DOE/FE-0533

Clean Coal Technology Programs: 

Program Update 2009

Includes Power Plant Improvement Initiative (PPII) 

and Clean Coal Power Initiative (CCPI) Projects

As of June 2009

October 2009

TECHNOLOGY

U.S. Department of Energy

Assistant Secretary for Fossil Energy

Washington, DC 20585

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF

ENERGY Fossil

Energy
DOE/FE-0533

U.S. Department of Energy

Assistant Secretary for Fossil Energy

Washington, DC 20585

October 2009

Clean Coal Technology Programs: 

Program Update 2009

Includes Power Plant Improvement Initiative (PPII) 

and Clean Coal Power Initiative (CCPI) Projects

As of June 2009

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF

ENERGY Fossil

Energy
This report has been reproduced directly from the best available copy.

Available to DOE and DOE contractors from the Offi ce of Scientifi c and Technical Information, 

P.O. Box 62, Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37831; prices available from (865) 576-1188, http://www.osti.gov

Available to the public from the National Technical Information Service, U.S. Department of Commerce,

5285 Port Royal Rd., Springfi eld, Virginia 22161, http://www.ntis.gov

Updated information on the Clean Coal Technology Program is available to the public from the 

National Energy Technology Laboratory’s Clean Coal Technology Compendium, 

http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/coalpower/cctc/index.html

For further information about this publication or related U.S. DOE programs 

please contact:

Comments, corrections, or contributive information may be directed to:

Program Update 

c/o Gene H. Kight

Sr. Financial & Procurement Director

FE-20/Germantown Building

U.S. Department of Energy

1000 Independence Ave., S.W.

Washington, DC 20585-1290

(301) 903-2624

(301) 903-9301 (fax)

gene.kight@hq.doe.gov

Victor K. Der

Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary

Offi ce of Fossil Energy FE-1

U.S. Department of Energy

1000 Independence Ave., S.W.

Washington, DC 20585-1290

(202) 586-6660

victor.der@hq.doe.gov
Program Update 2009 Evaluation

In an effort to continue providing the most useful and effective information to the users of the Program 

Update, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is including the following evaluation form. Please take a few 

minutes to complete the evaluation and mail your comments to DOE. The results will be used to improve the 

next edition of this document.

On a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 meaning not effective and 5 meaning very effective, please rate each of the chapters by circling the appropriate number. A space has been provided to make comments. If you do not use a 

particular chapter and cannot comment on its effectiveness, please circle zero.

Tear Here

Not 

Used

Not

Effective

Very

Effective

Comments?

Executive Summary 0 1 2 3 4 5

Chapter 1. Role of Clean Coal Technology 

Demonstrations

0 12345

Chapter 2. Funding and Costs 0 1 2 3 4 5

Chapter 3. Projects 0 1 2 3 4 5

Appendix A. Historical Perspective, 

Legislative History, and Public Laws

0 12345

Appendix B. CCTDP Financial History 0 1 2 3 4 5

Appendix C. NEPA Actions and Status for 

Active Projects

0 12345

Appendix D. Acronyms, Abbreviations, 

and Symbols

0 12345

What do you fi nd is the best and most 

effective part of the Program Update?

What do you fi nd is the least effective part 

of the Program Update?

Do you have any other suggestions on 

how to improve the Program Update?
If you picked up this Program Update and are not on the mailing list and would like to be added, please tape 

your business card below or neatly print your name and address.

Fold Here

Fold Here

First

Class

Postage

Required

Program Update Evaluation

c/o National Interest Security Company, LLC

18757 North Frederick Road

Gaithersburg, Maryland 20879

Name:

Company:

Address:

City:

State or Province:

Country:

ZIP or Postal Code:

Phone Number:

e-mail:

Tear Here
i

Contents

Executive Summary

Introduction ..............................................................ES-1

Role of Clean Coal Technology Demonstrations .....ES-1

Clean Coal Technology Demonstrations ..................ES-2

Clean Coal Technology Demonstration Funding .....ES-3

Clean Coal Technology Projects ..............................ES-3

Chapter 1. Role of Clean Coal Technology 

Demonstrations

Introduction ................................................................ 1-1

CCTDP ....................................................................... 1-2

PPII ............................................................................. 1-3

CCPI ........................................................................... 1-3

Chapter 2. Funding and Costs

Introduction ................................................................ 2-1

CCTDP ....................................................................... 2-2

PPII ............................................................................. 2-2

CCPI ........................................................................... 2-3

General Provisions and Project Administration ......... 2-5

Chapter 3. Projects

Introduction ................................................................ 3-1

Technology Overview ................................................ 3-1

Project Fact Sheets ..................................................... 3-5

Other Information Sources ......................................... 3-5

Emissions Control ...................................................... 3-9

Advanced Power Systems ........................................ 3-23

Clean Coal Fuels ...................................................... 3-29

Industrial Applications ............................................. 3-35

Appendix A. Historical Perspective, Legislative 

History, and Public Laws ........................................A-1

Appendix B. CCTDP Financial History ..................B-1

Appendix C. NEPA Actions and Status for 

Active Projects.........................................................C-1

Appendix D. Acronyms, Abbreviations, and 

Symbols....................................................................D-1

Index of Projects and Participants.................. Index-1

Executive Summary

Exhibit ES-1, Projects by Market Sector .................ES-3

Chapter 2. Funding and Costs

Exhibit 2-1, Funding for the CCPI and PPII

Programs .................................................................... 2-1

Exhibit 2-2, PPII Project Costs and Financial

Status .......................................................................... 2-2

Exhibit 2-3, CCPI-1 Project Costs and Financial 

Status .......................................................................... 2-3

Exhibit 2-4, CCPI-2 Project Costs and Financial

Status .......................................................................... 2-4

Chapter 3. Projects

Exhibit 3-1, Project Fact Sheets by Market Sector .... 3-6

Exhibit 3-2, Project Fact Sheets by Program ............. 3-6

Exhibit 3-3, Geographic Locations of Projects .......... 3-7

Exhibit 3-4, Project Schedules by Market Sector ...... 3-8

Appendix A. Historical Perspective, Legislative 

History, and Public Laws

Exhibit A-1, CCTDP Legislative History ..................A-4

Exhibit A-2, PPII Legislative History ........................A-7

Exhibit A-3, CCPI Legislative History ......................A-8

Appendix B. CCTDP Financial History

Exhibit B-1, CCTDP Project Costs and CostSharing for Successfully Completed Projects ............B-1

Exhibit B-2, Relationship Between Appropriations

and Subprogram Budgets ...........................................B-1

Exhibit B-3, Annual CCTDP Funding by 

Appropriations and Subprogram Budgets ..................B-2

Exhibit B-4, Financial Status of the CCTDP .............B-3

Exhibit B-5, Apportionment Sequence ......................B-3

Appendix C. NEPA Actions and Status for Active 

Projects

Exhibit C-1, NEPA Action and Status ........................C-2

Exhibits
ii
ES-1

Introduction

The purpose of the Clean Coal Technology Programs: Program Update 

2009 is to provide an updated status of 

the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) 

commercial-scale demonstrations of 

clean coal technologies (CCT). These 

demonstrations have been performed 

under the Clean Coal Technology 

Demonstration Program (CCTDP), 

the Power Plant Improvement Initiative (PPII), and the Clean Coal Power 

Initiative (CCPI). 

Activities under CCTDP concluded in 

2006 and reporting activities for the fi nal 

active project under PPII concluded in 

May 2009. Currently, there are fi ve ongoing projects from the fi rst two rounds of 

the CCPI program along with one successfully completed project. In addition, 

the selection of the fi rst two projects from 

Round 3 was announced in July 2009 

along with a re-opening of the Round 3 

solicitation for additional project proposals. Selections from the re-opened Round 

3 solicitation could be made as early as 

October 2009. Funding for the re-opened 

Round 3 solicitation was provided under 

the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009. 

Executive Summary

Program Update 2009 provides: (1) a 

discussion of the role of clean coal 

technology demonstrations in improving the nation’s energy security and 

reliability, while protecting the environment using the nation’s most abundant 

energy resource—coal; (2) a summary 

of the funding and costs of the demonstrations; and (3) an overview of the 

technologies being demonstrated, along 

with fact sheets for projects that are 

active, recently completed, or recently 

discontinued.

Role of Clean 

Coal Technology 

Demonstrations

Coal is the United States’ most abundant fossil fuel and is recognized as a 

low-cost energy source that advances 

energy security and economic stability. 

Currently, coal-fi red power plants generate nearly half of the nation’s electricity and represent a majority of baseload 

generating capacity. The sustained use 

of the nation’s coal reserves relies on 

developing technological solutions 

that address environmental concerns 

while maintaining coal’s economic 

advantage. These continually evolving 

and expanding technological solutions 

have been designated as “clean coal 

technologies.” 

For over twenty years, DOE has been 

co-funding large-scale demonstrations of emerging CCTs to hasten 

their adoption in the marketplace. 

Financial assistance was deemed necessary to reduce the risk associated 

with first-of-a-kind demonstrations. 

These demonstrations are part of an 

integrated CCT research, development, 

and demonstration (RD&D) program 

that contributes to the DOE’s strategic 

theme of “Promoting America’s energy 

security through reliable, clean and affordable energy.”

Through the year 2030, the Energy 

Information Administration (EIA) 

forecasts electricity consumption will 

grow by approximately 1 percent per 

year. The ability of coal-fi red generation to help meet this demand could be 

limited by concerns over greenhouse 

gas (GHG) emissions and the potential 

for future legislation to impose limits. 

While the CCT demonstrations performed to date have made signifi cant 

gains in terms of environmental performance and effi ciency, the greatest challenges may lie ahead from restrictions 

on carbon dioxide (CO2

) emissions. To 

address concerns over GHG emissions, 

carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies are the exclusive focus of the 

initial and re-opened CCPI Round 3 

solicitation.

For the foreseeable future, coal will 

continue to provide the majority of the 

nation’s baseload generation capacity. If 

CCS technologies are able to provide an 

economical solution to CO2

 emissions, 

the nation will continue to benefi t from 

coal’s competitive electric generation 

costs, the security of its domestic availability, and its relative price stability in 

comparison to other fuels. 
ES-2

Clean Coal Technology 

Demonstrations

Since 1985, DOE has shared in the 

funding of commercial-scale demonstration projects through the CCTDP, 

PPII, and CCPI. While the specific 

technologies and focus of the programs 

continued to evolve over time, all three 

programs shared similar general provisions and administrative principles. 

The CCTDP focused on: 

• Commercializing processes that 

reduced emissions of sulfur dioxide 

(SO2

) and nitrogen oxides (NOx); 

• Demonstrating more effi cient and 

environmentally friendly alternatives to traditional pulverized coal 

boilers; 

• Demonstrating coal preparation and 

conversion technologies leading to 

cleaner fuels; and 

• Demonstrating improved industrial 

technologies for clean coal use. 

With 33 successfully completed projects, the CCTDP yielded technologies 

that met or exceeded environmental 

regulatory requirements while providing the reliability and competitive 

costs necessary for success in the 

marketplace. 

Following the power blackouts and 

brownouts experienced in 1999 and 

2000, Congress directed establishment 

of the PPII to provide for the commercial-scale demonstration of technologies to assure the reliability of the 

nation’s energy supply from existing 

and new electric generating facilities. 

The single solicitation required participants to offer signifi cant improvements 

in power plant performance, thereby 

leading to enhanced electric reliability. 

Of the fi ve projects awarded, four were 

successfully completed. 

The CCPI was initiated in 2002 to advance a broad spectrum of promising 

technologies that target today’s most 

pressing environmental, economic, and 

energy security challenges. The fi rst 

CCPI solicitation (CCPI-1) was open to 

“any technology advancement related 

to coal-based power generation that 

results in effi ciency, environmental, 

and economic improvement compared 

to currently available state-of-the-art 

alternatives.” 

In February 2004, the second CCPI solicitation (CCPI-2) was issued seeking 

proposals to demonstrate advances in 

coal gasifi cation systems, technologies 

that permit improved management of 

carbon emissions, and advancements 

that reduce mercury and other power 

plant emissions. 

In August 2008, the third solicitation 

(CCPI-3A) was issued specifi cally focused on the capture and sequestration, 
ES-3

or benefi cial reuse, of CO2 emissions 

from coal-based electricity production. 

From the proposals submitted in January 2009, DOE selected Basin Electric 

Power Cooperative’s Antelope Valley 

Station CO2

 Capture and Sequestration Project and Hydrogen Energy 

International LLC’s Commercial Demonstration of Advanced IGCC with Full 

Carbon Capture.

Following the passage of ARRA, DOE 

announced the intent to re-open the 

third solicitation. On June 9, 2009, 

DOE issued an amendment that provided for a second application due 

date (CCPI-3B) of August 24, 2009. 

Applicants that accepted selection 

under CCPI-3A will not be considered 

for selection under CCPI-3B. Selections could be announced as early as 

October 2009.

Clean Coal Technology 

Demonstration Funding

CCPI funding during fi scal year 2009 

exceeded $1 billion dollars. Of that 

amount, $800 million was apportioned 

under ARRA with the additional funds 

provided under the Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009. These funds, along 

with uncommitted funds from prior 

year appropriations, result in a total of 

approximately $1.4 billion available 

for awards under CCPI-3A and CCPI3B. The total DOE share of the two 

projects selected under CCPI-3A was 

$408 million.

It is anticipated that projects selected 

under CCPI-3A and -3B could be 

funded, in whole or in part, from funds 

appropriated under ARRA. Projects 

receiving ARRA funding will require 

special tracking and reporting requirements as specifi ed under the ARRA 

legislation. 

As with prior CCPI solicitations, funding for the entire DOE share of the project must be available before a project 

may be selected. Unlike prior CCPI solicitations, if funds become available as 

a result of unsuccessful negotiations, or 

in the event of withdrawals, DOE may 

decide to select one or more additional 

projects under CCPI-3B.

Clean Coal Technology 

Projects

Program Update 2009 provides project 

fact sheets for the fi ve ongoing, two 

recently completed, and two recently 

discontinued projects. One of the completed projects is from the PPII and the 

rest are CCPI. As of yet, fact sheets 

are unavailable for the two recently 

selected projects. 

The fact sheets are organized by the 

following market sectors: (1) emissions 

control for existing and new power 

plants; (2) advanced power systems for 

repowering existing plants and providing new generating capacity; (3) clean 

coal fuels for converting the nation’s 

vast coal resources to low-emission 

fuels; and (4) industrial applications for 

coal and coal by-products. Exhibit ES-1 

groups the projects by market sector and 

indicates the demonstration program, 

participant, status, and page number of 

the fact sheet for each project. The following text provides highlights of the 

two recently completed projects.

