency of two turbines by 4.5% each. This would allow these units each to produce 70 additional megawatts of power with no increase in fuel consumption, or to continue pr oducing at past energy levels while reducing fuel consumption by 112,635 tons of coal per year, SO 2 

### emissions by 1,826 tons per year ( “ tpy ” ), and NO x 

### emissions by 1,402 tpy. This would also allow an incidental 259,111 tpy reduction in CO 2 

### emissions

–a co mpound that EPA currently lacks authority to control. The company estimated that widespread adoption of the upgrade at compatible units would allow CO 2 

### reductions of approximately 81 million tpy, with correspondingly large reductions in NO x 

### and SO 2 

### . EPA based its finding of non routineness in part on the fact that the project made use of new, upgraded component designs. EPA reached a similar conclusion in 1998, finding that a proposed blade replacement project at a Sunflower Corporation power plant could not be routine because it involved redesigned/ upgrad[ed] ” components. Accordingly, utilities contemplating innovative upgrades of turbine and other components to improve efficiency face a known risk that EPA will classify them as non routine modificatio ns based on their use of advanced technology. Although the exact numbers of innovative projects blocked by EPA ’ s approach is difficult to quantify, the example of Detroit Edison suggests that the losses in generation and pollution reduction from these eff iciency gains is substantial. In sum, EPA ’ s new approach to its NSR rules presents a significant regulatory barrier to projects at existing sources that would otherwise be undertaken to improve availability and efficiency. This barrier can be expected no t only to prevent significant gains in generating capacity at existing units, but also to actively reduce availability of these units by preventing needed maintenance. As a related matter, this barrier also can be expected to inhibit development of more e fficient generating technologies, reducing the amount of energy that may be produced from existing units, and to encourage prolonged reliance on units operating at lower efficiencies. 

### Repowering and Reactivation Replacing a coal - fired boiler with a more efficient generating technology, such as fluidized bed combustion, or an integrated gasification combined cycle, or state - of - the - art pulverized coal technology, can increase generation at an existing facility. This process is commonly known as “ repowerin g. ” Title IV of the CAA grants special treatment to utilities that meet the acid rain requirements of that title through repowering. A project that qualifies as “ repowering ” for Title IV purposes also gains exemption from NSPS requirements if the project does not increase the unit ’ s maximum achievable hourly emissions. Such projects almost certainly require PSD review, but are granted expedited review under the Act. EPA has yet to implement these expedited review procedures. Additional uncertainties fo r permitting these facilities are created by EPA ’ s proposal to “ reform

” the new source permitting process discussed above. Reactivation of shutdown existing units presents another means for utility companies to increase generation. A source that has been shutdown for an extended period may be subject to NSPS and/or NSR when it is reactivated. Early determinations on this topic are often unclear or inconsistent as to whether the reactivated unit is subject to NSPS or NSR because it is deemed to be a new un it, or because it is deemed to be an existing unit that has undergone a “modification. ” In its most recent determination on the subject, EPA has suggested that a unit could be subject to NSPS/NSR for either reason

–making for a stricter, two - part standar d. Clarification of EPA ’ s reactivation policy, and streamlining of NSR requirements for reactivated facilities, would contribute capacity needed to respond to demand peaks.

### 31

Solutions EPA ’ s proposed rule on NSR would impose significant additional burden s for new sources if it is finalized in its current form. EPA ’ s recent listing of coal - and oil - fired electric utility steam generating units as major sources of hazardous air pollutants could require additional, extended pre - construction review for new a nd reconstructed facilities. EPA ’ s recent reinterpretation of the modification rule with respect to routine repair and replacement, calculating emissions increases, and source reactivation imposes additional burdens that discourage projects that increase unit availability and efficiency or reactivate shutdown units, including cases where shutdown was never intended to be permanent. EPA should return to its historic interpretation and application of these rules.

### 32



## APPENDIX A 

# Description of The National Co al Council Recognizing the valuable contribution of the industry advice provided over the years to the Executive Branch by the National Petroleum Council and the extremely critical importance of the role of coal to America and the world ’ s energy mix for t he future, the idea of a similar advisory group for the coal industry was put forward in 1984 by the White House Conference on Coal. The opportunity for the coal industry to have an objective window into the Executive Branch drew overwhelming support. I n the fall of 1984, The National Coal Council was chartered; and in April 1985, the Council became fully operational. This action was based on the conviction that such an industry advisory council could make a vital contribution to America ’ s energy securi ty by providing information that could help shape policies relative to the use of coal in an environmentally sound manner which, in turn, could lead to decreased dependence on other, less abundant, more costly, and less secure sources of energy. The Natio nal Coal Council is chartered by the Secretary of Energy under the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The purpose of the Council is solely to advise, inform, and make recommendations to the Secretary of Energy with respect to any matter relating to coal or t he coal industry about which the Secretary may request its expertise. Members of The National Coal Council are appointed by the Secretary of Energy ad represent all segments of coal interests and all geographical regions. The National Coal Council is hea ded by a Chairman and a Vice Chairman who are elected by the Council. The Council is supported entirely by voluntary contributions from its members. It receives no funds whatsoever from he Federal government. In reality, by conducting studies at no cost which otherwise might have to be conducted by the Department, it saves money for the government. The National Coal Council does not engage in any of the usual trade association activities. It specifically does not engage in lobbying efforts. The Council does not represent any one segment of the coal or coal related industry or the views of any one particular part of the country. It is, instead, to be a broad, objective advisory group whose approach is national in scope. Matters which the Secretary of E nergy would like to have considered by the Council are submitted as a request in the form of a letter outlining the nature and scope of the requested study. The first major studies undertaken by The National Coal Council at the request of the Secretary of Energy were presented to the Secretary in the summer of 1986, barely one year after the startup of the Council.