Exhibit ES-1

Projects by Market Sector

Project Program Participant Status Page

Emissions Control

Demonstration of Integrated Optimization Software at the 

Baldwin Energy Complex

CCPI-1 NeuCo, Inc. Completed 3-10

 Greenidge Multi-Pollutant Control Project PPII CONSOL Energy, Inc. Completed 3-14

Mercury Specie and Multi-Pollutant Control CCPI-2 NeuCo, Inc. Operation 3-18

 TOXECON Retrofi t for Mercury and Multi-Pollutant 

Control on Three 90-MW Coal-Fired Boilers

CCPI-1 Wisconsin Electric Power Company Operation 3-20

Advanced Power Systems

Demonstration of a Coal-Based Transport Gasifi er CCPI-2 Southern Company Services, Inc. Design 3-24

 Mesaba Energy Project – Unit 1 CCPI-2 MEP-I LLC Design 3-26

Clean Coal Fuels

 Gilberton Coal-to-Clean Fuels and Power Co-Production 

Project

CCPI-1 WMPI PTY., LLC Discontinued 3-30

Increasing Power Plant Effi ciency – Lignite Fuel 

Enhancement

CCPI-1 Great River Energy Construction 3-32

Industrial Applications

 Western Greenbrier Co-Production Demonstration Project CCPI-1 Western Greenbrier Co-Generation, LLC Discontinued 3-36
ES-4

The multi-pollutant control system is 

capable of achieving deep reductions 

in NOx

 and SO2 at a lower capital cost 

relative to conventional technologies. 

The capital cost is about 40 percent 

less than the estimated cost to retrofi t 

conventional SCR and wet flue gas 

desulfurization (FGD) systems on 

smaller units. Mercury, acid gas, and 

primary particulate matter control are 

co-benefi ts of the NOx

 and SO2 control 

systems and are provided at no additional cost.

Demonstration of Integrated 

Optimization Software at the 

Baldwin Energy Complex

The CCPI-1 project established the 

broadest application to date of advanced 

optimization software at Dynegy’s 

three-unit, 1,768-MW Baldwin Energy 

Complex located in Baldwin, Illinois. 

NeuCo, Inc., the project’s participant 

and technology provider, demonstrated 

fi ve optimization products that were integrated through NeuCo’s ProcessLink®

technology. This technology uses neural networks, expert systems, and fuzzy 

logic to link the individual optimization 

modules to maximize specifi c performance objectives and operator priorities. These software products were 

developed to optimize the combustion 

and soot blowing processes, reduce the 

ammonia consumed by SCR systems, 

and improve unit thermal performance 

and plant-wide availability.

The software installation was completed at the end of 2006 and was 

followed by a one year evaluation and 

documentation period. Quantitative 

project benefi ts included: reduced NOx

emissions by 12–14 percent; improved 

average heat rate (fuel effi ciency) by 

0.7 percent; increased available megawatt hours (MWh) by an estimated 1.5 

percent; reduced ammonia consumption by 15–20 percent; and commensurate reductions in GHG, mercury, and 

particulates. These benefi ts translated 

to lower costs, improved reliability, and 

greater commercial availability with 

significantly reduced environmental 

impacts. 

The optimizers commercialized as part 

of this project are expected to pay for 

themselves in well under one year when 

deployed on typical plant types and 

fuel categories that comprise the U.S. 

fossil power industry. This represents a 

highly cost-effective way of addressing 

some of the industry’s most pressing 

challenges and leverages the benefi ts 

of investments in SCR equipment, lowNOx

 systems, and modern control and 

instrumentation systems.

Greenidge Multi-Pollutant 

Control Project

The PPII project demonstrated an integrated combination of pollution control 

technologies on a 107-MWe coal-fi red 

unit at the AES Greenidge Power Plant 

located near Dresden, New York. The 

overall objective of the project was 

to demonstrate an affordable means 

for achieving deep reductions in the 

emissions of a number of pollutants for 

smaller, coal-fi red electric generating 

units, allowing these units to continue 

to produce low-cost, reliable electricity 

under increasingly stringent air emissions regulations.

The project demonstrated an integrated 

system consisting of three major components: 

• NOx

 control via a hybrid selective 

noncatalytic reduction (SNCR) and 

in-duct selective catalytic reduction 

(SCR) system; 

• SO2

, acid gas, and particulate matter 

control via the Turbosorp® circulating fl uidized-bed dry scrubbing 

system and baghouse; and 

• Mercury control via the supplemental benefi ts afforded by the NOx

control and Turbosorp® systems, 

and activated carbon injection if 

needed.

Three series of tests were conducted 

through June 2008. Test results demonstrated that the combination of 

technologies met all of the emissions 

reduction goals of the project. The average SO2

 removal effi ciency observed 

during commercial operation exceeded 

96 percent. The average coal-to-stack 

mercury removal effi ciency measured 

between March 2007 and June 2008 

was 98 percent, without the need for 

activated carbon injection. The performance target of 95 percent SO3

 and 

HCl removal effi ciency was achieved. 

Overall NOx emissions were reduced 

by over 50 percent relative to the preproject baseline. The new baghouse 

reduced particulate emissions to less 

than 0.001 lb/mmBtu. 
1-1

Introduction

Coal is the nation’s most abundant fossil fuel and is recognized as a low-cost 

energy source that advances energy security and economic stability. Currently, 

coal-fi red power plants generate nearly 

half of the nation’s electricity and represent a majority of baseload generating 

capacity. In addition to the generation 

of electricity, coal represents a stable 

domestic energy source that can be used 

to produce environmentally friendly 

fuels such as hydrogen and synthetic 

natural gas, in addition to strategically 

important chemicals. The sustained 

use of the nation’s coal reserves relies 

on developing technological solutions 

that address environmental concerns 

while maintaining coal’s economic 

advantage. These continually evolving 

and expanding technological solutions 

have been designated as “clean coal 

technologies.” 

Federally sponsored research and development (R&D) for coal applications 

began in the 1970s. By the 1980s, many 

promising technologies had emerged. 

However, there was a realization that 

moving the technologies into the 

marketplace, where they could have 

an impact, required overcoming one 

major remaining hurdle—large-scale 

demonstration. Demonstration proves 

the competitive cost and performance 

of a clean coal technology (CCT) in a 

commercial setting in order to reduce 

risk to acceptable levels in the fi nancial 

and technical arenas. To mitigate the 

risks at the demonstration stage, the 

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) 

initiated the Clean Coal Technology 

Demonstration Program (CCTDP) in 

1985. The CCTDP forged cost-sharing 

partnerships between DOE, non-fed1. Role of Clean Coal Technology 

Demonstrations

eral public entities, and technology 

suppliers and users, which reduced the 

fi nancial and technical risk facing participants to acceptable levels. CCTDP 

demonstrations were required to be at a 

scale and in an operational environment 

suffi cient to determine their potential 

for satisfying technical, economic, and 

environmental needs. 

The CCTDP comprised fi ve competitive solicitations resulting in 33 successfully completed demonstration 

projects. In 2001, DOE implemented 

the Power Plant Improvement Initiative 

(PPII) in a single solicitation applying 

CCTDP principles for demonstrations 

addressing electric power reliability 

concerns. In 2002, DOE launched the 

comprehensive Clean Coal Power Initiative (CCPI) to address 21st century 

energy issues through multiple solicitations. DOE is currently conducting a 

third CCPI solicitation that will result 

in two sets of selected projects. 

Collectively, these commercial demonstration programs, as part of an integrated CCT research, development, 

and demonstration (RD&D) program, 

contribute to the DOE strategic theme 

of “Promoting America’s energy security through reliable, clean, and affordable energy.” 

Since the early beginnings of CCTDP, 

coal technologies have made signifi -

cant gains in terms of environmental 

performance and effi ciency; however, 

the greatest challenges may lie ahead 

with restrictions on carbon dioxide 

(CO2

) emissions. To address concerns 

over greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, 

carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies have become the primary focus of future demonstration activities. 

Through the year 2030, the Energy 

Information Administration (EIA) 

forecasts electricity consumption will 

grow by approximately 1 percent per 

year in EIA’s Annual Energy Outlook 

2009 (AEO2009) reference case. The 

reference case estimates that total electricity generation at coal-fi red plants 

will increase by 19 percent by 2030 
1-2

and coal’s contribution to electricity 

generation will decrease modestly from 

49 to 47 percent. 

Growth in coalfi red generation is limited by concerns about GHG emissions 

and the potential for future legislation 

to impose limits. In the AEO2009

reference case, 3 percentage points 

were added to the cost of capital for 

new coalfi red capacity that reduced 

the competitiveness of coal compared 

to other fuel and technology alternatives. 

In April 2009, EIA issued a revised 

AEO2009 reference case primarily due 

to the potential effects of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act 

(ARRA). Under the revised AEO2009

reference case, coal’s contribution to 

electricity generation in 2030 decreased 

slightly from the original estimate of 

47 percent to 46 percent, largely due to 

incentives made available under ARRA 

for renewable generation. ARRA also 

provided $3.4 billion for additional 

R&D into of fossil energy technologies pertaining to CCS research and 

demonstration. 

For the foreseeable future, coal will 

continue to provide the majority of the 

nation’s baseload generation capacity. If 

CCS technologies are able to provide an 

economical solution to CO

2

 emissions, 

the nation will continue to benefi t from 

coal’s competitive electric generation 

costs, the security of its domestic availability, and its relative price stability in 

comparison to other fuels. 

CCTDP

Begun in 1985, the CCTDP was an ambitious government-industry initiative 

to demonstrate inventive approaches 

to address environmental concerns and 

otherwise advance the utilization of the 

nation’s abundant coal resources. The 

program’s goal was to demonstrate the 

best, most innovative technology at 

a scale large enough so that industry 

could determine whether the new processes had commercial merit.

Projects proposed by industry were 

selected through a series of fi ve competitions aimed at attracting promising 

technologies that had not been demonstrated at commercial scale. Projects 

selected included sulfur dioxide (SO

2

) 

control systems; nitrogen oxides (NO

x

) 

control technologies; fluidized-bed 

combustion; gasification; advanced 

coal processing technologies to produce clean fuels; and coal utilization 

for industrial applications. These technologies have allowed U.S. reliance on 

coal to continue, while cutting multiple 

pollutant emission levels by anywhere 

from 30–95 percent. More than 20 of 

the technologies tested in the original 

program have achieved commercial 

success. The final CCTDP project 

ended in 2006.

Early on, the CCTDP responded to concerns over acid rain, which is formed by 

sulfur and nitrogen pollutants emitted 

by coal-burning power plants. In March 

1987, President Reagan announced the 

endorsement of the recommendations 

of the Special Envoys on Acid Rain, 

calling for additional funding for industry/government demonstrations of 

innovative control technology. 

Along with acid rain concerns, there 

was an emerging issue in the area of 

hazardous air pollutants (HAPs). To 

assess the impacts on coal-based power 

generation, CCTDP projects were 

leveraged to obtain data through an 

integrated effort among the DOE, EPA, 

the Electric Power Research Institute 

(EPRI), and the Utility Air Regulatory 

Group. Through this effort, concerns 

about HAPs relative to coal-based 

power generation have been signifi -

cantly mitigated, enabling focus on but 

a few fl ue gas constituents. 

The CCTDP introduced a number of innovative approaches and principles that 

advanced the effectiveness of government-industry partnerships, including: 
1-3

• Strong and stable fi nancial commitment for the life of a project, 

including full appropriation of the 

government’s share of the costs; 

• Multiple solicitations spread over 

a number of years enabling clean 

coal technologies to address a broad 

range of national needs with a portfolio of evolving technologies;

• Demonstrations conducted at commercial-scale in actual user environments, allowing clear assessment of a technology’s commercial 

potential;

• Clearly defi ned roles of government 

and industry, refl ecting the degree 

of cost-sharing required;

• A requirement for at least 50 percent 

cost-sharing throughout all project 

phases, enhancing participants’ 

commitment;

• A requirement for industry to commit to commercialize the technology;

• A requirement for repayment up to 

the government’s cost-share; and

• A review of environmental impacts 

of a project according to National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 

requirements.

Nearly all of these approaches and 

principles employed for the CCTDP 

were carried over to the PPII and CCPI 

programs. A requirement for repayment 

was waived for CCPI Round 3.

PPII

When U.S. consumers were confronted 

in 1999 and 2000 with blackouts and 

brownouts of electric power in major regions of the country, Congress 

responded by directing DOE to issue 

“a general request for proposals for 

the commercial-scale demonstration 

of technologies to assure the reliability of the nation’s energy supply from 

existing and new electric generating 

facilities... .”

On February 6, 2001, DOE issued a 

solicitation for proposals under the 

program known as the PPII. By the 

deadline of April 19, 2001, some 24 

candidate projects had been submitted 

for government cost-shared fi nancial 

assistance. 

On September 28, 2001, DOE selected 

eight projects. Subsequently, three of 

the eight projects were withdrawn by 

their industrial sponsors, and a fourth 

project was discontinued. The four 

remaining projects were successfully 

completed.

CCPI 

In the 21st century, additional environmental concerns have emerged: 

the potential health impacts of trace 

emissions of mercury, the effects of 

microscopic particles on people with 

respiratory problems, and the global 

climate-altering impact of GHGs. With 

coal likely to remain the predominant 

fuel for electric power generation for 

the foreseeable future, DOE remains 

committed to demonstrating the latest clean coal technologies that will 

continue to reduce the environmental 

impact of the lowest-cost domestic fuel 

resource. 

The CCPI is closely linked with 

R&D activities that are focused on 

ultra-clean, fossil-fuel-based energy 

complexes in the 21st century. In January 2004, the Clean Coal Technology 

Roadmap was developed cooperatively 

with the coal and power industry to address short- and long-term coal technology needs. Consistent with the Energy 

Policy Act of 2005, projects selected 

under the CCPI advance efficiency, 

environmental performance, and cost 

competitiveness well beyond that of 

technologies that are currently in commercial service.

Following the general principles of 

the original CCTDP, the CCPI was 

initiated in 2002 to advance a broad 
1-4

spectrum of promising technologies 

that target today’s most pressing environmental, economic, and energy 

security challenges. The first CCPI 

solicitation (CCPI-1) was open to 

“any technology advancement related 

to coal-based power generation that 

results in effi ciency, environmental, 

and economic improvement compared 

to currently available state-of-the-art 

alternatives.” In many respects, CCPI-1 

was intended to capture a snapshot of 

the full range of technological advancements made since the last major clean 

coal technology solicitation had been 

issued in 1992.

Of the eight projects initially selected 

under CCPI-1, fi ve awards were made. 

Two of the awarded projects ended prior to successful completion. Of the remaining three, one project is complete, 

one is in operation, and one is nearing 

completion of construction activities. 

The completed project demonstrated a 

relatively low-cost, advanced softwarebased application that was responsible 

for reduced emissions and improved 

plant effi ciency. The two active projects 

are focused on improving the fuel use 

effi ciency of lignite coals and a sorbent 

injection process to capture mercury 

and reduce other fl ue gas emissions. 

In February 2004, the second CCPI solicitation (CCPI-2) was issued seeking 

proposals to demonstrate advances in 

coal gasifi cation systems, technologies 

that permit improved management of 

carbon emissions, and advances that 

reduce mercury and other power plant 

emissions. In October 2004, DOE announced the selection of four projects 

from 13 proposals. Subsequently, one 

project withdrew during negotiations 

while the remaining three are ongoing. 

The three active projects are valued at 

nearly $3.8 billion, with DOE commitments of $335.8 million. Two projects 

involve integrated gasifi cation combined-cycle (IGCC) and the third addresses controlling mercury and other 

power plant emissions.

On August 11, 2008, DOE issued the 

Funding Opportunity Announcement 

for the third solicitation (CCPI-3A). 

CCPI-3A specifi cally focused on the 

capture and sequestration, or benefi cial 

reuse, of CO2

 emissions from coalbased electricity production (minimum 

50 percent gross energy output as 

electricity). Proposals were required 

by January 20, 2009 and the selection 

of two projects was announced on July 

1, 2009. DOE established the following requirements for commercial-scale 

demonstration:

• Technologies must capture and sequester, or put to benefi cial reuse, a 

minimum of 300,000 tons per year 

of CO2

 emissions;

• Technologies must attain 90 percent 

CO2

 capture effi ciency in the fl ue 

gas being treated; and

• Technologies must show signifi -

cant progress toward CO2

 capture 

and sequestration with less than 10 

percent increase in electricity costs 

for gasifi cation systems, and less 

than 35 percent for combustion and 

oxycombustion systems.

Following the passage of ARRA, 

DOE announced the intent to re-open 

the third solicitation. 

On June 9, 2009, DOE 

issued an amendment 

that provided for a second application due date 

(CCPI-3B) of August 24, 

2009, along with several 

programmatic and administrative revisions. 

Of particular note, revisions included a reduction in the carbon capture 

effi ciency from 90 to 50 

percent and a reduction 

in the minimum coal or 

coal refuse energy input 

requirement from 75 to 

55 percent. Projects that 

accept selections under 

CCPI-3A will not be 

considered for selection 

under CCPI-3B. DOE anticipates making selections in October 2009. 

Projects selected under CCPI-3A and 

-3B will be funded, in whole or in part, 

from funds appropriated under ARRA. 

Projects receiving ARRA funding will 

require special tracking and reporting 

requirements as specified under the 

ARRA legislation and related Offi ce 

of Management and Budget (OMB) 

guidance. Unlike prior CCPI solicitations, if funds become available as a 

result of unsuccessful negotiations, 

DOE may decide to select one or more 

additional projects under the CCPI-3B 

solicitation. However, any additional 

selections would still be subject to the 

expedited expenditure requirement of 

ARRA. 

A total of $1.4 billion will be available 

for awards under CCPI-3A and -3B. Of 

the total amount, approximately $800 

million was provided under ARRA with 

the remainder provided through the 

annual congressional appropriations 

process. 
2-1

2. Funding and Costs

Exhibit 2-1

Funding for the CCPI and PPII Programs 

(Dollars in Thousands)

Fiscal Year Total

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009a

PPII Projects 93,843 93,843

CCPI-1 Projects 144,565 143,626 288,191

CCPI-2 Projects 163,471 47,446 210,917

CCPI-3 Projectsb 47,633 58,154 66,599 1,081,476 1,253,863

Program Support 948 1,500 1,490 1,701 493 495 604 694 6,304 14,228

SBIR & STTR 3,935 3,909 4,709 1,367 1,372 1,675 1,918 18,885

Other Adjustmentsc 209 975 2,119 694 500 789 394 5,680

Total 95,000 150,000 150,000 172,000 50,000 50,000 60,433 70,000 1,088,174 1,885,607

a

 Includes FY09 Appropriations and American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funding

b

 Projects awarded under CCPI-3A and -3B could be funded, in whole or in part, from funds appropriated under ARRA

c

 General and Omnibus Reductions and Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) charges

Introduction

Funding for the Clean Coal Technology 

Demonstration Program (CCTDP) and 

Power Plant Improvement Initiative 

(PPII) was provided through the annual 

appropriations bills for the Department 

of the Interior and Related Agencies. 

Current funding for the Clean Coal 

Power Initiative (CCPI) is provided 

under the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act.

Congress has appropriated a net amount 

of $1.75 billion for the CCTDP based on 

appropriations bills that began in fi scal 

year 1986. These funds were committed to demonstration projects selected 

through fi ve competitive solicitations. 

The CCTDP has concluded with 33 

successfully completed projects. The 

last active project submitted its Final 

Report in March 2007.

A single PPII solicitation was conducted in 2001, with funding provided 

by appropriations for FY01 that established a transfer of $95 million 

in funding that previously had been 

appropriated for the CCTDP. The 

PPII has concluded with four successfully completed projects. Three projects 

withdrew during the negotiation phase 

prior to contract award. One project 

withdrew after award, but prior to successful completion. 

In addition to the $95 million made 

available for PPII, nearly $1.8 billion 

has been appropriated for CCPI projects. Exhibit 2-1 summarizes the funding by fi scal year for the PPII and CCPI 

programs. The amount of appropriated 

funds available for project awards is 

reduced by Program Support, the Small 

Business Innovation Research (SBIR) 

program, the Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) program, and other 

adjustments. Program Support provides 

for a share of the DOE administrative 

expenses of the programs. The SBIR 

program implements the Small Business Innovation Development Act of 

1982, and provides funding for small, 

innovative fi rms in selected research 

and development (R&D) areas. The 

STTR program implements the Small 

Business Technology Transfer Act 

of 1992, which provides funding for 

small business concerns performing 

cooperative R&D efforts. Other adjustments include across-the-board general 

and omnibus reductions imposed by 

Congress. Starting in FY09, the CCPI 

program is exempt from SBIR/STTR 

adjustments.

The Round 1 CCPI (CCPI-1) solicitation was conducted in 2002 based on 

funding provided by appropriations for 

FY02 and FY03. The Round 2 CCPI 

(CCPI-2) solicitation was conducted 

in 2004 with funding provided by 

appropriations for FY04 and FY05, 

along with uncommitted funds from 

prior CCPI and PPII appropriations. 

As of June 30, 2009, one CCPI project 

was complete and fi ve were ongoing. 

Four projects did not progress beyond 

the negotiation phase and two projects 

withdrew after award. In addition, two 

projects were selected in July 2009 under the initial closing date of the third 

solicitation (CCPI-3A).
2-2

CCTDP

Congress has appropriated a net amount 

of $1.75 billion for CCTDP project 

awards and program administration 

expenses. These funds were committed to demonstration projects selected 

through fi ve competitive solicitations. 

The CCTDP has concluded with 33 

successfully completed projects. The 

fi nal active project withdrew prior to 

completion in March 2006 and submitted a Final Report of activities in March 

2007. The successfully completed 

projects resulted in a combined investment by the federal government and 

the private sector of $3.25 billion. DOE 

contributed $1.3 billion toward these 

projects, representing approximately 

40 percent of the total project costs. 

Project participants contributed the 

majority of the project costs, averaging 60 percent for the 33 successfully 

completed projects. 

Appendix B provides a fi nancial history 

of the CCTDP. 

PPII

The PPII was established by appropriations made for FY01 (Public Law 106-

291) through a transfer of $95 million 

in funding previously appropriated for 

the CCTDP. Funds were committed to 

demonstration projects from a single 

solicitation issued in February 2001. 

Eight projects were selected for negotiation in September 2001 among 24 

applications.

The PPII has concluded with four successfully completed projects. Three 

projects withdrew during the negotiation phase prior to contract award. 

One project withdrew after award, but 

prior to successful completion. No additional solicitations are planned, and 

unused funds are authorized for use 

under CCPI.

Exhibit 2-2

PPII Project Costs and Financial Status 

(Dollars)

Total 

Project Costs DOE Share DOE Obligated DOE Cost 

Achieving NSPS Emission Standards Through Integration 

of Low-NOx

 Burners with an Optimization Plan for Boiler 

Combustion (project discontinued)

3,005,169 1,387,530 1,387,530 1,387,530

Big Bend Power Station Neural Network-Sootblower 

Optimization (project complete) 2,381,614 905,013 905,013 905,013

 Commercial Demonstration of the Manufactured Aggregate 

Processing Technology Utilizing Spray Dryer Ash (project 

complete)

19,581,734 7,224,000 7,224,000 7,224,000

Demonstration of a Full-Scale Retrofi t of the Advanced 

Hybrid Particulate Collector (Advanced HybridTM) 

Technology (project complete)

13,353,288 6,490,585 6,490,585 6,490,585

 Greenidge Multi-Pollutant Control Project (project complete) 32,742,976 14,341,423 14,341,423 14,341,423

Total PPII 71,064,781 30,348,551 30,348,551 30,348,551

The DOE funding commitments for 

the PPII projects total over $30 million. The total funding commitment 

for the projects is over $70 million. 

Participants have funded 57 percent of 

the total project costs. Exhibit 2-2 summarizes the project costs and fi nancial 

status of the PPII projects. The fi nancial status for the individual projects is 

provided under the “DOE Obligated” 

and “DOE Cost” columns in Exhibit 

2-2. The amount shown under “DOE 

Obligated” indicates the amount DOE 

has funded toward the total DOE share 

of the project. The costs indicate the 

amount invoiced to DOE for payment. 
2-3

CCPI

The CCPI is a cost-shared partnership 

between government and industry to 

demonstrate advanced coal-based technologies, with the goal of accelerating 

commercial deployment of promising 

technologies to ensure the nation has 

clean, reliable, and affordable electricity. Thus far, three solicitations have been 

issued (CCPI-1, CCPI-2, and CCPI-3). 

Following submission of proposals for 

the initial CCPI-3 solicitation (CCPI3A), the solicitation was re-opened with 

minor amendments for another round of 

proposals (CCPI-3B).

Funding provided by appropriations 

for FY02 and FY03 served as the basis 

for the CCPI-1 solicitation. The initial 

CCPI competition began in March 2002 

when DOE issued a solicitation offering $330 million in federal matching 

funds for industry-proposed projects. 

In January 2003, DOE announced that 

eight projects, valued at more than $1.3 

billion, would make up the fi rst round 

of the CCPI. Subsequently, three projects were withdrawn. Of the remaining 

fi ve projects, two are ongoing, one is 

complete, and two awarded projects 

were discontinued. As of June 30, 2009, 

the total cost of the fi ve projects was 

estimated at about $121 million, with 

the DOE share being approximately 

$56 million.

Exhibit 2-3 summarizes the project 

cost and fi nancial status of the CCPI-1 

projects.

Funding for CCPI-2 was provided by 

an appropriation of $172 million for 

FY04 and an appropriation of $50 

million for FY05, along with uncommitted funds from prior CCPI and 

PPII appropriations. In February 2004, 

DOE issued the CCPI-2 solicitation 

offering approximately $280 million 

in federal funds. In October 2004, four 

projects were selected. Subsequently, 

one project has withdrawn and three 

are under way. 

Exhibit 2-4 summarizes the project 

costs and fi nancial status of the CCPI-2 

projects.

In August 2008, DOE issued a Funding 

Opportunity Announcement (FOA) for 

the third solicitation (CCPI-3A) that 

focused exclusively on the capture 

Exhibit 2-3

CCPI-1 Project Costs and Financial Status 

(Dollars)

Total 

Project Costs DOE Share DOE Obligated DOE Cost 

Advanced Multi-Product Coal Utilization By-Product 

Processing Plant (project discontinued) 1,245,305 621,407 621,407 617,366

Demonstration of Integrated Optimization Software 

at the Baldwin Energy Complex (project complete) 19,904,733 8,592,630 8,592,630 8,592,630

 Increasing Power Plant Effi ciency – Lignite Fuel 

Enhancement 31,512,215 13,518,737 13,518,737 13,306,011

 TOXECON Retrofi t for Mercury and Multi-Pollutant 

Control on Three 90-MW Coal-Fired Boilers 52,978,115 24,859,578 24,859,578 21,736,758

 Western Greenbrier Co-Production Demonstration 

Project (project discontinued) 16,256,940 8,128,470 8,128,470 7,861,662

Total CCPI-1 121,087,308 55,720,822 55,720,822 52,114,427
2-4

and sequestration, or benefi cial reuse, 

of CO2 emissions from coal-fueled 

electricity production. Proposals were 

submitted in January 2009. In July 

2009, DOE selected two projects for 

negotiation. Funds appropriated for 

FY06 through FY09 were available 

for CCPI-3A, along with uncommitted 

funds from previous solicitations and 

funds appropriated under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act 

(ARRA) of 2009.

In May 2009, DOE issued a Notice of 

Intent to Issue an amendment for the 

third CCPI solicitation. On June 9, 

2009, DOE issued an amendment that 

provided for a second application due 

date (CCPI-3B) of August 24, 2009. 

While the focus remained the same 

as under CCPI-3A, there were several 

programmatic and administrative revisions. DOE anticipates making selections in October 2009. Unlike prior 

CCPI solicitations, if funds become 

available as a result of unsuccessful 

negotiations, or in the event of withdrawals, DOE may decide to select one 

or more additional projects. 

Projects selected under CCPI-3A and 

-3B could be funded, in whole or in 

part, from funds appropriated under 

ARRA. Projects receiving ARRA funding will require special tracking and reporting requirements as specifi ed under 

the ARRA legislation. DOE anticipates 

that $1.4 billion will be available for 

awards under CCPI-3A and -3B. Of the 

total amount, approximately $800 million was provided under ARRA.

Exhibit 2-4

CCPI-2 Project Costs and Financial Status 

(Dollars)

Total 

Project Costs DOE Share DOE Obligated DOE Cost 

Demonstration of a Coal-Based Transport Gasifi er 1,625,082,040 293,750,000 293,750,000 23,547,938

Mercury Specie and Multi-Pollutant Control 15,560,811 6,079,479 6,079,479 6,079,479

 Mesaba Energy Project – Unit 1 2,155,680,783 36,000,000 22,245,505 17,776,616

Total CCPI-2 3,796,323,634 335,829,480 322,074,984 47,404,033
2-5

General Provisions and 

Project Administration

Similar requirements and oversight 

apply to projects in CCTDP, PPII, and 

CCPI. A principal characteristic of 

the demonstration projects is the cooperative funding agreement between 

the participant and the federal government referred to as cost-sharing. This 

cost-sharing approach was introduced 

in Public Law 99-190, An Act Making 

Appropriations for the Department of 

the Interior and Related Agencies for 

the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 

1986, and for Other Purposes. General 

concepts and requirements of the costsharing principle, as applied to the 

demonstration projects, include the 

following elements:

• The federal government may not 

fi nance more than 50 percent of the 

total costs of a project;

• Cost-sharing by the project participant is required throughout all 

phases of the project (design, construction, and operation);

• The federal government may share 

in project cost growth (within the 

scope of work defi ned in the original cooperative agreement) up to 25 

percent of the originally negotiated 

government share of the project;

• The participant’s cost-sharing 

contribution must occur as project 

expenses are incurred, and cannot 

be offset or delayed based on prospective project revenues, proceeds, 

or royalties; and

• Investments in existing facilities, 

equipment, or previously expended 

R&D funds are not allowed for the 

purpose of cost-sharing.

Another principal characteristic of the 

demonstration projects is an agreement 

made by the participant for the federal 

government to recoup up to the full 

amount of the federal government’s 

contribution. This approach enables 

taxpayers to benefi t from commercially 

successful projects. This is in addition 

to the benefi ts derived from the demonstration and commercial deployment of 

technologies that improve environmental quality and promote the effi cient use 

of the nation’s coal resources. 

While the specific repayment terms 

have varied to some degree between 

the solicitations, the repayment requirement was present from the fi rst CCTDP 

solicitation through the second CCPI 

solicitation. The repayment provision 

was dropped for the CCPI-3A and 

-3B solicitations. The duration of the 

repayment period was usually 20 years 

following the end of the project demonstration period. In accordance with 

congressional direction, funds obtained 

from repayment agreements will be 

retained by DOE for future activities. 

In terms of day-to-day oversight of the 

projects, the participant has responsibility for project management activities. 

The federal government monitors project activities, provides technical advice, 

and assesses progress by periodically 

reviewing project performance with 

the participant. The federal government 

also participates in decision making at 

key project junctures. These junctures 

are used to divide most projects into 

several time and funding intervals 

known as budget periods. The number 

of budget periods is determined during 

the negotiation process for each project 

prior to contract award. 