### 33



## APPENDIX B 

# The National Coal Council – 2001 Membership Roster Paul A. Agathen , Sr. Vice President, Energy Supply Services, Ameren Corporation , 1901 Chouteau Avenue, St. Louis, MO 63103, Ph: 314 - 554 - 2794; Fx: 314 - 554 - 3066; paagathen@ameren.com James R. Aldrich , State Director, The Nature Conservancy, Kentucky Chapter, 642 West Main Street, Lexin gton, KY 40508, Ph: 606 - 259 - 9655, Fx: 606 - 259 - 9678, jaldrich@tnc.org Allen B. Alexander , President & CEO, Savage Industries, Inc., 5250 South Commerce Drive, Salt Lake City, UT 84107, Ph: 801 - 263 - 9400; Fx: 80 1 - 261 - 8766; aba@savageind.com Sy Ali, Director , Business Development, Rolls - Royce North America, Inc., P.O. Box 420, Speed Code U - 5, Indianapolis, IN 46206 - 0420, Ph: 317 - 230 - 6864; Fx: 317 - 230 - 2900; sy.a.ali@rolls - royce.com Barbara F. Altizer , Executive Director, Virginia Coal Council, 222 Sunny Hills Drive, Cedar Bluff, VA 24609, P.O. Box 858, Richlands, VA 24641, Ph: 540 - 964 - 6363; Fx: 540 - 964 - 6342; barb@netscope.net Gerard Anderson , President & COO, DTE Energy Company, 2000 2 nd Avenue

–2409 WCB, Detroit, MI 48226 - 1279, Ph: 313 - 235 - 8880; Fx: 313 - 235 - 0537; andersong@dt eenergy.com Dan E. Arvizu , Ph.D., Vice President, CH2M Hill, 6060 South Willow Drive, Greenwood Village, CO 80111, Ph: 303 - 713 - 2436; Fx: 303 - 846 - 2231; 303 - 741 - 0902; darvizu@ch2m.com Henri - Claude Bailly , 5115 W aukesha Road, Bethesda, MD 20816; Ph: 301 - 229 - 0166; Fx: 301 - 229 - 7997; hcbailly@fondelec.com Richard Bajura , Director, National Research Center for Coal & Energy, West Virginia University, P.O. Box 6064, Evansdale Drive, Morgantown, WV 26506 - 6064, Ph: 304 - 293 - 2867 (ext. 5401); Fx: 304 - 293 - 3749; bajura@wvu.edu János M. Beér , Professor of Chemical & Fuel Engineering, Department of Chemical Engineering, 25 Ames Street, Bldg. 66 - 548, Cambridge, MA 02139, Ph: 617 - 25 3 - 6661; Fx: 617 - 258 - 5766; jmbeer@mit.edu Klaus Bergman , 1 Essex Road, Great Neck, NY 11023, Ph: 516 - 487 - 0339 (summer residence), 7A East Gate Drive, Boynton Beach, FL 33436, Ph: 561 - 736 - 9760 (winter residence); Fx: Same as phone klausbergman@aol.com

(winter) Jacqueline F. Bird , Director, Ohio Coal Development Office, Ohio Department of Development, 77 South High Street, 25 th Floor, P.O. Box 1001, Columbus, OH 43216 , Ph: 614 - 466 - 3465; Fx: 614 - 466 - 6532; jbird@odod.state.oh.us ; www.odod.state.oh.us/tech/coal Sandy Blackstone , Natural Resources Attorney/Economist, 81 22 North Sundown Trail, Parker, CO 80134 Ph: 303 - 805 - 3717; Fx: 303 - 805 - 4342; gillesfamily@uswest.net Charles P. Boddy , Vice President, Government Relations, Usibelli Coal Mine, Inc., 100 Cushman Street, Suite 210, Fairbanks, AK 99701 - 4659, Ph: 907 - 452 - 2625; Fx: 907 - 451 - 6543; cboddy@usibelli.com Donald B. Brown , President & CEO, AEI Holding Company, Inc., 1500 North Big Run Road, Ashland, KY 41102, Ph: 606 - 928 - 3438; Fx: 606 - 928 - 0450 Robert L. Brubaker , Porter, Wright, Morris & Arthur, 41 South High Street, Columbus, OH 43215, Ph: 614 - 227 - 2033; Fx: 614 - 227 - 2100; rbrubaker@porterwright.com

### 34

Dr. Louis E. Buck, Jr ., CFO, ConEdison Solutions, 701 Westchester Avenue, Suite 300, White Plains, NY 10604, Ph: 914 - 286 - 7063; Fx: 914 - 448 - 2670; BuckL@condesolutions.com Michael Carey , President, Ohio Coal Associat ion, 50 South Young Street, Suite M102, Columbus, OH 43215, Ph: 614 - 228 - 6336; Fx: 614 - 228 - 6349; ohiocoal@juno.com William Carr , 200 Oak Pointe Drive, Cropwell, AL 35054, Ph: 205 - 525 - 0307 William Cavanaugh, I II , Chairman, President & CEO, Progress Energy, P.O. Box 1551, Raleigh, NC 27602, Ph: 919 - 546 - 3560; Fx: 919 - 546 - 3210; bill.cavanaugh@pgnmail.com Maryann R. Correnti , Partner, Arthur Andersen & Company, 200 Public Square, Suite 1800, Cleveland, OH 44114, Ph: 216 - 348 - 2774; Fx: 216 - 771 - 7733; maryann.r.correnti@us.arthurandersen.com Ernesto Corte , Chairman, Gamma - Metrics, 5788 Pacific Cent er Boulevard, San Diego, CA 92121, Ph: 858 - 882 - 1200; Fx: 858 - 452 - 2487; ecorte@attglobal.net Henry A. Courtright , P.E., Vice President, Power Generation & Distributed Resources, Electric Power Research Insti tute, 3412 Hillview Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94304, Ph: 650 - 855 - 8757; Fx: 650 - 855 - 8500; hcourtri@epri.com Joseph W. Craft, III , President, Alliance Coal, LLC, 1717 South Boulder Avenue, Tulsa, OK 74119, Ph: 91 8 - 295 - 7602; Fx: 918 - 295 - 7361; josephc@arlp.com Curtis H. Davis , Sr. Vice President