At the beginning of each budget period, 

DOE makes available the incremental 

amount of federal funds necessary to 

cover the government’s cost-share for 

that period. This procedure limits the 

government’s fi nancial exposure and 

assures that DOE fully participates 

in the decision to proceed with each 

major phase of project implementation. 

Through these activities, the federal 

government ensures the effi cient use 

of public funds in the achievement of 

individual project and overall program 

objectives.

Wabash River Generating Station IGCC Facility.
2-6
3-1

3. Projects

Introduction

This chapter provides fact sheets refl ecting status as of June 30, 2009 on 

clean coal technology demonstration 

projects encompassing the Power Plant 

Improvement Initiative (PPII) and 

Clean Coal Power Initiative (CCPI). 

The project fact sheets are organized 

by market sector rather than program 

to better enable stakeholders to see the 

scope of activity in key areas of interest. 

These market sectors are: (1) emissions 

control for existing and new power 

plants; (2) advanced power systems for 

repowering existing plants and providing new generation capacity; (3) clean 

coal fuels for converting the nation’s 

vast coal resources to low-emission 

fuels; and (4) industrial applications 

for coal and coal by-products.

Two-page fact sheets are presented for 

7 of the 9 projects covered in the report 

that are ongoing or have ended prior to 

completion or contract award. In addition to providing an overview of the 

technology and accomplishments to 

date, the two-page fact sheets identify 

the project participants; team members; 

location; funding; objectives; benefi ts; 

and schedule.

Four-page fact sheets are provided for 

two projects that have completed fi nal 

documentation of project activities. 

These fact sheets include key fi ndings 

and suffi cient project discussion to establish a context for the fi ndings. The 

Demonstration of Integrated Optimization Software at the Baldwin Energy 

Complex project completed operations 

in November 2007. The Greenidge 

 Multi-Pollutant Control Project completed operations in October 2008.

Technology Overview

Following is an overview of major technology areas, underlying drivers, and 

associated challenges that have served as 

the focus of clean coal technologies.

Emissions Control

Advanced NOx Controls. Advanced 

nitrogen oxides (NOx) controls address the need to comply with stringent 

emission requirements resulting from 

the following regulations/legislation: 

(1) the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) Finding of Signifi cant 

Contribution and Rulemaking for 

Certain States in the Ozone Transport 

Assessment Group Region for Purposes 

of Reducing Regional Transport of 

Ozone 1998 (commonly referred to as 

the NOx

 SIP Call); (2) EPA’s Standards 

of Performance for Electric Utility 

Steam Generating Units, et al., dated 

2/27/06; (3) EPA’s Clean Air Interstate 

Rule (CAIR); and (4) EPA’s Clean Air 

Visibility Rule (CAVR).

Advanced NOx control technologies 

include:

• Next generation low-NOx

 burners 

and reburning systems that limit 

NOx formation by staging the introduction of air in the combustion 

process (combustion modification);

• Selective catalytic reduction (SCR), 

selective non-catalytic reduction 

(SNCR), and other chemical processes that act upon and reduce NOx

already formed (post-combustion 

processes); and

• Oxygen-enhanced combustion that 

displaces a portion of the air with 

oxygen in low-NOx

 burners.

Low-NOx

 burners: (1) limit the amount 

of air available in the initial stages of 

combustion when fuel-bound nitrogen 

is volatilized; (2) lengthen the fl ame 

to avoid hot spots; (3) usually are 

integrated with overfi re air (air ports 

located above the combustion zone) to 

complete combustion in a cooler zone; 

and (4) can be used with neural network 

controls for optimum load-following 

performances. Reburning systems inject fuel into fl ue gas to strip oxygen 

away from the NOx

 and introduce 

Advanced optimization software for enhanced emissions control was demonstrated at 

Dynegy Midwest Generation’s Baldwin Energy Complex in Baldwin, Illinois.
3-2

overfi re air to complete combustion. 

SCR and SNCR use ammonia/urea to 

transform NOx into nitrogen and water. SCR typically requires an array of 

catalysts in a reactor vessel to operate 

at relatively low post-boiler application 

temperatures, whereas SNCR simply 

involves ammonia/urea injection in 

the boiler where temperatures are high. 

Oxygen-enhanced combustion reduces 

available nitrogen and enables deeper 

staging through increased combustion 

effi ciency.

While the PPII and CCPI programs 

have several projects that were recently 

completed or currently ongoing that address NOx

 emissions as part of a multipollutant approach, DOE’s NOx

 emissions control research and development 

(R&D) activity ended in 2007.

Mercury Controls. Mercury controls 

address regulations regarding mercury emissions from coal-based power 

generation, which represents roughly 

one-third of U.S. mercury emissions. 

In February 2008, EPA’s Clean Air 

Mercury Rule (CAMR) was vacated by 

the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. Until 

the EPA replaces CAMR with another 

regulatory approach, there is no federal 

mandate to regulate mercury emissions. However, approximately half of 

the states have mercury regulations in 

place, some more stringent than under 

the previous EPA rule. Mercury control 

technologies include:

• Sorbents and oxidizing agents to 

transform mercury into a solid to 

be removed along with fl y ash in 

electrostatic precipitators (ESP) or 

fabric fi lter dust collectors (FFDCs), 

also referred to as “baghouses;”

• Oxidizing agents in conjunction 

with wet fl ue gas desulfurization 

(FGD) scrubbers to capture mercury in sulfate by-products; and

• Real-time measurement of mercury 

species and total mercury, for process control and validation.

Solid sorbents adsorb the mercury and 

then are removed in either an ESP or 

FFDC. Oxidizing agents or mechanisms convert vapor-state elemental 

mercury to a solid-state mercury oxide 

that can be captured in ESPs, FFDCs, 

or wet FGDs. For plants equipped with 

wet FGDs, the oxidizing agent can be 

incorporated with the scrubber slurry 

used for sulfur capture. Mercury instrumentation and controls measure both 

elemental and oxidized mercury species 

entering the control device, and the total 

mercury entering the stack.

While DOE has ended R&D activities 

for mercury control to focus on carbon 

dioxide (CO2

) control technologies, 

a number of recently completed and 

ongoing CCPI projects continue to 

provide commercial demonstrations of 

mercury control technologies.

Particulate Matter Controls. EPA 

regulations require control of particulate matter (PM), including PM equal 

to or less than 2.5 microns in size 

(PM2.5). The objective of the PM control 

program is to develop technology for 

coal-based sources that will result in 

substantial reductions in primary PM, 

its secondary precursors [sulfur dioxide 

(SO2

) and NOx], and problematic acid 

TOXECONTM, a multi-pollutant control technology providing high mercury capture 

effi ciency, is being demonstrated at Wisconsin Electric’s Presque Isle Power Plant in 

Marquette, Michigan.
3-3

gases that can cause localized plume 

opacity and visibility impairment. 

Control technologies include:

• ESP/FFDC hybrids to leverage the 

best features of both NOx

 and SO2

removal;

• Flue gas preconditioning to enhance 

ESP performance;

• Concentration of PM at ESP outlets 

for recycle;

• Alkaline injection for sulfur trioxide (SO3

) acid aerosol precursor 

control; and

• Continuous SO3

 analyzers for process control and validation.

ESPs electrically charge PM for capture 

on collection plates. FFDCs use fabric 

fi lter bags that receive and collect PM 

on the outside surface, and then are 

pulsed internally with jets of air to 

disengage the collected particulate. 

Preconditioning agents either lower 

resistivity or induce agglomeration of 

incoming PM. Alkaline injection converts SO2 and SO3

 acid precursors into 

readily captured sulfate particulates, 

and neutralizes other acid gases such 

as hydrochloric and hydrofl uoric acids. 

SO3

 analyzers measure input and output 

levels for control and validation.

DOE has ended R&D activities for 

controlling PM. However, several PPII 

and CCPI projects have provided commercial demonstrations that address 

PM emissions in terms of both removal 

effi ciency and cost savings compared to 

conventional technologies.

Advanced Power Systems

Advanced power systems address 

global climate change by enhancing 

power generation effi ciency, producing near-zero pollutant emissions, and 

providing for hydrogen separation 

and carbon capture and sequestration 

(CCS). Advanced power technologies 

include:

• Integrated gasifi cation combinedcycle (IGCC) systems that convert coal to a clean synthesis gas 

(syngas) amenable for use by gas 

turbines and advanced fuel cells; 

provide conversion to chemicals 

and clean transportation fuels, and 

separation into hydrogen and CO2

; 

and transform residual gases and 

solids into salable by-products;

• Circulating fluidized-bed (CFB) 

combustion systems that utilize 

low-grade fuels and waste materials 

to generate power at high effi ciency 

and very low emissions, without 

the parasitic power drain of add-on 

environmental controls; and

• Advanced combustion techniques 

that use oxygen in lieu of air or 

chemical means, such as chemical 

looping, to effect the equivalent of 

combustion.

IGCC uses a gasifi er to convert hydrocarbon feedstocks into largely gaseous 

components by applying heat under 

pressure in the presence of steam. Partial oxidation of the feedstock, typically 

with pure oxygen, provides the heat. 

Together the heat and pressure break the 

bonds between feedstock constituents 

and cause chemical reactions, producing syngas—primarily hydrogen and 

carbon monoxide. Minerals in the 

feedstock (ash), separated in the gasifi er, are largely salable. Sulfur emerges 

from the gasifi er primarily as hydrogen 

sulfi de, which is easily converted to 

either a pure sulfur or sulfuric acid byproduct. CFBs use jets of air to support 

combustion, effectively mix feedstocks 

with SO2

 absorbents, and entrain the 

mixture. The entrained mixture is transported to a cyclone that separates the 

solids from the fl ue gas. Hot separated 

solids are returned to the CFB combustor. Relatively clean fl ue gas goes to a 

heat exchanger to produce steam that 

drives a steam turbine. The mixing and 

recycling action of the CFB allows high 

combustion effi ciency at temperatures 

below the thermal NOx formation temperature, and achieves high-effi ciency 

SO2

 capture through lengthy and direct 

sorbent/SO2

 contact. 

An advanced hybrid particulate collector 

was demonstrated at Otter Tail Power 

Company’s Big Stone Power Plant in Big 

Stone City, South Dakota.
3-4

The challenge is to move today’s 

coal-based advanced power systems 

from roughly 40 percent effi ciency to 

between 45 and 50 percent.

Clean Coal Fuels

Upgrading. Upgrading coal quality 

enhances power plant effi ciency and 

reduces emissions per kW of electricity produced, which supports CAIR, 

CAMR, and global climate change 

initiatives. Upgrading technologies 

include coal drying and ash removal 

methods to signifi cantly increase coal 

energy density.

The challenge in coal drying and ash 

removal is to realize a net energy benefi t in using the upgraded product; and 

for processes that export the product, a 

signifi cant challenge resides in maintaining stability (preventing spontaneous combustion) of the product after 

removing in-situ water.

Conversion. Conversion of coal to 

clean liquid fuels, chemicals, or hydrogen includes coal liquefaction, which 

involves converting coal gasifi cationderived synthesis gas into zero-sulfur, 

aromatic-free transportation fuels 

using the Fischer-Tropsch process; 

and hydrogen-from-coal processing 

techniques, which currently are under 

development.

The challenge is to reduce process 

costs so that products are competitive 

with transportation fuels in the world 

market and reduce the GHG impact to 

a level equal to or less than petroleum 

refi ning.

Industrial Applications

Direct Coal Use. Efforts under this 

area address substitution of coal for 

premium fuels in industrial applications 

such as coal for coke in steel making 

operations, and coal for oil or natural 

gas in energy production.

By-product Use. Efforts under this area 

address utilization of the vast amount of 

solid residue that is the by-product of 

Lignite fuel upgrading is being demonstrated at Great River Energy’s Coal Creek Station 

in Underwood, North Dakota.

Conversion of spray dryer ash to lightweight aggregate for construction materials was 

demonstrated at the Birchwood Power Facility in King George, Virginia.
3-5

coal cleaning and combustion—coal utilization by-products (CUBs). There are 

two primary targets: (1) abandoned coal 

waste piles from old mining operations, 

and (2) ash produced from existing coalfi red plants. Coal waste represents both 

a groundwater contamination threat and 

a potential source of energy. Coal ash, 

which represents a relatively untapped 

resource for construction materials is, 

to a large extent, disposed of in landfi lls 

that are in increasingly short supply. Byproduct use technologies include:

• Coal waste reuse in power production to support reclamation of abandoned coal waste piles; and 

• Conversion of coal ash to cement 

substitutes or additives and construction-grade aggregates.

The challenge is to demonstrate and 

document successful application of 

CUBs to provide the impetus for increased industry acceptance, leading 

to increased utilization.

Project Fact Sheets

An index to project fact sheets by market sector is provided in Exhibit 3-1. 

An index by program (PPII, CCPI-1, 

and CCPI-2) is provided in Exhibit 

3-2. Within these categories, projects 

are listed alphabetically by project 

name. Exhibit 3-3 is a map showing 

the location of the projects. Exhibit 

3-4 presents the project schedules by 

market sector.

General project information is provided 

in sidebars and headers surrounding 

the more detailed project information 

in each fact sheet. On the fi rst page 

above each schematic, specifi c technical thrusts within the four market 

sectors are indicated by a fi lled-in box 

(appears as a black box). At the top of 

the second page of each fact sheet, the 

project duration and period of operation 

are indicated in months. The project 

duration is the time from project award 

to the operation completed date. The 

schedule is shown based on the functional phases of the project. The phases 

are represented in a non-overlapping 

manner above a time line that encompasses the full duration of the project. 

The month and year are provided for 

the beginning and ending date of each 

phase. A status arrow indicates the 

progress to date.

All project fact sheets contain schematics of the demonstrated technology to 

help convey understanding. The portion 

of the process or facility central to the 

demonstration is denoted by a shaded 

area. For projects that have successfully 

completed the operation phase, the term 

Demonstration Operations Complete is 

shown directly below the project title. 

Projects that have been discontinued 

are also noted as such below the project title.

Other Information 

Sources

Other sources of information complement this document, allowing interested parties to follow programs and 

projects as they unfold. The home 

page of the DOE Office of Fossil 

Energy Web site is at http://www.

fossil.energy.gov. The National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) 

implements the clean coal technology 

programs, and provides another source 

of program and project information at 

http://www.netl.doe.gov, including a 

comprehensive repository for the latest 

published information known as the 

CCT Compendium at http://www.netl.

doe.gov/technologies/coalpower/cctc/

index.html. The latest versions of the 

individual project fact sheets can be 

viewed by following the appropriate 

CCT program link (CCPI or PPII) 

from the web address above, selecting 

a particular project, and clicking on the 

“Project Brief” link.

The Clean Coal Today newsletter offers 

readers a quarterly look at clean coal 

technologies and related issues, highlighting key events, the latest project 

status, and listing the latest publications 

and upcoming events. Current and 

past editions of the Clean Coal Today

newsletter can be found at http://www.

netl.doe.gov/technologies/coalpower/

cctc/newsletter/newsletter.html.

As projects unfold, NETL publishes 

Topical Report documents at critical 

junctures, highlighting particular technological advantages, project plans, 

and expected outcomes. Upon project 

completion, Project Performance 

Summary documents are published, 

providing synopses of the projects and 

highlighting operational, environmental, and economic performance. NETL 

also publishes a DOE assessment of 

each completed project.
3-6

Exhibit 3-1

Project Fact Sheets by Market Sector

Project Program Participant Status Page

Emissions Control

Demonstration of Integrated Optimization Software at the 

Baldwin Energy Complex

CCPI-1 NeuCo, Inc. Completed 3-10

 Greenidge Multi-Pollutant Control Project PPII CONSOL Energy, Inc. Completed 3-14

 Mercury Specie and Multi-Pollutant Control CCPI-2 NeuCo, Inc. Operation 3-18

 TOXECON Retrofi t for Mercury and Multi-Pollutant 

Control on Three 90-MW Coal-Fired Boilers

CCPI-1 Wisconsin Electric Power Company Operation 3-20

Advanced Power Systems

Demonstration of a Coal-Based Transport Gasifi er CCPI-2 Southern Company Services, Inc. Design 3-24

 Mesaba Energy Project – Unit 1 CCPI-2 MEP-I LLC Design 3-26

Clean Coal Fuels

 Gilberton Coal-to-Clean Fuels and Power Co-Production 

Project

CCPI-1 WMPI PTY., LLC Discontinued 3-30

Increasing Power Plant Effi ciency – Lignite Fuel 

Enhancement

CCPI-1 Great River Energy Construction 3-32

Industrial Applications

 Western Greenbrier Co-Production Demonstration Project CCPI-1 Western Greenbrier Co-Generation, LLC Discontinued 3-36

Exhibit 3-2

Project Fact Sheets by Program

Project Participant Status Page

PPII

 Greenidge Multi-Pollutant Control Project CONSOL Energy, Inc. Completed 3-14

CCPI-1

Demonstration of Integrated Optimization Software at the Baldwin 

Energy Complex

 NeuCo, Inc. Completed 3-10

 Gilberton Coal-to-Clean Fuels and Power Co-Production Project WMPI PTY., LLC Discontinued 3-30

Increasing Power Plant Effi ciency – Lignite Fuel Enhancement Great River Energy Construction 3-32

 TOXECON Retrofi t for Mercury and Multi-Pollutant Control on 

Three 90-MW Coal-Fired Boilers

 Wisconsin Electric Power Company Operation 3-20

 Western Greenbrier Co-Production Demonstration Project Western Greenbrier Co-Generation, LLC Discontinued 3-36

CCPI-2

Demonstration of a Coal-Based Transport Gasifi er Southern Company Services, Inc. Design 3-24

 Mercury Specie and Multi-Pollutant Control NeuCo, Inc. Operation 3-18

 Mesaba Energy Project – Unit 1 MEP-I LLC Design 3-26
3-7

Exhibit 3-3

Geographic Locations of Projects
3-8

Exhibit 3-4

Project Schedules by Market Sector
3-9

Emissions Control
3-10

Demonstration 

of Integrated 

Optimization Software 

at the Baldwin Energy 

Complex

Demonstration 

Operations Complete

CCPI-1

Emissions Control

Mercury O NOx O

SO2 O PM2.5 O

Participant

 NeuCo, Inc.

Additional Team 

Members

Dynegy Midwest Generation—

host

Location

Baldwin, Randolph County, IL 

(Dynegy Midwest Generation’s 

Baldwin Energy Complex)

Technology

Advanced optimization 

software, building on NeuCo’s 

ProcessLink® technology

Project Capacity/

Production

1,768 MW

Coal

Powder River Basin (PRB) 

subbituminous

Project Funding

Total $19,094,733 100%

DOE 8,592,630 45

Participant 10,502,103 55

Objectives

To design and apply individual on-line optimization products at the Baldwin Energy Complex for combustion, sootblowing, selective catalytic reduction (SCR) 

operations, overall unit thermal performance, and plant-wide economic optimization; to integrate individual optimizers through NeuCo’s ProcessLink® platform; 

and to reduce the Baldwin Energy Complex nitrogen oxides (NOx

) emissions by 5 

percent, increase effi ciency by 1.5 percent, and improve reliability and availability, 

thereby increasing net annual electrical power production by 1.5 percent.

Technology/Project Description

The project demonstrated an integrated optimization control system, incorporating 

inputs from two 585-MW cyclone-fi red boilers with SCR and a 595-MW tangentially fi red boiler with low-NOx

 burners (LNBs). Optimization products were 

developed and operated in a non-manual, neural control (closed loop) mode for 

control of combustion, sootblowing, and SCR operations. In addition, products 

were developed for overall unit thermal performance and plant-wide maintenance 

optimization. These fi ve optimization systems were integrated through NeuCo’s 

ProcessLink® architectural platform that includes neural networks, genetic algorithms, and “fuzzy logic” techniques. ProcessLink® capabilities enable the 

various optimization techniques at the Baldwin Energy Complex to be linked to 

each other, leveraging the existing control network. Each product was designed, 

installed, and individually tested to verify effectiveness before being integrated 

with the other products. 

Benefi ts

NeuCo’s ProcessLink® architecture offers plant operators a highly fl exible control platform. Optimization products can be designed and applied to individual 

subsystems in a plant, leveraging existing sensors, actuators and networked 

computational resources, and then linked to other individual subsystems to afford 

overall integration of controls responsive to plant operator and corporate criteria. 

As plant complexity increases through retrofi t and repowering applications, the 

introduction of new technologies, and plant modifi cations, this integrated process 

optimization approach can be an important tool for plant operators. 
3-11

Status/Accomplishments

The project was awarded on February 18, 2004. The National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA) requirements were met with a Categorical Exclusion (CX) 

at the time of award.

During the course of the project, NeuCo deployed fi ve optimization products 

that were integrated through the ProcessLink® architectural platform. Different 

combinations of the optimization products were installed on each of the three 

units depending on the boiler type and confi guration as shown below:

Unit 1 (Cyclone-fi red) Unit 2 (Cyclone-fi red) Unit 3 (Tangentially-fi red)

• CombustionOpt® • CombustionOpt® • CombustionOpt®

• MaintenanceOpt® • MaintenanceOpt® • MaintenanceOpt®

• PerformanceOpt® • PerformanceOpt® • SootOpt®

• SCR-Opt® • SCR-Opt® 

• SootOpt®

CombustionOpt® continuously evaluates and adjusts numerous boiler settings 

to improve the mixing of the fuel and air in the furnace seeking to optimize the 

combustion process and reduce NOx formation. SCR-Opt® closely coordinates 

with CombustionOpt® to minimize NOx formation, thereby reducing the amount 

of ammonia needed for SCR operations, and also determines the precise amount 

of ammonia needed for the desired NOx

 rate. PerformanceOpt® identifi es problems that are causing performance defi ciencies, and determines the impacts of 

each problem. SootOpt® regulates cleaning actions on heat transfer surfaces to 

minimize unnecessary cleaning operations. MaintenanceOpt® monitors a broad 

spectrum of data looking for anomalies that might indicate the presence of reliability, capacity, or effi ciency problems. 

The optimization systems were integrated with existing equipment and digital 

controls, followed by an evaluation, refi ning, and documentation period. The 

operation phase of the project was completed in November 2007. The Final 

Technical Report was approved in September 2008.

Results Summary

The Baldwin Energy Complex consists of two cyclone-fi red boilers confi gured 

with SCR systems (Units 1 and 2) and a tangentially-fi red boiler (Unit 3). The 

three units were equipped with state-of-the-art instrumentation and Digital Control System (DCS) prior to the start of the project. All three units were initially 

designed to fi re high-sulfur Illinois coal. In 2000, the units were switched to 

Powder River Basin (PRB) coal for sulfur emissions compliance. This switch 

complicated the relationships among various parameters and operator activities 

including: sootblowing; SCR operations; combustion optimization; and minimizing unit heat rate. 

The project far exceeded the targets for 

NOx reduction with average reductions 

of between 12 and 14 percent.

The project realized lower operating 

costs, improved reliability, and greater 

commercial availability while reducing greenhouse gases, mercury, and 

particulate emissions.

The integrated optimizers commercialized as part of this project are expected 

to yield well under a one-year payback 

for average-sized coal units across all 

unit types and fuel categories comprising the U.S. power industry.

Contacts

Participant

John McDermott, 

Vice President, 

Product Management

(617) 587-3198

mcdermott@neuco.net

NeuCo, Inc.

800 Boylston Street

Prudential Tower, Floor 30

Boston, MA 02199

NETL

Michael H. McMillian

(412) 386-4669

michael.mcmillian@netl.doe.gov

Headquarters

Joseph Giove

(301) 903-4130

joseph.giove@hq.doe.gov
3-12

Five optimization products were developed, addressing combustion, sootblowing, SCR operations, overall unit 

thermal performance, and plant-wide 

availability optimization. The initial 

goals were to establish each system and 

demonstrate their integration in unifi ed 

plant optimization. The optimizers and 

settings were improved and refined 

based on input from plant personnel, 

overall objectives, and actual experiences. 

Initially, optimization activity was focused on achieving improved control of 

the 28 cyclone burners on Units 1 and 2 

and the numerous fuel-air and auxiliary 

air dampers on Unit 3. The major challenge for the cyclone units was moving 

toward reduced stoichiometry (lower 

NOx

 production) without losing good 

cyclone slag fl ow. Cyclone function is 

largely based around the physics and 

chemistry of slag formation and fl ow. 

The PRB coal has higher ash content 

than high sulfur Illinois coal and a 

much narrower range of temperatures 

over which slag (molten ash) flows 

well. PRB coal also has a lower overall 

energy density, requiring more fl ow 

through the combustor to provide the 

same heat release. For these reasons, 

boilers are typically derated after 

switching to PRB coal. 

To avoid derating, stoichiometry, 

temperature, and mass fl ow have to 

be controlled within narrow ranges. 

The consequence of failing to meet 

these combustion control challenges 

is clogging a cyclone with hardening 

slag, a condition that often requires an 

outage. The project was able to meet 

these challenges and avoid derating of 

the boilers. 

Improvement of sootblowing operations also provided multiple benefi ts 

towards project goals. The project 

achieved a 33 percent reduction of 

boiler cleaning actions (via water 

cannons and soot blowers). Frequent 

sootblowing operations increase steam 

usage and can increase the frequency 

of tube failures. Less steam usage 

for sootblowing improves heat rate. 

Tube failures can result from erosion 

and thermal shock that occur when 

high-pressure, relatively cool steam 

impinges clean tubes. Tube failures are 

a signifi cant cause of forced outages. 

The project demonstrated that multiple 

optimization products could be integrated into a single software architecture and coordinated to achieve plantwide objectives. The overall results of 

the project are discussed below.

• NOx

 Reduction: The 5 percent target for NOx

 reduction was exceeded 

with NOx

 reduction between 12 and 

14 percent. 

• Heat Rate Improvement: The optimization systems delivered an 

average heat rate improvement of 

approximately 0.7 percent. This 

was less than the 1.5 percent target and fell short primarily due to 

greater emphasis on NOx

 reduction. 

With a different prioritization of 

objectives, it is believed the project would have achieved the target 

heat rate improvement. The plant’s 

desire to maintain a safe margin 

of error with respect to a 30 day 

average NOx

 rate cap led them to 

prioritize NOx reduction over heat 

rate improvements. 

• Increased Annual Available MWh: 

Although difficult to measure 

precisely, the target of increasing 

available MWh by 1.5 percent was 

met by providing prioritized alerts 

and knowledge-based diagnostics 

for a wide array of plant equipment 

and process anomalies; helping the 

plant to move from Illinois coal to 

PRB coal without derating of the 

boilers; and improved management of cyclone fl ame quality and 

reduced slag buildup.

• Commensurate Reductions in 

Greenhouse Gases, Mercury, and 

Particulates: Reductions in all three 

of these indices can be associated 

directly with the optimization leverage observed in the heat rate and 

NOx

 reductions.

• Commensurate Benefi ts from Lower Costs, Improved Reliability, and 

Greater Commercial Availability: 

These benefi ts are mostly due to 

the previously described achievements. Also playing a role were the 

sustained operation of the cyclones 

while using less expensive fuel; 

improved catalytic reduction of 

NOx

; and the reduced time required 

to discover, prioritize and diagnose 

equipment issues. 

The optimizers commercialized as part 

of this project are expected to pay for 

themselves in well under one year when 

deployed on typical plant types and 

fuel categories that comprise the U.S. 

fossil power industry. This represents a 

highly cost-effective way of addressing 

some of the industry’s most pressing 

challenges and leverages the benefi ts 

of investments in SCR equipment, lowNOx

 systems, and modern control and 

instrumentation systems.

Project Summary

The project established the broadest 

application to date of advanced optimization software. The project demonstrated fi ve optimization systems that 

were integrated through NeuCo’s ProcessLink® technology. This technology 

uses neural networks, expert systems, 

and fuzzy logic to best achieve specifi c 

performance objectives and operator 

priorities. The systems have the ability 

to “learn” the various interactions and 

tradeoffs between multiple plant control 

settings and optimize operator objec-
3-13

tives based on real-time and historical 

data from actual plant operation.

The project was performed in two 

phases. During the fi rst phase, a suite of 

integrated online optimization systems 

was installed and integrated with plant 

operations. The second phase focused 

on improving the products and quantifying the benefi ts of the integrated 

system. A series of updated optimizers 

was issued during both phases of the 

project based on actual experience and 

input from plant personnel.

During the course of the project, the following fi ve products were developed: 

• CombustionOpt®: This product 

continuously evaluates and adjusts 

numerous boiler settings to improve 

the mixing of the fuel and air in 

the furnace seeking to optimize the 

combustion process and reduce NOx

formation. For example, the bias 

and trim settings are manipulated 

by CombustionOpt® to fi ne tune 

the relative proportion of primary 

air delivered to the burners and 

secondary air delivered to the fl ame 

just above each burner. Changes to 

the relative proportion of primary 

to secondary air have a signifi cant 

effect on the properties of the fl ame, 

particularly its temperature and 

oxygen distribution, both of which 

impact the formation of NOx

. Other 

manipulated boiler settings include 

the proportion of the total coal 

fl ow between the upper and lower 

elevations of the furnace; biases that 

control the overall air/fuel ratio for 

the boiler; and the amount of overfi re air delivered to the fi nal stages 

of the furnace combustion process. 

On a typical unit, CombustionOpt®

manipulates between 25 and 50 

of these types of biases, making 

small step changes, once every few 

minutes.

• SCR-Opt®: SCR uses a catalyst with 

ammonia as a reagent to reduce NOx

emissions from combustion exhaust 

gases leaving the boiler. SCR-Opt®

allows the operator to set the desired NOx

 rate and the optimizer 

determines the precise amount of 

ammonia needed. SCR-Opt® is 

closely integrated with CombustionOpt® and optimization is coordinated so that CombustionOpt® is 

focused on minimizing the amount 

of ammonia needed for SCR operations. For example, changes made 

to the mixing of the fuel and air in 

the furnace to reduce NOx

 formation 

also increased SCR effi ciency. 

• SootOpt®: This product regulates 

cleaning actions on heat transfer 

surfaces throughout the furnace to 

improve control of steam and exit 

gas temperatures and minimize 

unnecessary cleaning operations. 

The overall solution results in improved consistency and quality of 

soot-cleaning decisions, improved 

insight into soot-cleaning activity 

and its effects on unit performance, 

and improved bottom line performance of emissions, heat rate, and 

reliability indicators.

• PerformanceOpt®: This product is 

a predictive performance management system that identifi es problems that are causing performance 

deficiencies, and determines the 

impacts of each problem. Following 

problem identifi cation and prioritization, PerformanceOpt® facilitates 

the analysis needed to determine the 

root cause and identify remedial action by providing the operators with 

detailed information on measured 

as well as estimated process conditions and equipment performance. 