–Power Generation, Duke Energy, 526 South Church Street, Charlotte, NC 28202 - 1804; Ph: 704 - 382 - 2707; Fx: 704 - 382 - 9840; cdavis@duke - energy.com James K. Davis , Vice President, Georgia Power Company, 241 Ralph McGill Boulevard, N.E., Bin 10240, Atlanta, GA 30308 - 3374, Ph: 404 - 506 - 7777; Fx: 404 - 506 - 1767; jamkdavi@southernco.com E. Linn Draper, Jr ., Chairman, President & CEO, American Electric Power Company, One Riverside Plaza, Columbus, OH 43215; Ph: 614 - 223 - 1500; Fx: 614 - 223 - 1599; eldraper@a ep.com John Dwyer , President, Lignite Energy Council, 1016 East Owens Avenue, Suite 200, P.O. Box 2277, Bismarck, ND 58502 - 2277; Ph: 701 - 258 - 7117; Fx: 701 - 258 - 2755; jdwyer@lignite.com Richard W. Eimer, Jr., Sr. Vice President, Dynegy Marketing & Trade, 2828 North Monroe Street, Decatur, IL 62526, Ph: 217 - 876 - 3932; Fx: 217 - 876 - 7475; Rich_Eimer@dynegy.com Ellen Ewart , Sr. Consultant, Resource Data International, 3333 Walnut Street, Boulder, CO 80301, Ph: 720 - 548 - 5515; Fx: 720 - 548 - 5007; eewart@ftenergy.com ; eewart@resdata.com Andrea Bear Field , Partner, Hunton & Williams, 190 0 K Street, N.W., 12 th Floor, Washington, D.C. 20036, Ph: 202 - 955 - 1558; Fx: 202 - 778 - 2201; afield@hunton.com Paul Gatzemeier , Coal Black Cattle Company, 7256 Highway 3, Billings, MT 59106, Ph: 406 - 245 - 4076; F x: 406 - 245 - 0138; pgatzemeier@earthlink.net Janet Gellici , Executive Director, Western Coal Council, 5765 Olde Wadsworth Blvd., Suite 18, Arvada, CO 80002, Ph: 303 - 431 - 1456; Fx: 303 - 431 - 1606; info@westcoal.org ; www.westerncoalcouncil.org Andrew Goebel , President & COO, Vectren Corporation, 20 N.W. Fourth Street, Evansville, IN 47735 - 3606, Ph: 812 - 464 - 4553; Fx : 812 - 491 - 4169; agoebel@vectren.com Gary J. Goldberg , President and CEO, Kennecott Energy Company, P.O. Box 3009, Gillette, WY 82717 - 3009, Ph: 307 - 687 - 6001; Fx: 307 - 687 - 6011; goldberg@kenergy.com

### 35

Alex E. S. Green , University of Florida, ICAAS

–Clean Combustion Tech. Lab, P.O. Box 112050, Gainesville, FL 32611 - 2050, Ph: 352 - 392 - 2001; Fx: 352 - 392 - 2027; aesgreen@ufl.edu J ohn Hanson , President & CEO, Harnischfeger Industries, Inc., 3600 South Lake Drive, St. Francis, WI 53235, Ph: 414 - 486 - 6840; Fx: 414 - 486 - 6717; jnha@hii.com Vascar G. Harris , Tuskegee University, P.O. Box 759, Tuskege e, AL 36087, Ph: 334 - 727 - 8845 Clark D. Harrison , President, CQ, Inc., 160 Quality Center Road, Homer City, PA 15748; Ph: 724 - 479 - 3503; Fx: 724 - 479 - 4181 Gerald (Jerry) A. Hollinden , Vice President, Power Business Sector, URS Corporation, Waterfront P laza Tower One, 325 West Main Street, Suite 1200, Louisville, KY 40202 - 4251, Ph: 502 - 217 - 1516; Fx: 502 - 569 - 2304; Cell: 512 - 426 - 3326; jerry_hollinden@urscorp.com Bonny Huffman , Vice President, Sands H ill Coal Company, Inc., P.O. Box 650, 38701 S.R. 160, Hamden, OH 45634, Ph: 740 - 384 - 4211; Fx: 740 - 384 - 3923; bhuffman@zoomnet.net Chris Jenkins , Sr. vice President

–Coal Service Group, CSX Transportation, 50 00 Water Street, J120, Jacksonville, FL 32202; Ph: 904 - 366 - 5693; Fx: 904 - 359 - 3443 Judy A. Jones , Commissioner, Public Utilities Commission of Ohio, 180 East Broad Street, Columbus, OH 43215 - 3793, Ph: 614 - 644 - 8226; Fx: 614 - 466 - 7366; judy.jones@puc.state.oh.us William M. Kelce , President, Alabama Coal Association, Vestavia Centre, 2090 Columbiana Road, Suite 2500, Vestavia Hills, AL 35216, Ph: 205 - 822 - 0384; Fx: 205 - 822 - 2016; aca@bellsouth.net Valorie A. Knudsen , Vice President, Corporate Strategy & Portfolio Assessment, NRG Energy, Inc., 1221 Nicollet Mall, Suite 700, Minneapolis, MN 55403, Ph: 612 - 373 - 8874; Fx: 612 - 373 - 5399; val.knudsen@nrgenergy.com Thomas G. Kraemer , Group Vice President, Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway Co., 2650 Lou Menk Drive, 2 nd Floor, P.O. Box 961051 (7616 - 0051), Ft. Worth, TX 76131 - 2830, Ph: 817 - 352 - 6242; Fx: 817 - 352 - 794 0; thomas.kraemer@bnsf.com Max L. Lake , President, Applied Sciences, Inc., 141 West Xenia Avenue, P.O. Box 579, Cedarville, OH 45314 - 0579, Ph: 937 - 766 - 2020 (ext. 111); Fx: 937 - 766 - 5886; mllake@apsci.com Steven F. Leer , President & CEO, Arch Coal Incorporated, Cityplace One, Suite 300, St. Louis, MO 63141, Ph: 314 - 994 - 2900; Fx: 314 - 994 - 2919; sleer@archcoal.com David A. Lester , Executive Director, Council on Energy Resource Tribes, 695 South Colorado Blvd., Suite 10, Denver, CO 80246 - 8008, Ph: 303 - 282 - 7576; Fx: 303 - 282 - 7584 Peter B. Lilly , President & CEO, Triton Coal Company, LLC, 141 Market Place Drive, Suite 100, F airview Heights, IL 62208, Ph: 618 - 394 - 2620, Fx: 618 - 394 - 2638; lilly@triton - coal.com Ronald W. Lowman , Vice President

–Fossil Energy, Baltimore Gas & Electric Company, 1000 Brandon Shores Road, Baltimore, MD 21226, Ph: 410 - 787 - 5301; Fx: 410 - 787 - 6637; ronald.lowman@powersrc.com James V. Mahoney , Sr. Vice President, Asset Management, PG&E National Energy Group, 7500 Old Georgetown Road, Suite 1300, Bethes da, MD 20814, Ph: 301 - 280 - 6610; Fx: 301 - 280 - 6909; jim.mahoney@neg.pge.com James K. Martin , Vice President, Business Development, Dominion Energy, P.O. Box 26532, Richmond, VA 23261, Ph: 804 - 819 - 2176; F x: 804 - 819 - 2219; james_k_martin@dom.com

### 36

Christopher C. Mathewson , PhD., PE., REG, Department of Geology & Geophysics, Texas A&M University, MS - 3115, College Station, TX 77843 - 3115, Ph: 409 - 845 - 2488; Fx: 40 9 - 847 - 9313; mathewson@geo.tamu.edu Charles R. Matthews , Commissioner, Railroad Commission of Texas, P.O. Box 12967, Austin, TX 78711 - 2967, Ph: 512 - 463 - 7140; Fx: 512 - 463 - 7161; charles.matthews@rrc.state.tx.us Michael W. McLanahan , President. McLanahan Corporation, 200 Wall Street, P.O. Box 229, Hollidaysburg, PA 16648 - 0229, Ph: 814 - 695 - 9807; Fx: 814 - 695 - 6684 Emmanuel R. Merle , President, Energy T rading Corporation, 767 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10153 Ph: 212 - 421 - 1930; Fx: 212 - 421 - 1937; emmanuel_merle@etc.thion.com ; thion@mindspring.com Paulette M iddleton , Ph.D., Director, ESPC, 2385 Panorama Avenue, Boulder, CO 80304, Ph: 303 - 442 - 6866; Fx: 303 - 442 - 6958; paulette@rand.org ; www.rand.org Clifford R. Miercort , President & CEO, The North American Coal Corporation, 14785 Preston Road, Suite 1100, Dallas, TX 75240 - 7891, Ph: 972 - 239 - 2625 (main) 972 - 448 - 5402 (direct); Fx: 972 - 661 - 9072; clifford.miercort@nacoal.com ; lori.furbush@nacoal.com (assistant) Janie Mitcham , Vice President, Fuel & Energy Management. Reliant Energy, P.O. Box 1700, Houston, TX 77251 - 1700, Ph: 713 - 207 - 3700 ’ Fx: 713 - 207 - 9720; janie - mitcham@reliantenergy.com James Mockler , Executive Director, Montana Coal Council, 2301 Colonial Drive, Helena, MT 59601, Ph: 406 - 422 - 6223; Fx: 406 - 449 - 6628; mtcoal@aol.com Benjamin F. Montoya , Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer, Public Service Company of New Mexico, Alvarado Square MS - 2824, Albuquerque, NM 87158, Ph: 505 - 241 - 2754; Fx: 505 - 241 - 2322 David J. Morris , General Manager, Pacific Coast Coal Company , 30700 Black Diamond - Ravensdale Rd., P.O. Box 450, Black Diamond, WA 98010, Ph: 360 - 886 - 1060; Fx: 425 - 432 - 8755; djmorris@aol.com Patrick J. Mulchay , President, NiSource Holding , 801 East 86 th Avenue, Merrillvi lle, IN 46410, Ph: 219 - 647 - 6027; Fx: 219 - 647 - 6061; pjmulchay@nisource.com Robert E. Murray , Director, The American Coal Company, 29525 Chagrin Boulevard, Suite 111, Pepper Pike, OH 44122, Ph: 216 - 765 - 12 40; Fx: 216 - 765 - 2654; bobmurray@coalsource.com Ram G. Narula , Bechtel Fellow & Principal Vice President, Bechtel Power Corporation, 5275 Westview Drive, Frederick, MD 21703, Ph: 301 - 228 - 8804; Fx: 301 - 694 - 9043; RNARULA@Bechtel.Com Georgia Ricci Nelson , President, Midwest Generation, EME, LLC, 440 South LaSalle Street, Suite 3500, Chicago, IL 60605, Ph: 312 - 583 - 6015; Fx: 312 - 583 - 4920; gnelson@mwgen.com George Nicolozakes , Chairman, Marietta Coal Company, 67705 Friends Church Road, St. Clairsville, OH 43950, Ph: 740 - 695 - 2197; Fx: 740 - 297 - 8055 Mary Eileen O ’ Keefe , Director, Midwest Division, KFx/Pegasus Technology, 1362 North State Parkway, Chicago, IL 60610, Ph: 312 - 482 - 9701;, Fx: 312 - 482 - 9703; maryeileenokeefe@aol.com Umit Ozkan , Associate Dean for Research, College of Engineering & Professor of Chemical Engineer ing, Ohio State University, 167 Hitchcock Hall, 2070 Neil Avenue, Columbus, OH 43210, Ph: 616 - 292 - 6623; Phone: 614 - 292 - 2986; Fx: 616 - 292 - 9615; ozkan.1@osu.edu ; www.che.eng.ohio state.edu/facultypages/ozkan.html