• MaintenanceOpt®: This product 

continuously monitors process and 

equipment health data looking for 

anomalies that might indicate the 

presence of reliability, capacity, 

or efficiency problems. MaintenanceOpt® can detect both slowly 

developing problems and problems 

that could have a critical near-term 

reliability impact. When anomalies 

are detected, the system’s heuristics 

knowledge base supports the identifi cation of the most likely causes 

of the anomalies.

The user interface is specifi c to the particular product; however, each provides 

the operator with further optimization 

advice, a summary of recent actions the 

model had taken and why, and graphs 

of actual optimization performance for 

key benchmarks over time. In addition, 

the optimizers offer a variety of analysis 

screens that provide greater details and 

insight to the operators. 

Each optimizer can address a variety 

of operating situations and rapidly accommodate changing conditions and 

objectives. The optimizers can be easily 

modifi ed or expanded to incorporate 

new controls and objectives, or to address additional optimization goals.

The suite installation was completed at 

the end of 2006 and was followed by a 

one year evaluation and documentation 

period. Quantitative project benefi ts included: reduced nitrogen oxides (NOx

) 

emissions by 12–14 percent; improved 

average heat rate (fuel effi ciency) by 0.7 

percent; increased available megawatt 

hours by an estimated 1.5 percent; reduced ammonia consumption by 15–20 

percent; and commensurate reductions 

in greenhouse gases, mercury, and particulates. These benefi ts translated to 

lower costs, improved reliability, and 

greater commercial availability with 

significantly reduced environmental 

impacts.
3-14

Greenidge MultiPollutant Control 

Project

Demonstration 

Operations Complete

PPII

Emissions Control

Mercury O NOx O

SO2 O PM2.5 O

Participant

 CONSOL Energy Inc.

Additional Team 

Members

AES Greenidge, LLC—host

Babcock Power Environmental, 

Inc.—[Engineering, Procurement, and Construction (EPC) 

Contractor]

Location

Dresden, NY (AES Greenidge 

Unit 4)

Technology

Hybrid selective non-catalytic 

reduction (SNCR)/in-duct 

selective catalytic reduction 

(SCR) in combination with 

low-NOx

 burners to control NOx

and a Turbosorp® circulating 

fl uidized-bed dry scrubbing 

system to control SO2

, mercury, 

acid gases, and particulate matter 

(PM)

Plant Capacity/

Production

107 MW (Unit 4)

Coal

Bituminous coal (>2% sulfur) 

co-fi red with up to 10% biomass

Project Funding 

Total $32,742,976 100%

DOE 14,341,423 43.8

Participant 18,401,553 56.2

Objectives

To demonstrate cost-effective multi-pollutant control for relatively small, coalfi red power plants using a hybrid selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR)/in-duct 

selective catalytic reduction (SCR) system in combination with low-NOx

 burners 

and a Turbosorp® circulating fl uidized-bed dry scrubbing system with baghouse 

ash recycling and activated carbon injection. To control nitrogen oxides (NOx

) 

emissions to 0.10 lb/106 Btu at full load, and reduce sulfur dioxide (SO2) by 

95 percent, mercury by 90 percent, and acid gases by 95 percent while the unit 

fi red coal containing greater than 2 percent sulfur; and to evaluate the impact of 

biomass co-fi ring on the performance of the hybrid SNCR/SCR and Turbosorp®

systems. 

Technology/Project Description

The project demonstrated a hybrid SNCR/SCR system in combination with lowNOx

 burners and a Turbosorp® system using baghouse ash recycling and activated 

carbon injection to cost-effectively reduce emissions of NOx

, SO2, mercury, and 

acidic gases to levels equal to or lower than those required by regulation at an 

existing 107-MW plant. To complement existing low-NOx

 burners, SNCR was 

employed upstream of a single-bed in-duct SCR. Urea injection required for the 

SNCR provides the ammonia slip for the SCR. Having the SCR downstream of 

the SNCR allows the SNCR to operate at lower temperatures than normal (usually 

avoided to protect against ammonia slip) to enhance performance. The Turbosorp®

system uses a reactor vessel to facilitate contact of fl ue gas with separately injected 

dry hydrated lime, activated carbon, and water. The activated carbon adsorbs 

mercury, and the hydrated lime reacts with the sulfur dioxide (SO2

) and sulfur 

trioxide (SO3

), hydrogen chloride (HCl), and hydrogen fl uoride (HF) gases to 

form benign solids that are captured in the baghouse. Lime and activated carbon 

sorbents captured in the baghouse are recycled to the Turbosorp® fl uidized-bed 

to enhance utilization. 
3-15

Benefi ts

The U.S. power industry is seeking lower cost and more compatible multi-pollutant control alternatives to SCR and wet scrubbers for the approximately 400 

domestic coal-fi red generating units with capacities ranging from 50–300 MW. 

Economies of scale that make SCR and wet scrubbers viable for large plants do not 

apply to these relatively small units, and small units often are space constrained, 

making it diffi cult to install conventional SCR and wet scrubbers. AES Greenidge 

Unit 4 is representative of the small, coal-fi red electricity generating units that 

together represent almost one-fi fth of the U.S. coal-fi red generating capacity. The 

hybrid NOx

 control technology and Turbosorp® system each represent signifi cant 

capital costs savings in comparison to a conventional SCR unit and wet scrubber. Also, the acid gas control afforded by the Turbosorp® system removes the 

precursors to acid aerosols, which can form PM less than 2.5 microns in diameter 

(PM2.5) once emitted. Moreover, biomass co-fi ring may improve overall emissions 

performance through reduced fuel-bound nitrogen and sulfur levels, increased 

volatile content, and general combustion characteristics. 

Status/Accomplishments

Following protracted negotiations, the project was awarded on May 19, 2006, with 

design and construction activities already under way. The system was integrated 

with the unit during a seven-week tie-in outage. The project moved to the operations and testing phase in March 2007. At the end of June 2007, the project met 

the performance guarantee levels for NOx

, SO2, SO3, HCl, mercury, and ammonia 

slip. During the fi rst year of operation, the project sought to resolve a problem 

involving large particle ash accumulating in the SCR catalyst bed. Through the 

addition of a large particle ash screen, sootblowers, and vacuum ports, ash deposit 

accumulation was reduced to an acceptable level. 

Three series of tests were conducted through June 2008. Test results demonstrated 

that the combination of technologies met all of the emissions reduction goals of 

the project. Moreover, the systems were installed with roughly 40 percent lower 

capital costs than conventional SCR and wet scrubbers, and they required only 

about 0.4 acre of space. 

Results Summary

The overall objective of the project was to demonstrate an affordable means 

for achieving deep reductions in the emissions of a number of pollutants from 

smaller, coal-fi red electric generating units, allowing these units to continue to 

produce low-cost, reliable electricity under increasingly stringent air emissions 

regulations.

The Turbosorp® system demonstrated 

over 96 percent SO2 emission reductions from high-sulfur coals.

As a result of the success of the demonstration, three additional deployments of the technology have been 

announced.

The multi-pollutant control system 

achieved 98 percent mercury removal 

without the need to employ activated 

carbon injection.

Unlike wet fl ue gas desulfurization, 

the Turbosorp® system has relatively 

few moving parts, and does not require 

slurry handling, exotic materials of 

construction, or a corrosion-resistant 

stack.

Contacts

Participant

Steven Winberg, Vice President,

Research & Development

(412) 854-6600

stevewinberg@consolenergy.com

CONSOL Energy Inc.

4000 Brownville Road

South Park, PA 15129

NETL

Wolfe Huber

(412) 386-5747

wolfe.huber@netl.doe.gov

Headquarters

Joseph Giove

(301) 903-4130

joseph.giove@hq.doe.gov
3-16

The project achieved the performance 

target of 95 percent SO2

 removal effi -

ciency during both short-term and longterm testing. The average SO2

 removal 

effi ciency observed during commercial 

operation exceeded 96 percent. The 

coal sulfur content averaged 3.6 lb/

mmBtu during this period; however, 

removal effi ciencies of 95 percent were 

achieved for coals containing up to 

4.8 lb/mmBtu. 

The performance target of 90 percent 

mercury removal effi ciency was exceeded during both short-term and 

long-term testing. No activated carbon 

injection was required to achieve this 

removal effi ciency. The average coalto-stack mercury removal effi ciency 

measured between March 2007 and 

June 2008 was 98 percent.

Initial tests suggested that activated carbon injection did not contribute any additional, measurable mercury removal 

to the already-high level achieved by 

the other components of the multi-pollutant control system. Apart from these 

initial tests, AES Greenidge operated 

without activated carbon injection.

The performance target of 95 percent 

SO3

 and HCl removal effi ciency was 

achieved during both short-term and 

long-term testing. Inlet HF concentrations were too low to demonstrate attainment of the performance target.

The multi-pollutant control system 

achieved the performance target for 

high-load NOx

 emissions of 0.10 lb/

mmBtu during short-term (guarantee) 

testing, but fell short of this goal during long-term operation. The average 

high-load NOx

 emission rate observed 

was 0.14 lb/mmBtu. The higher NOx

emissions occurred because AES 

Greenidge had to reduce the aggressiveness of low-NOx fi ring in order to attain 

suitable combustion characteristics for 

routine operation. Nevertheless, overall NOx

 emissions (lb/mmBtu) were 

reduced by about 52 percent relative 

to the pre-project baseline.

Ammonia slip from the hybrid SNCR/

SCR system was generally greater than 

expected during the fi rst year-and-a-half 

of operation. The higher-than-expected 

ammonia slip did not signifi cantly affect plant operations.

The new baghouse reduced PM emissions to less than 0.001 lb/mmBtu. 

Product ash from the Turbosorp® system is the only signifi cant by-product 

and can be disposed of in a landfi ll or 

used as fi ll material for construction 

projects. 

Biomass (waste wood) co-fi ring did 

not have any discernible effect on the 

performance of the multi-pollutant 

control system. However, the extent (<5 

percent of total heat input) and duration 

of co-fi ring were too limited to permit 

a thorough evaluation.

Operation of the system was hindered 

by the accumulation of large particle 

ash (LPA) in the in-duct SCR catalyst, 

requiring numerous outages for catalyst 

cleaning during the fi rst year of operation. However, the severity of the problem was reduced by the installation of 

an LPA removal system (outside of the 

scope of the DOE project), including 

a screen, soot blowers, and vacuum 

ports. Additional operating experience 

is expected to confi rm the long-term 

effectiveness of this system.

The multi-pollutant control system affords lower capital costs in exchange 

for somewhat higher variable operating 

and maintenance costs relative to conventional technologies that are capable 

of achieving deep reductions in NOx

and SO2

. The capital cost (including 

the combustion modifi cations and LPA 

removal system) was about 40 percent 

less that the estimated cost to retrofi t 

the unit with conventional SCR and wet 

FGD systems. Mercury, acid gas, and 

primary PM control are co-benefi ts of 

the NOx

 and SO2 control systems, and 

added no incremental cost.

Project Summary

The project demonstrated an innovative, integrated combination of pollution control technologies on a relatively 

small coal-fi red unit (107-MWe) at the 

AES Greenidge power plant. The project sought to demonstrate an emissions 

control system that is particularly well 

suited to meet the requirements of a 

signifi cant number of small coal-fi red 

units because of its: 

• Deep emission reduction capabilities; 

• Low capital costs; 

• Small space demands; 

• Applicability to high-sulfur coal; 

• Low maintenance requirements; 

and 

• Operational fl exibility.

The multi-pollutant control system 

comprises a combination of technologies that were applied in a unique way 

and integrated for the fi rst time. The 

system consists of three major components: NOx

 control via a hybrid SNCR/

SCR system; SO2

, SO3, HCl, HF, and 

PM control via a Turbosorp® system 

and baghouse; and mercury control via 

the supplemental benefi ts afforded by 

the NOx

 control and Turbosorp® systems, and activated carbon injection if 

required. The design includes turndown 

capabilities for the SNCR and Turbosorp® systems, enabling continued 

emissions reduction at reduced loads.

NOx

 control is the first step in the 

process and is accomplished using 

combustion modifications (installed 

outside of the scope of the DOE project) 

and urea-based SNCR in the furnace, 

followed by a single-layer SCR reactor 
3-17

that is installed in a modifi ed section 

of the ductwork between the unit’s 

economizer and air heaters. The SCR 

process is fed by ammonia slip (excess 

ammonia) from the SNCR process. 

While the amount of NOx

 reduction 

achievable by the in-duct SCR is less 

than the amount achievable by a standalone SCR, the purpose is to consume 

ammonia slip and provide incremental 

NOx

 reduction. 

To maximize performance of the induct SCR system, static mixers are 

installed just upstream to homogenize 

the velocity, temperature, and composition of the fl ue gas. The static mixers are 

designed to maintain ash entrainment 

and distribution across the SCR reactor, minimizing catalyst deactivation 

and pressure drop via fl y ash plugging. 

For units that produce LPA, a screen is 

required to prevent LPA from accumulating in the catalyst.

Emissions of SO2

 and other acid gases 

are reduced in the Turbosorp® system. 

The fl uidized bed absorber brings the 

fl ue gas into contact with water and 

dry hydrated lime (supplied from an 

on-site hydrator). The hydrated lime 

reacts with the acidic constituents of 

the fl ue gas (i.e., SO2

, SO3, HCl, and 

HF) to form dry solid products that are 

separated from the fl ue gas in a new 

pulse-jet baghouse and recycled to the 

absorber in order to maximize pollutant 

removal and lime utilization. 

Mercury removal is provided as a cobenefi t of the in-duct SCR, dry scrubber, and baghouse and, if required, by 

injection of activated carbon.

The commercial viability of the system 

was demonstrated during more than a 

year-and-a-half of routine operation. 

The system has enabled the unit to 

satisfy its permit requirements and 

continue in service. The integrated technology offers a number of advantages 

including:

• Low Capital Costs: The multi-pollutant control process was designed 

to achieve deep emission reductions while offering substantially 

reduced capital costs compared to 

conventional technologies. Savings 

result from employing a compact, 

single-layer SCR reactor; avoidance 

of expensive corrosion-resistant 

materials required for wet scrubbers; and the mechanical simplicity 

of the system. 

• Small Space Requirements: The 

single-layer SCR reactor is installed 

in a modifi ed ductwork section that 

requires minimal new support. Because the SCR is fed by ammonia 

slip from the SNCR, it does not require the ammonia storage and handling system and injection grid that 

are typically needed for stand-alone 

SCR installations. The arrangement 

of the circulating fl uidized bed, baghouse, and associated equipment is 

also compact. The various pieces of 

equipment are vertically tiered to 

permit gravity-assisted transport of 

solids where possible, and require 

only approximately 0.4 acre of 

space for a 100 MW installation.

• Applicability to High-Sulfur Coals: 

The Turbosorp® system allows for 

a variable hydrated lime injection 

rate based on pollutant loading and 

desired emission reduction, without 

limitations imposed by the temperature or moisture content of the fl ue 

gas. As a result, the Turbosorp® system can be operated to achieve deep 

emission reductions (i.e., 98 percent 

or greater) for a wide range of fuels, 

including high-sulfur coals. 

• Low Maintenance Requirements: 

The Turbosorp® process avoids the 

complexities and maintenance issues associated with wet scrubbers. 

Lime is injected into the absorber 

as a dry hydrate rather than as a 

slurry, and the solids collected in 

the baghouse are also completely 

dry and are recycled to the absorber. 

The system also includes few moving parts, and is less likely to cause 

plugging and binding of fabric fi lter 

bags as compared to a conventional 

spray dryer. 

• Operational Flexibility: The process 

features turndown capabilities to 

permit continued emissions reductions at reduced operating loads. 

The Turbosorp® system achieved 

high removal effi ciencies for SO2, 

mercury, acid gases, and PM across 

the unit’s normal range of operating 

loads. Operation of the NOx

 control 

system varies with generator load, 

resulting in three distinct operating 

ranges: a high-load range in which 

NOx

 reduction is accomplished via 

SCR, SNCR, and low-NOx

 combustion (if applicable); an intermediateload range in which NOx

 reduction 

is accomplished via SNCR and 

low-NOx

 combustion (but not SCR); 

and a low-load range in which NOx

reduction is accomplished via lowNOx

 combustion (but not SCR or 

SNCR).
3-18

CCPI-2

Emissions Control

Mercury O NOx O

SO2

 O PM2.5 G

Mercury Specie 

and Multi-Pollutant 

Control

Participant

 NeuCo, Inc. (acquired original 

participant, Pegasus Technologies)

Additional Team Members

NRG Texas, LLC—collaborator 

and host

Location

Jewett, Limestone County, TX 

(NRG Texas Limestone Plant)

Technology

Pegasus Technologies’ sensors 

and neural network-based 

optimization and control system 

for enhanced mercury and multipollutant control

Project Capacity/

Production

890 MW (gross); 14,500 tons of 

coal/day input

Coal

Texas lignite and Powder River 

Basin (PRB) subbituminous

Project Funding

Total $15,560,811 100%

DOE 6,079,479 39

Participant 9,481,332 61

Objectives

To demonstrate that state-of-the-art sensors and neural network-based optimization and controls can measure mercury species (elemental and oxidized mercury); 

control mercury emissions with existing fl ue gas desulfurization (FGD) and electrostatic precipitator (ESP) systems; and reduce pollutant emissions in general 

without major capital expenditure. 

Technology/Project Description

The project will demonstrate non-intrusive advanced sensors and neural network-based optimization and control technologies for enhanced mercury and 

multi-pollutant control on an 890-MW tangentially fi red boiler at the NRG Texas 

Limestone Plant in Jewett, Texas. The plant is equipped with both a cold-side 

ESP rated at 99.8 percent particulate removal effi ciency, and a wet limestone 

FGD system rated at 90 percent sulfur dioxide (SO2

) removal effi ciency. Both the 

ESP and wet FGD system are capable of high mercury capture effi ciency if the 

mercury is in an oxidized solid state rather than elemental vapor state. The plant 

burns a blend of Texas lignite and PRB subbituminous coal, which are known to 

emit relatively high levels of elemental mercury under routine combustion conditions. NeuCo will apply sensors to evaluate the mercury species at key locations, 

develop optimization software that results in the best plant conditions to promote 

mercury oxidation and minimize emissions in general, and use neural networks 

to effect the optimization conditions.
3-19

Benefi ts

The technology affords plant operators the means to: assess how plant operating parameters affect mercury species determination, and the capture effi ciency 

of existing FGD and ESP systems; translate the data into optimization software 

that provides the lowest possible pollutant emissions; and effect optimization 

through neural networks. The technology allows operators to maximize emissions 

control with existing pollutant control systems. This capability reduces risk of 

non-compliance with minimal capital expenditure. The technology should have 

broad application to the existing fl eet of coal-fi red boilers and have minimal 

impacts on the quality of salable by-products, such as fl y ash.

Status/Accomplishments

The Categorical Exclusion (CX) for the project was signed in March 2005, and the 

cooperative agreement was signed in April 2006. During Phase I of the project, 

installation of all sensor equipment was completed. The only meaningful issues 

carried into Phase II, which began on December 14, 2007, were validation and 

system maintenance issues with the mercury continuous emission monitoring 

system (CEMS). These issues specifi cally include software updates in the Mercury Specie Control System; installation and commission of the model predictive 

control (MPC) specifi c closed-loop and graphical user interface (GUI) components 

of CombustionOpt® on the Advanced Intelligent Soot Blowing System; training 

on the coal fl ow sensors; installation of mercury analyzers and completion of 

third-party validation and verifi cation; and calibration on the Advanced Electrostatic Precipitator. 

By the end of Phase II, December 31, 2008, the Mercury Specie Control System 

was suffi ciently reliable to support initial analysis and virtual on-line analyzer 

(VOA) development, and the MPC specifi c closed-loop and GUI components 

were in sustained service working on typical operating targets. Issues carried into 

Phase III include a major revision of the Advanced Flue Gas Desulfurization Optimization System to produce gypsum as a by-product instead of calcium sulfi te. 

This has caused a delay in the major upgrade scheduled for the plant; however, 

optimization components are in place and can be utilized relatively quickly once 

the new system is online and stable. 

In March 2009, NeuCo provided on-site operator training for the optimization 

systems, including the recently installed PerformanceOpt® product. PerformanceOpt® is a predictive system that can identify issues resulting in performance 

defi ciencies. Signifi cant work will continue on PerformanceOpt® while MaintenanceOpt® is running in sustained service. SootOpt® (NeuCo’s sootblowing 

optimizer) is fully operational. NeuCo installed the latest version of their software 

platform (ProcessLink®) to provide a more stable and faster computing base for 

all their applications. 

The project demonstrates a new 

multivariable process controller 

utilizing direct search optimization 

designed to facilitate test effi ciency 

through direct learning combined with 

statistical tools.

Over thirty manipulated variables will 

be used to optimize NOx

 while the 

neural network will be monitoring and 

learning the effects of these variables 

on mercury.

The fi nal phase of the project began 

in January 2009 and involves an operational demonstration of plant-wide 

optimization.

Contacts

Participant

John McDermott, Vice President, 

Product Management

(617) 587-3198

mcdermott@neuco.net

NeuCo, Inc.

800 Boylston Street

Prudential Tower, Floor 30

Boston, MA 02199

NETL

Michael H. McMillian

(304) 285-4669

michael.mcmillian@netl.doe.gov

Headquarters

Joseph Giove

(301) 903-4130

joseph.giove@hq.doe.gov
3-20

CCPI-1

Emissions Control

Mercury O NOx O

SO2 O PM2.5 O

TOXECONTM Retrofi t 

for Mercury and MultiPollutant Control on 

Three 90-MW CoalFired Boilers

Participant

 Wisconsin Electric Power 

Company (We Energies)

Additional Team 

Members

ADA-ES—management support/

design input

Cummins & Barnard—Architect/

Engineer (A/E) services/construction management

Wheelabrator Air Pollution 

Control, Inc.—baghouse design 

and installation

Electric Power Research 

Institute—technology supplier

Location

Marquette, Marquette County, MI 

(Wisconsin Electric’s Presque Isle 

Power Plant Units 7, 8, and 9)

Technology

TOXECONTM sorbent injection 

process

Capacity

270 MW 

Coal

Powder River Basin 

subbituminous

Project Funding

Total $52,978,115 100%

DOE 24,859,578 47

Participant 28,118,537 53

Objectives

To achieve 90 percent mercury removal through injection of activated carbon; 

increase particulate matter (PM) collection effi ciency (particularly for PM of 2.5

microns or less in size); to reduce already low sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen 

oxides (NOx

) emissions at the plant by an additional 70 percent and 30 percent, 

respectively; to recover 90 percent of mercury captured in the sorbent; to achieve 

100 percent fl y ash utilization; to advance the reliability of mercury continuous 

monitors; and to successfully integrate the entire system.

Technology/Project Description

The project will demonstrate the TOXECONTM sorbent injection process for 

multi-pollutant control of a combined fl ue gas stream from three units totaling 

270 MW. TOXECONTM, an Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI)-patented 

process, injects activated carbon and sodium-based sorbents into a pulsed-jet 

baghouse installed downstream of a plant’s PM control device, which in this application is a hot-side electrostatic precipitator. The primary PM control device 

removes the bulk of the PM. The TOXECONTM process is placed downstream of 

the air preheater to operate at relatively cool temperatures conducive to mercury 

and other pollutant absorption. Activated carbon and sodium-based sorbents are 

injected into the ductwork upstream of the pulsed-jet baghouse, where they mix 

and absorb pollutants in the fl ue gas. Upon entering the pulsed-jet baghouse, infl ight pollutant absorption continues and is signifi cantly enhanced by fi xed-bed 

absorption as pollutants pass through a sorbent fi lter cake that forms on the fabric 

fi lter bags in the baghouse. Sorbent captured in the baghouse is processed to recover up to 90 percent of the mercury to enable 100 percent fl y ash utilization.
3-21

Benefi ts

The TOXECONTM process leverages the high PM capture effi ciency inherent in 

pulsed-jet baghouses and baghouse location to effectively utilize proven sorbents 

in achieving high mercury capture effi ciency and added SO2 and NOx control, and 

to retain the sales value of fl y ash as a cement additive. The advantages of this 

approach include: affording enhanced contact between sorbents and dilute phase 

pollutants; providing a temperature regime conducive to pollutant absorption; and 

requiring application to only a small portion of the fl y ash. Demonstrating the 

TOXECONTM process on Powder River Basin (PRB) coal is an excellent test of the 

technology and representative of a broad market application. PRB coal is widely 

used and, as with other western subbituminous coals, contains high percentages 

of elemental mercury that, because of its vapor state upon combustion, is more 

diffi cult to remove than solid state oxides of mercury (the form more common 

in bituminous coals). The TOXECONTM process has application to an estimated 

167 gigawatts of existing coal-fi red capacity. This TOXECONTM project alone 

is expected to remove 97 pounds of mercury, 4,020 tons of SO2

, and 32 tons of 

fi ne PM annually.

Status/Accomplishments

The project is demonstrating long-term reliability by continuously operating the 

powdered activated carbon (PAC) injection system. Over a two-year period, We 

Energies consistently demonstrated over 90 percent mercury removal based on 

monthly averages. Ash handling and dust control process issues have been resolved. Long-term testing indicates that frequent pulse cleaning of the baghouse 

keeps fresh, effective carbon on the bags and enhances mercury capture. 

Results from injection testing using a sodium-based sorbent (hydrated sodium 

bicarbonate carbonate) indicated 70 percent SO2

 removal, no effect on NOx, and 

virtually no effect on opacity but a net decrease in mercury capture at the normal 

activated carbon injection rate. An activated carbon injection rate 2.5 times higher 

than normal was required to obtain 90 percent mercury capture while injecting 

the sodium-based sorbent. 

The project is continuing to investigate cost improvements while maintaining 

greater than 90 percent mercury removal as well as improvements for control of 

PM, NOx

 and SO2 emissions. Also, PM loading in the baghouse is being optimized 

for mercury removal effi ciency.

The project has demonstrated over 90 

percent mercury removal for over a 

two-year period.

The Superior Watershed Partnership 

in Marquette, Michigan presented its 

2006 Corporate Conservation Award 

to We Energies in recognition of the 

project’s signifi cant mercury reduction 

accomplishments.

Ash from the TOXECONTM process is 

being evaluated for use in conductive 

concrete applications.

Contacts

Participant

Steve Derenne

(414) 221-4443

steven.derenne@wepowerllc.com

We Energies

333 W. Everett St., MCP-145

Milwaukee, WI 53203

NETL

Michael H. McMillian

(304) 285-4669

michael.mcmillian@netl.doe.gov

Headquarters

Joseph Giove

(301) 903-4130

joseph.giove@hq.doe.gov
3-22
3-23

Advanced Power Systems
3-24

CCPI-2

Advanced Power Systems

IGCC O CFB G

Hybrid G Adv Comb G

Demonstration of a 

Coal-Based Transport 

Gasifi er

Participant

Southern Company Services, Inc.

Additional Team 

Members

Mississippi Power Company—

host utility

Kellogg Brown and Root, LLC 

(KBR)—technology supplier

Location

Liberty, Kemper County, MS

Technology

KBR air-blown transport gasifi er 

fueled by low-rank coal in an 

integrated gasifi cation combinedcycle (IGCC) application

Capacity

2x1 system utilizing two combustion turbines and one steam 

turbine

Coal

Mississippi lignite

Project Funding

Total $1,625,082,040 100%

DOE Share 293,750,000 18.1

Participant 1,331,332,040 81.9

Objectives

To assess the operational, environmental, and economic performance of the airblown transport gasifi er-based integrated gasifi cation combined-cycle (IGCC) 

system with two transport gasifi ers, two F class combustion turbines, and one 

steam turbine. 

Technology/Project Description

The project will demonstrate an IGCC unit applying transport gasifi cation in an 

air-blown mode. The project will utilize two transport gasifi er trains, each with 

its own coal feed and ash handling systems. The combined cycle will include 

two gas turbines, each with its own heat recovery steam generator, both feeding 

a single steam turbine. The transport gasifi er consists of two sections: a short, 

larger-diameter mixing zone and a longer, smaller-diameter riser. Air is introduced 

at the bottom of the mixing zone to raise heat by burning the carbon in recirculated 

char. Coal and sorbent are fed to the top of the mixing zone to separate the coal 

from the oxidant and avoid burning volatile material produced when the coal is 

heated. All of the solids and gases are carried from the mixing zone into the riser 

where devolatilization and carbon-steam gasifi cation reactions occur to produce 

synthesis gas (syngas). The majority of the unreacted char leaving the riser is 

captured by a disengager and cyclone assembly and recycled back to the mixing 

zone through a standpipe and a nonmechanical “J-valve.” The syngas and fi ne char 

that are not captured in the cyclone are cooled in a heat exchanger before entering a metallic candle-fi lter particulate collection device (PCD), which removes 

any remaining particulate matter from the gas. Beyond the candle-fi lter PCD, 

emission controls include a sulfur removal system, selective catalytic reduction 

(SCR), and a mercury removal system.
3-25

Benefi ts

The transport gasifi er is based on a simple, robust, and effi cient technology similar 

in design to a fl uidized catalytic cracking (FCC) unit that has been proven over 

50 years in the petroleum refi ning industry. The transport gasifi er operates at 

considerably higher circulation rates, velocities, and riser densities than does a 

conventional circulating fl uidized-bed, resulting in higher throughput, better mixing, and higher mass and heat transfer rates. The recycling of solids increases the 

effective residence time and increases carbon conversion. Moreover, the transport 

gasifi er represents a major effi ciency gain relative to slagging gasifi ers for applications using high-ash, high-melting point coals. It does not depend on slagging 

(melting) the ash to remove minerals from the process. Slagging requires a large 

amount of energy, which cannot be recovered. This process technology makes 

possible the cost effective production of syngas from low-rank, high-moisture, 

and high-ash coals, whereas most other gasifi cation technologies cannot. Such 

coals make up half the proven reserves in both the United States and the world. 

The transport gasifi er can also be operated on oxygen, which affords the option 

to produce chemicals. 

Status/Accomplishments

The cooperative agreement was awarded on January 30, 2006 for a single-train 

(285 MW net) demonstration unit to be built in Orlando, Florida. As initial construction was under way, the activities at Orlando were canceled over concerns 

for carbon capture and storage (CCS). CCS was not viewed as economical for 

the Orlando site due to the distance from suitable sequestration storage locations. In May 2008, DOE granted approval to relocate the demonstration to 

Kemper County, Mississippi for a dual train confi guration. The DOE funding 

was unchanged.