### 37

Daniel F. Packer , President, Entergy New Orleans, P.O. Box 61000, New Orleans, LA 70161, Ph: 504 - 670 - 3622; Fx: 504 - 670 - 3605 Timothy J. Parker , Vice President , & General Manager , Metropolitan Stevedore Company, 720 East E Street (90744), P.O. Box 547, Wilmington, CA 90748, Ph: 310 - 816 - 6534; Fx: 310 - 233 - 3546; tj.parker@metsteco.com W. Gordon Peters , President, Trapper Mining Co mpany, P.O. Box 187, Craig, CO 81626 - 0187, Ph: 970 - 824 - 4401 (extension 111); Fx: 970 - 824 - 4632; gordon@trappermine.com Craig E. Philip , President & CEO, Ingram Barge Company, One Belle Meade Place, 4400 Har ding Road, Nashville, TN 37205 - 2290; Ph: 615 - 298 - 8200; Fx: 615 - 298 - 8213 William J. Post , President & CEO, Arizona Public Service Company, P.O. Box 53999, Station 9036, Phoenix, AZ 85072 - 3999, Ph: 602 - 250 - 2636; Fx: 602 - 250 - 3002 Stephen M. Powell , Sr. Vice President, IPALCO Enterprises, Inc., One Monument Circle (46204), P.O. Box 1595, Indianapolis, IN 46206 - 1595, Ph: 317 - 261 - 8369; Fx: 317 - 630 - 5718; spowell@ipalco.com John Rednour, Sr ., Chairman, Du Quoin State Bank, 15 East Main Street, P.O. Box 468, Du Quoin, IL 62832, Ph: 618 - 542 - 2111; Fx: 618 - 542 - 5224 Bill Reid , President, EIMCO, L.L.C., P.O. Box 1100, 1712 Coal Heritage Road, Bluefield, WV 24701 - 1100, Ph: 304 - 324 - 3519; Fx: 304 - 324 - 3557; Bill.reid@sandvik.com George Richmond , President, Jim Walter Resources, Inc., P.O. Box 830079, Birmingham, AL 35283 - 0079, Ph: 205 - 481 - 6100; Fx: 205 - 481 - 6011; grichmond@jw rinc.com James F. Roberts , President & CEO, RAG American Coal Holding, Inc., 999 Corporate Boulevard, 3 rd Floor, Linthicum Heights, MD 21090; Ph: 410 - 689 - 7500; Fx: 410 - 689 - 7511 Karen Roberts , Regional Manager, Coal Supply, Xcel Energy, P.O. Box 1261, Amarillo, TX 79170, Ph: 806 - 378 - 2505; Fx: 806 - 378 - 2790; karenr@swps.com ; ladonnah@swps.com (assistant) Daniel A. Roling , First Vice President, Merrill Lynch Corpor ate Strategy & Research, World Financial Center, North Tower, New York, NY 10281 - 1320, Ph: 212 - 449 - 1905; Fx: 212 - 339 - 0546; daniel_roling@ml.com Margaret L. Ryan , Editorial Director

–Nuclear/Coal Group, Plat ts, The McGraw - Hill Companies, Inc.; Ph: 202 - 383 - 2160; mryan@mh.com William B. Schafer , III, Managing Director, NexGen Coal Services, Ltd., 710 Sunshine Canyon, Boulder, CO 80302, Ph: 303 - 417 - 0444; Fx: 303 - 417 - 0443 ; bschafer@nexgen - group.com Debbie Schumacher , Women in Mining, 915 Mayfair Drive, Booneville, IN 47601, Ph: 812 - 922 - 8524; Fx: 812 - 922 - 5711; wolfie66@email .msn.com Michael J. Sierra , President & CEO, The Ventura Group, Inc., 8550 Lee Highway, Suite 450, Fairfax, VA 22031 - 1515, Ph: 703 - 208 - 3303; Fx: 703 - 208 - 3305; msierra@theventuragroup.com Anne E. Smi th , Vice President, Charles River Associates, John Hancock Tower, 200 Clarendon Street, 33 rd Floor, Boston, MA 02116; Ph: 617 - 425 - 3000; Fx: 617 - 425 - 3132 Chester B. Smith , Director, RMO Associates, 5155 Wayneland, #l - 7 Jackson, MS 39211; Ph: 601 - 952 - 0 734; Fx: 601 - 957 - 6121; rmoassoc@aol.com

### 38

Daniel D. Smith , President - NS Development, Norfolk Southern Corporation, Three Commercial Place, Norfolk, VA 23510 - 9239: Ph: 757 - 629 - 2813; Fx: 757 - 664 - 5117; dzsmith@nscorp.com Dwain F. Spencer , Principal, SIMTECHE, 13474 Tierra Heights Road, Redding, CA 66003 - 8011, Ph: 530 - 275 - 6055; Fx: 530 - 275 - 6047; BwanaDwain@aol.com David F. Surb er , Syndicated Environmental TV Producer/Journalist Producer/Host “Make Peace With Nature ” TV Show, P.O. Box 15555, Covington, KY 41015 - 0555, Ph: 859 - 491 - 5000; Fx: 513 - 861 - 5000; surber@surber.com ; surber@MakePeaceWithNature.com Wes M. Taylor , President, Generation Business Unit, TXU, 1601 Bryan Street, 42 nd Floor, Dallas, TX 75201 - 3411, Ph: 214 - 812 - 4699; Fx: 214 - 812 - 4758; wtaylor1@txu.com Malcolm R. Thomas , Vice President, Sales & Marketing, Kennecott Energy Company, 505 South Gillette Avenue, (82716), P.O. Box 3009, Gillette, WY 82717 - 3009, Ph: 307 - 687 - 6006; Fx: 307 - 687 - 6009; thomasm@kenergy.com Paul M. Thompson , 216 Corinthian, Austin, TX 78734, Ph: 512 - 608 - 0672; pmthompson23@austin.rr.com Dianna Tickner , President, Peabody COALTRADE, Inc., 701 Market Street, St. Louis, MO 63101 - 1826 Ph: 314 - 342 - 7613; Fx: 314 - 342 - 7609; Dtickner@peabodygroup.com Anthony J. Topazi , Vice President, Fuel Services, 600 North 18 th Street, Bin 14N - 8160, Birmingham, AL 35202, Ph: 205 - 257 - 6100; Fx: 205 - 257 - 0334; AJTOPAZI@southernco.com Frank L. Torbert, Jr., President, FLT Trading, Inc., 110 Roessler Road, Suite 100B, Pittsburgh, PA 15220, Ph: 412 - 531 - 9533; Fx: 412 - 531 - 4846; flt@nb.net Arvin Trujillo , Executive Director, Division of Natural Resources, The Navajo Nation, P.O. Box 9000 Window Rock, AR 86515 - 9000, Ph: 520 - 871 - 6592/3; Fx: 520 - 871 - 7040; a trujllo@keyah.navajo.org Jane Hughes Turnbull , Principal, Peninsula Energy Partners, 64 Los Altos Square, Los Altos, CA 94022 Ph: 650 - 559 - 1766; Fx: 650 - 559 - 1763; jaturnbu@ix.netcom.com James L. Turner , Pre sident, The Cincinnati Gas & Electric Company, Cinergy Corporation, 139 East Fourth Street, 29ATII, Cincinnati, OH 45202, Ph: 513 - 287 - 3232; Fx: 513 - 287 - 4031 John Turner , President & CEO, The Conservation Fund, 1800 North Kent Street, Suite 240, Arling ton, VA 22219, Ph: 703 - 525 - 6300; Fx: 703 - 525 - 4610; jturner@conservationfund.org Richard P. Verret , Vice President, Transmission, American Electric Power, 700 Morrison Road, Gahanna, OH, Ph: 614 - 883 - 7007; Fx: 614 - 883 - 7440; rverret@csw.com Kathleen A. Walton , Director, Deutsche Bank Alex Brown, 31 West 52 nd Street, New York, NY 10019, Ph: 212 - 469 - 4602; Fx: 212 - 469 - 5225; kathleen.walton@db.com Doris Kelley - Watkins , Vice President & Portfolio Manager, Evergreen Asset Management Corporation 1311 Mamaroneck Avenue, White Plains, NY 10605, Ph: 914 - 644 - 1340; Fx: 914 - 644 - 1341; dkelleywatkins@evergreen - funds.com Alan (Bud) W. Wendorf , Executive Vice President, Fossil Power Technologies Group, Sargent & Lundy, LLC, 55 East Monroe Street, Chicago, IL 60603, Ph: 312 - 269 - 6551; Fx: 312 - 269 - 3681; alan.w.wendorf@slchicago.infonet.com

### 39

Richard M. Whiting , President and COO, Peabody Group, 701 Market Street, Suite 900, St. Louis, MO 63101, Ph: 314 - 342 - 76213400; Fx: 314 - 342 - 7720; rwhiting@peabodygroup.com James F. Wood , President, Babcock & Wilcox Company, 20 South Van Buren Avenue, Barberton, OH 44203, Ph: 330 - 860 - 6005; Fx: 330 - 860 - 1057; jfwood@pgg.mcdermott .com ; powerjim@aol.com Lillian Wu. Consultant, Corporate Technical Strategy Development, IBM Corporation, Route 100, MD 2434, Somers, NY 10589, Ph: 914 - 766 - 2976; Fx: 914 - 766 - 7212 

### NCC Staff Robert A. Beck, Executive Director, The National Coal Council, P.O. Box 17370, Arlington, VA 22216, Ph: 703 - 527 - 1191; Fx: 703 - 527 - 1195; RABeck@nationalcoalcouncil.org ; www.nationalcoalcouncil.org Larry B. Grimes , Esquire, 1350 Eye Street, NW, Suite 1240, Washington, D.C. 20005, Ph: 202 - 682 - 1401, Fx: 703 - 759 - 3557; lbgrimes@erols.com Richard A. Hall , CPA, 1420 Beverly R oad, Suite 140, McLean, VA 22101 - 3719, Ph: 703 - 821 - 5434; Fx: 703 - 761 - 4006 Pamela A. Martin , Executive Assistant, The National Coal Council, P.O. Box 17370, Arlington, VA 22216, Ph: 703 - 527 - 1191; Fx: 703 - 527 - 1195; natcoal@erols.com ; pam@nationalcoalcouncil.org ; www.nationalcoalcouncil.org

### 40



## APPENDIX C 

# The National Coal Council Coal Policy Committee Roster Malcolm R. Thomas, Chairman, Vice President, Sales & Marketing, Kennecott Energy Company, 505 South Gillette Avenue, Gillette, WY 82716; Ph: 307 - 687 - 6006; Fx: 307 - 687 - 6009; thomasm@kenergy.com Dan E. Arvizu, P h.D., Vice President, CH2M Hill, 6060 South Willow Drive, Greenwood Village, CO 80111; Ph: 303 - 713 - 2436; Fx: 303 - 846 - 2231; 741 - 0902 ; darvizu@ch2m.com Richard Bajura, Director, West Virginia University, P.O. Box 6 064, Evansdale Drive, Morgantown, WV 26506 - 6064; Ph: 304 - 293 - 2867 (ext. 5401); Fx: 304 - 293 - 3749; bajura@wvu.edu János M. Beér, Professor of Chemical & Fuel Engineering, Department of Chemical Engineering, Massach usetts Institute of Technology, 25 Ames Street, Building 66 - 548, Cambridge, MA 02139; Ph: 617 - 253 - 6661; Fx: 617 - 258 - 5766; jmbeer@mit.edu Jacqueline F. Bird, Director, Ohio Coal Development Office, Ohio Department of Development, 77 South High Street, 25 th Floor, P.O. Box 1001, Columbus, OH 43216; Ph: 614 - 466 - 3465; Fx: 614 - 466 - 6532; jbird@odod.state.oh.us ; www.od od.state.oh.us/tech/coal Joseph W. Craft, III, President, Alliance Coal, LLC, 1717 South Boulder Avenue, Tulsa, OK 74119; Ph: 918 - 295 - 7602; Fx: 918 - 295 - 7361; josephc@arlp.com Janet Gellici, Executive Director , Western Coal Council, 5765 Olde Wadsworth Boulevard, Suite 18, Arvada, CO 80002; Ph: 303 - 431 - 1456; Fx: 303 - 431 - 1606; info@westcoal.org ; www.westerncoalcouncil. org Gerald (Jerry) A. Hollinden, Vice President, Power Business Sector, URS Corporation, Waterfront Plaza Tower One, 325 West Main Street, Suite 1200, Louisville, KY 40202 - 4251; Ph: 502 - 217 - 1516; Fx: 502 - 569 - 2304; Cell: 512 - 426 - 3326; Jerry_hollinden@urscorp.com Judy A. Jones, Commissioner, Public Utilities Commission of Ohio, 180 East Broad Street, Columbus, OH 43215 - 3793; Ph: 614 - 644 - 8226; Fx: 614 - 466 - 7366; Judy.jones@puc.state.oh.us Thomas G. Kraemer, Group Vice President, Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway Co., 2650 Lou Menk Drive, 2 nd Floor, Ft. Worth, TX 76131 - 2830; Ph: 817 - 352 - 6242; Fx: 817 - 352 - 7940; Thomas.kraemer@bnsf.com Max L. Lake, President, Applied Sciences, Inc., 141 West Xenia Avenue, P.O. Box 579, Cedarville, OH 43214 - 0579; Ph: 937 - 766 - 2020 (ext. 111); Fx: 937 - 766 - 5886; mllake@apsci. com David J. Morris, General Manager, Pacific Coast Coal Company, 30700 Black Diamond - Ravensdale Road, P.O. Box 450, Black Diamond, WA 98010; Ph: 360 - 886 - 1060; Fx: 425 - 435 - 8755; djmorris@aol.com Patrick J. Mu lchay, President, NiSource Holding, 801 East 86 th Avenue, Merrillville, IN 46410; Ph: 219 - 647 - 6027; Fx: 219 - 647 - 6061; pjmulchay@nisource.com Robert E. Murray, Director, The American Coal Company, 29525 Chag rin Boulevard, Suite 111, Pepper Pike, OH 44122; Ph: 216 - 765 - 1240; Fx: 216 - 765 - 2654; bobmurray@coalsource.com Ram G. Narula, Bechtel Fellow & Principal Vice President, Bechtel Power Corporation, 5275 W estview Drive, Frederick, MD 21703; Ph: 301 - 228 - 8804; Fx: 301 - 694 - 9043; RNARULA@Bechtel.Com

### 41

Georgia Ricci Nelson, President, Midwest Generation, EME, LLC, 550 South LaSalle Street, Suite 3500, Chicago, IL 6 0605; Ph: 312 - 583 - 4920; Fx: 312 - 583 - 6015; gnelson@mwgen.com Mary Eileen O ’ Keefe, Director, Midwest Division, KFx/Pegasus Technology, 1362 North State Parkway; Chicago, IL 60610; Ph: 312 - 482 - 9701; Fx: 312 - 482 - 9703; maryeileenokeefe@aol.com W. Gordon Peters, President, Trapper Mining Company, P.O. Box 187, Craig, CO 81626 - 0187; Ph: 970 - 824 - 4401 (Ext. 111); Fx: 970 - 824 - 4632; Gordon@trappermine.com Stephen M. Powell, Sr. Vice President, IPALCO Enterprises, Inc., One Monument Circle, Indianapolis, IN 46204; Ph: 317 - 261 - 8369; Fx: 317 - 630 - 5718; spowell@ipalco.com John Red nour, Sr., Chairman, Du Quoin State Bank, 15 East Main Street, P.O Box 468, Du Quoin, IL 62832; Ph: 618 - 542 - 2111; Fx: 618 - 542 - 5224 Wes M. Taylor, President, Generation Business Unit, TXU, 1601 Bryan Street, 42 nd Floor, Dallas, TX 75201 - 3411; Ph: 214 - 812 - 4699; Fx: 214 - 812 - 4758; Wtaylor1@txu.com

### 42



## APPENDIX D The National Coal Council Electricity Availability Study Work Group Sy Ali, Rolls - Royce North America, Ph: 317 - 230 - 6864; Fx: 317 - 230 - 2900; sy.a.ali@rolls - royce.com Barbara F. Altizer, Virginia Coal Council, Ph: 540 - 964 - 6363; Fx: 540 - 964 - 6342; barb@netscope.net Dan E. Arvizu, CH2M Hill , Ph: 303 - 713 - 2436; Fx: 3 03 - 846 - 2231; darvizu@ch2m.com Richard Bajura, National Research Center for Coal & Energy, West Virginia University, Ph: 304 - 293 - 2867 (ext. 5401); Fx: 304 - 293 - 3749; bajura@wvu .edu Janos M. Beer, Department of Chemical Engineering , Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Ph: 617 - 253 - 6661; Fx: 617 - 258 - 5766; jmbeer@mit.edu Jacqueline F. Bird, Ohio Coal Development Office, Ohio Department of Development, Ph: 614 - 466 - 3465; Fx: 614 - 466 - 6532; jbird@odod.state.oh.us Sandy Blackstone, Natural Resources Attorney/Economist, Ph: 303 - 805 - 3717; Fx: 303 - 805 - 4342; gillesfamily@uswest.net Andrew Blumenfeld, Arch Coal Incorporated , Ph: 314 - 994 - 2900; Fx: 314 - 994 - 2919; ablumenfeld@archcoal.com Judy Brown, Kennecott/U.S. Borax, Ph: 202 - 393 - 0266; brownju@kennecott.com Louis E. Buck, Jr. , ConEdison Solutions, Ph: 914 - 286 - 7063; Fx: 914 - 448 - 2670; BuckL@condesolutions.com Bill Brownell, Hunton & Williams, Ph: 2 02 - 955 - 1555; bbrownell@hunton.com Robert L. Brubaker , Porter, Wright, Morris & Arthur, Ph: 614 - 227 - 2033; Fx: 614 - 227 - 2100; rbrubaker@porterwright.com Fred Busch, Sr. Vice President

–Power Generation Services, Savage Industries, Ph: 801 - 263 - 9400; Fx: 801 - 261 - 6638; fredb@savageind.com Tami Carpenter, Duke Energy, Ph: 704 - 382 - 2707; Fx: 704 - 382 - 9840; tscarpen@duke - energy.com Sonny Cook, Duke Energy, Ph: 704 - 382 - 2707; Fx: 704 - 382 - 9840; dgcook@duke - energy.com Ernesto Corte, Gamma - Metrics, Ph: 858 - 882 - 1200; Fx: 858 - 452 - 2487; ecorte@attglobal.net Charles Crane, Tri - State, Ph: 303 - 452 - 6111; ccrane@tristategt.org Stuart Dalton, EPRI, Ph: 650 - 855 - 2000; Fx: 650 - 855 - 2800; sdalton@epri.com William DePriest, Sargent & Lundy, Ph: 312 - 269 - 7533; william.depriest@slchicago.infonet.com Ellen Ewart, Resource Data International, Ph: 720 - 548 - 5515; Fx: 720 - 548 - 5007; eewart@ftenergy.com Steve Gehl, EPRI, Ph: 650 - 855 - 2000; Fx: 650 - 855 - 2800; sgehl@epri.com

### 43

Janet Gellici, Western Coal Council; Ph: 30 3 - 431 - 1456; Fx: 303 - 431 - 1606; info@westcoal.org Jerry L. Goodwin, NIPSCO, Ph: 219 - 647 - 5530; Fx: 219 - 647 - 5533; sjreynolds@nipsco.com Thomas Grahame, Department of E nergy, Ph: 202 - 586 - 7149; Fx: 202 - 586 - 7085; thomas.grahame@hq.doe.gov Manoj K. Guha, American Electric Power, Ph: 614 - 223 - 1285; Fx: 614 - 223 - 1292; mkguha@aep.com J ohn Hanson, Harnischfeger Industries, Inc., Ph: 414 - 486 - 6840; Fx: 414 - 486 - 6717; jnha@hii.com Gerald A. Hollinden, URS Corporation, Ph: 502 - 217 - 1516; Fx: 502 - 569 - 2304; jerry_hollinden@urscorp.com Steve Jenkins, URS Corporation, Ph: 813 - 387 - 7807; Fx: 813 - 874 - 7424; steve_jenkins@urscorp.com Judy A. Jones, Public Utilities Commission of Ohio, Ph: 614 - 644 - 8226; Fx: 614 - 466 - 7366; judy.jones@puc.state.oh.us Robert Kane, Department of Energy, Ph: 202 - 586 - 4753; Fx: 202 - 586 - 1188; robert.kane@hq.doe.gov Peter B. Lilly, Tr iton Coal Company, Ph: 618 - 394 - 2620; Fx: 618 - 394 - 2638; lilly@triton - coal.com James K. Martin, Dominion Energy, Ph: 804 - 819 - 2176; Fx: 804 - 819 - 2219; james_k_mart in@dom.com Michael W. McLanahan, McLanahan Corporation, Ph: 814 - 695 - 9807; Fx: 814 - 695 - 6684 Patrick McWay, Peabody Group, Ph: 314 - 342 - 7612; pmcway@peabodygroup.com Robert E. Murray, The American Coal Co mpany, Ph: 216 - 765 - 1240; Fx: 216 - 765 - 2654; bobmurray@coalsource.com Ram G. Narula, Bechtel Power Corporation, Ph: 301 - 228 - 8804; Fx: 301 - 694 - 9043; RNARULA@becht el.com Georgia Ricci Nelson (Chair), Midwest Generation, Ph: 312 - 583 - 6015; Fx: 312 - 583 - 4920; gnelson@mwgen.com George Nicolozakes, Marietta Coal Company, Ph: 740 - 695 - 2197; Fx: 740 - 695 - 8055 Terry O ’ Connor, Ar ch Coal Incorporated, Ph: 314 - 994 - 2900; Fx: 314 - 994 - 2919; to ’ connor@archcoal.com Mary Eileen O ’ Keefe, Director, Midwest Division , KFx/Pegasus Technology, Ph: 312 - 482 - 9701; Fx: 312 - 482 - 9703; maryeileenoke efe@aol.com W. Gordon Peters, Trapper Mining Company, Ph: 970 - 824 - 4401 (ext. 111); Fx: 970 - 824 - 4632; gordon@trappermine.com Stephen M. Powell, IPALCO Enterprises, Inc., Ph: 317 - 261 - 8369; Fx: 317 - 630 - 57 18; spowell@ipalco.com Karen Roberts, Xcel Energy, Ph: 806 - 378 - 2505; Fx: 806 - 378 - 2790; karenr@swps.com John Byers Rogan, Babcock & Wilcox, Ph: 330 - 860 - 2122; jbrogan@pgg.mcdermott.com

### 44

William B. Schafer, NexGen Coal Services, Ltd., Ph: 303 - 417 - 0444; Fx: 303 - 417 - 0443; bschafer@nexgen - group.com David F. Surber, Make Peac e With Nature TV Show, Ph: 859 - 491 - 5000; Fx: 513 - 861 - 5000; surber@surber.com Judy Tanselle, PG&E National Energy Group, Ph: 301 - 280 - 6610; Fx: 301 - 280 - 6909; judy. tanselle@gen.pge.com Wes M. Taylor, President, Generation Business Unit, TXU, 1601 Bryan Street, 42 nd Floor, Dallas, TX 75201 - 3411; Ph 214 - 812 - 4699; Fx: 214 - 812 - 4758; Wtaylor1@txu.com Doris Kelley - Watkins, Ever green Asset Management Corp., Ph: 914 - 644 - 1340; Fx: 914 - 644 - 1341; dkelleywatkins@evergreen - funds.com Jacob Williams, Peabody COALTRADE, Inc., Ph: 314 - 342 - 7613; Fx: 314 - 342 - 7609; jwilliam@peabodygroup.com

### 45



## APPENDIX E 

# Correspondence Between U.S. Department of Energy and the National Coal Council

### 46

### 47



## APPENDIX F 

# Correspondence From Industry Experts

### 48

### 49

### 50

### 51

### 52

### 53

### 54

### 55

### 56

### 57

### 58

### 59

### 60

### 61

### 62

### 63

### 64

### 65

### 66

### 67

### 68



# APPENDIX G Selected Comments on the Report, Increasing Electricity Availability From Coal - Fired Generation in the Near - Term

### 69

### 70

### 71

### 72

### 73

### 74

### 75

### 76

### 77

### 78

### 79

### 80

### 81

### 82



## APPENDIX H 

# Acknowledgements The members of the Working Group wish to acknowledge, with sincere tha nks, the special assistance received from the following persons in connection with various phrases of the development of this report: Byers Rogan, Babcock & Wilcox Bill Brownell , Hunton & Williams Bill Schafer , NexGen Rob Brubaker, Porter Wright M orris & Arthur Tony Armor, EPRI Stu Dalton, EPRI Steve Gehl, EPRI Janos Beér, MIT Bill DePriest, Sargent & Lundy Steve Jenkins, URS Corp. Ron Litzinger, Edison Mission Energy Cassandra Miller, NCC Staff (temporary) Pam Martin, NCC Staff David Surber, producer, “Make Peace With Nature ” TV Show Julie Clendenin