Mississippi Power Company submitted a Need Determination with the Mississippi Public Services Commission (MPSC) on June 10, 2008. The Notice of 

Intent (NOI) to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and Notice of 

Proposed Floodplain and Wetlands Involvement were published in the Federal 

Register on September 22, 2008. The Public Scoping Meeting was held October 

14, 2008 in DeKalb, Mississippi. In January 2009, the Mississippi Power Company fi led for a Certifi cate of Public Convenience and Necessity with the MPSC. 

Work is continuing on the preparation of the draft EIS.

The project will demonstrate an advanced syngas cleanup system that 

includes sulfur removal and recovery; high-temperature, high-pressure 

(HTHP) particulate fi ltration; ammonia recovery; and mercury removal.

The transport gasifier has a fuelflexible design projected to have 

higher effi ciency and lower capital and 

operating costs compared to oxygenblown entrained-fl ow gasifi ers.

The plant will design, build, and 

operate a CO2

 capture and compression 

system with the intent to capture and 

geologically sequester (and/or use for 

enhanced oil recovery) at least one 

million tons per year of CO2

.

Contacts

Participant

Randall Rush

(205) 992-6319

rerush@southernco.com

Southern Company Services, Inc.

42 Inverness Center Parkway

Bin B228

Birmingham, AL 35242

NETL

Diane Revay Madden

(412) 386-5931

diane.madden@netl.doe.gov

Headquarters

Joseph Giove

(301) 903-4130

joseph.giove@hq.doe.gov
3-26

CCPI-2

Advanced Power Systems

IGCC O CFB G

Hybrid G Adv Comb G

Mesaba Energy 

Project—Unit 1

Participant

 MEP-I LLC 

( Excelsior Energy, Inc.)

Additional Team 

Members

ConocoPhillips—gasifi cation 

technology licensor

Fluor—feasibility engineering

Granherne—owner’s engineer

SEH—environmental/site 

assessment

URS—environmental/site 

assessment

TBD—Engineering, Procurement, and Construction (EPC) 

Location

Taconite, Itasca County, MN or 

Hoyt Lakes, St. Louis County, 

MN

Technology

Advanced ConocoPhillips 

E-GasTM technology applied 

in a multiple-train integrated 

gasifi cation combined-cycle 

confi guration

Capacity

Up to 606 MWe (net); 4,731 tons 

of coal/day input

Coal

PRB subbituminous (preferred)

Illinois Basin #6 bituminous

Project Funding

Total $2,155,680,783 100%

DOE 36,000,000 1.7

Participant 2,119,680,783 98.3

Objectives

To demonstrate the ConocoPhillips E-GasTM technology at twice the generating 

capacity of the Wabash River Coal Gasifi cation Repowering Project performed 

under the Clean Coal Technology Demonstration Program (CCTDP). To achieve 

a 90 percent or better operational availability from an advanced full-slurry quench 

(FSQ) multiple-train gasifi er system with a fi rst-of-a-kind (U.S.) integrated air 

separations unit. To demonstrate carbon dioxide (CO2

) emissions 15–20 percent 

lower than the 2006 average for U.S. coal-based power plants and emission levels 

for criteria pollutants and mercury equal to or below those of the lowest emission 

rates for utility-scale, coal-based generation.

Technology/Project Description

The project will demonstrate the next-generation ConocoPhillips E-GasTM technology in up to a 606-MWe (net) integrated gasifi cation combined-cycle (IGCC) 

application. The ConocoPhillips E-GasTM gasifi er features an oxygen-blown, 

continuous-slagging, two-stage entrained-fl ow process. Coal is slurried, combined 

with 95 percent pure oxygen from an air separation unit, and injected into a fi rst 

stage gasifi er, which operates at 2,600 °F and 400 pounds per square inch gage 

(psig) pressure. In the fi rst stage, the coal slurry undergoes a partial oxidation 

reaction at temperatures high enough to bring the coal’s ash above its melting 

point. The fl uid ash falls through a tap hole at the bottom of the fi rst stage into a 

water quench, forming an inert vitreous slag. The synthesis gas (syngas) formed 

in the fi rst stage fl ows to a second stage where additional coal slurry is injected. 

The coal undergoes pyrolysis in an endothermic reaction with the hot gas, enhancing the syngas heating value and improving effi ciency. The syngas leaving 

the gasifi er will be cooled by the heat used to generate steam. The syngas will 

be processed to remove particulates (probably using a two-stage dry process), 

mercury (using activated carbon beds), and sulfur (as a marketable by-product) 

prior to combustion in advanced gas turbines. Heat from the gas turbines and 

steam from the syngas loop will be used to raise steam for the steam turbine.
3-27

Benefi ts

ConocoPhillips E-GasTM technology established its potential for providing clean 

energy at competitive costs in the successful demonstration under the CCTDP at 

the Wabash River Generating Station. The Mesaba project will incorporate cost 

and performance improvements from more than a decade of experience with the 

predecessor design, including: (1) gasifi er scale-up; (2) increased system pressure; 

(3) increased slurry percentage to the second-stage gasifi er; and (4) enhanced 

by-product and contaminant removal systems.

Status/Accomplishments

The environmental site permitting process is ongoing, with the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (PUC) assessing Excelsior Energy’s submittals for a 

Large Electric Generating Plant Site Permit, High Voltage Transmission Line 

Route Permit, Natural Gas Pipeline Routing Permit, and other environmentalrelated permits. The draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was released 

in November 2007.

The Draft EIS is available at http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/coalpower/

cctc/EIS/eis_mesaba.html. The Final EIS is planned to be released in 2009. Excelsior announced that the project had been selected for the federal loan guarantee 

program in October 2007 and had been selected to receive federal investment tax 

credits in May 2008. See http://www.excelsiorenergy.com/.

Excelsior is exploring the potential for a statewide market for the power produced 

by the Mesaba Project.

The project will demonstrate the 

commercial viability of a large, 

multiple-gasifier system with CO2

emissions 15 to 20 percent lower than 

the 2006 average for U.S. generation 

with similar feedstocks.

The ConocoPhillips E-GasTM gasifi er 

features an oxygen-blown, continuousslagging, two-stage entrained-flow 

process that can produce a concentrated 

CO2

 stream that would be amenable 

to capture for geologic storage or 

benefi cial reuse such as enhanced oil 

recovery.

Excelsior intends to adopt zero-liquid 

discharge and thereby eliminate 

any discharge to the environment of 

process water and cooling tower blowdown water from the proposed plant.

Contacts

Participant

Julie Jorgensen

(952) 847-2361

juliejorgensen@excelsiorenergy.com

Excelsior Energy Inc.

11100 Wayzata Boulevard, 

Suite 305

Minnetonka, MN 55305

NETL

Jason Lewis

(304) 285-4724

jason.lewis@netl.doe.gov

Headquarters

Joseph Giove

(301) 903-4130

joseph.giove@hq.doe.gov
3-28
3-29

Clean Coal Fuels
3-30

CCPI-1

Clean Coal Fuels

Upgrading G

Conversion O

Gilberton Coal-toClean Fuels and 

Power Co-Production 

Project

Project Discontinued

Participant

 WMPI PTY., LLC

Additional Team Members

Nexant, Inc.—engineering 

support

Shell Global Solutions B.V., 

U.S.—technology partner

SASOL Technology Ltd.—

Fischer-Tropsch (FT) technology 

supplier

Location

Gilberton, Schuylkill County, PA

Technology

Shell oxygen-blown, entrainedbed gasifi er and SASOL FT 

liquefaction technology

Project Capacity/

Production

4,700 tons/day of coal waste to 

produce 41 MW of power and 

5,000 barrels/day of clean liquid 

transportation fuel

Coal

Anthracite culm

Project Funding (proposed)

Total $1,062,882,038 100%

DOE 100,000,000 9.4

Participant 962,882,038 90.6

Objectives

To demonstrate gasifi cation of 4,700 tons/day of coal waste to produce 41 MW of 

power and 5,000 barrels/day of clean liquid transportation fuel, including highcetane diesel fuel and naphtha that contain no sulfur or aromatics.

Technology/Project Description 

The project proposed to demonstrate conversion of 4,700 tons/day of coal waste 

from abandoned anthracite culm piles into 41 MW of electric power and over 

5,000 barrels per day of ultra-clean transportation fuels. In doing so, over one 

million tons/year of coal waste would have been removed that contribute to contamination of watersheds through leaching of minerals and acid water formation. 

In the proposed process, coal waste is fed to a Shell oxygen-blown, entrained-bed 

gasifi er that applies heat and pressure, transforms the ash constituent of the coal 

waste into an inert vitreous slag, and converts the hydrocarbon and sulfur constituents primarily into carbon monoxide (CO), hydrogen (H2

), carbonyl sulfi de 

(COS), and hydrogen sulfi de (H2S). This raw synthesis gas (syngas) is cleaned 

in a patented RectisolTM process, which removes nearly all of the COS and H2

S. 

Clean syngas (CO and H2

) is either shifted by the addition of steam to carbon 

dioxide (CO2) and H2 for separation, or used directly for power generation and 

liquid fuel production. Power is generated in a gas turbine, which in turn provides 

process heat and steam for a SASOL slurry-phase Fischer-Tropsch (FT) reactor. The SASOL FT reactor produces high-cetane diesel fuel and naphtha that 

contain no sulfur or aromatics. Naphtha can either be upgraded to a high-octane, 

clean-burning reformulated gasoline or used as sulfur-free on-board reforming 

feed for fuel cell-powered vehicles. 
3-31

Contacts

Participant

John W. Rich Jr., President

(570) 874-1602

jwrich@ultracleanfuels.com

WMPI PTY., LLC

10 Gilberton Road

Gilberton, PA 17934

NETL

Diane Revay Madden

(412) 386-5931

diane.madden@netl.doe.gov

Headquarters

Joseph Giove

(301) 903-4130

joseph.giove@hq.doe.gov

Benefi ts

The proposed project would have addressed an environmental issue associated 

with vast abandoned coal waste piles while providing a source of high-grade, 

ultra-clean transportation fuels. Well over a billion tons of coal waste resides in 

Pennsylvania, Illinois, West Virginia, and Ohio. This coal waste could become 

low-cost feedstock to help fuel the nation’s transportation fl eet and contribute 

to energy independence. This project proposed to process about one million 

tons per year of coal waste materials from the Gilberton site. Had the project 

been successful, the technology could have been applied in many regions of the 

country where coal wastes currently are stockpiled. The FT transportation fuels 

can be used for a variety of high-end fuel applications, and being virtually free 

of sulfur, nitrogen, and aromatics, are superior to their conventional petroleum 

counterparts in both end-use and environmental properties. Their characteristics 

translate into reduced sulfur, nitrogen oxides (NOx

), particulate matter (PM), 

hydrocarbon, and CO emissions. The process scheme is very fl exible, allowing 

use of a broad range of feedstock (coal, coal waste, petroleum coke, biomass, 

and blends thereof), and facilitating carbon separation/capture for sequestration 

by keeping CO2

 streams concentrated.

Status/Accomplishments

This project was selected for award on January 8, 2003. A Memorandum of 

Understanding was signed with SASOL to commence negotiations for the use 

of SASOL’s FT technology in the proposed project. On September 29, 2005, 

Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell announced that the state had entered into an 

agreement to buy the fuel products from the project.

The Public Scoping Meeting for preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was held on May 5, 2003. Public hearings on the draft EIS were held 

on January 9, 2006, in Shenandoah, Pennsylvania and on January 10, 2006, in 

Pottsville, Pennsylvania.

Following a lengthy pre-award period, DOE ended negotiation efforts in November 2008. Unfortunately, the participant was not able to fi nalize all the technology 

vendor agreements necessary to pursue development of the project. 
3-32

Increasing Power Plant 

Effi ciency—Lignite 

Fuel Enhancement

CCPI-1

Clean Coal Fuels

Upgrading O

Conversion G

Participant

 Great River Energy (GRE)

Additional Team 

Members

Electric Power Research 

Institute—collaborator

Lehigh University—

collaborator

Barr Engineering—lignite 

handling

Falkirk Mining Company — 

lignite coal supplier

Location

Underwood, McLean County, 

ND (GRE’s Coal Creek Station)

Technology

GRE’s waste-heat dryer for 

low-rank coals

Project Capacity/

Production

546 MW 

Coal

Lignite

Project Funding

Total $31,512,215 100%

DOE 13,518,737 43

Participant 17,993,478 57

Objectives

To demonstrate a 25 percent reduction in lignite moisture content (from 40 to 30 

percent moisture in this application) using plant waste heat; and to optimize and 

assess plant operation on dried coal to quantify benefi ts.

Technology/Project Description

The project demonstrates Great River Energy’s (GRE) waste-heat dryer for 

low-rank coals on a 546-MW tangentially-fi red boiler at the Coal Creek Station 

using North Dakota lignite that has approximately 40 percent moisture content. 

In phase 1 of a two-phased effort, GRE is to build and operate a prototype dryer 

module capable of producing one-fourth of the dry lignite requirement for the 

plant. In phase 2, which follows successful operation of the fi rst dryer, GRE will 

build full-scale dryers to provide suffi cient dryer capacity to fully fuel the 546-

MW unit, optimize plant operation on dried lignite, and evaluate performance. 

The full boiler dryer system uses plant cooling water and fl ue gas as the major 

heating medium. Water drawn from the cooling tower captures heat from the 

steam condenser in the boiler circuit, raising the temperature to about 120 °F. The 

heated water is routed to an air heater before returning to the plant cooling water 

circuit. Ambient air is heated in the air heater to about 105 °F and subsequently 

used as the fl uidizing media in the fl uidized-bed dryer to provide heat along with 

hot water. In practice, a two-stage dryer is used to enhance heat transfer.

Benefi ts

This technology uses heat (that would otherwise be lost out the stack) to upgrade 

the low-rank coal feedstock, thereby enhancing plant effi ciency and performance. 

The high moisture content in low-rank coals signifi cantly increases plant heat 

rates and reduces effi ciency by requiring application of heat generated during 

combustion to vaporize large amounts of water in coal. This heat of vaporization 

represents a heat loss because it does not contribute to power generation. Moreover, high moisture content coals can contribute to corrosion of ductwork, and 

place an energy penalty on fans that move the vaporized water and pulverizers 
3-33

that process the moisture in the coal. GRE’s upgrading process improves plant 

economics and reduces plant heat loss (decreases heat rate), increases effi ciency, 

and thereby reduces emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2

), mercury, nitrogen oxides (NOx

), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and particulate matter (PM) per unit of energy 

produced. This technology has potential application to more than 100 gigawatts 

of domestic coal-fi red capacity that currently uses low-rank coals.

Status/Accomplishments

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requirement was met with an 

Environmental Assessment (EA) and issuance of a Finding of No Signifi cant 

Impact (FONSI) on January 16, 2004. A cooperative agreement was awarded 

July 9, 2004. 

Following installation and startup, around-the-clock operations of the prototype 

dryer and data collection began in March 2006. The moisture of the processed 

lignite coal was reduced from about 38.5 percent to 29.5 percent. The prototype 

dryer test results indicated that in addition to reducing the emissions of SOx

, 

NOx

, and CO2, there is also potential for mercury reduction. When the heavy 

components of lignite fall out in the fi rst stage of the dryer, some material that 

is concentrated in mercury is also removed. Also, reducing moisture in coal 

increases mercury oxidation and facilitates additional capture in the fl ue gas 

desulfurization unit. 

In September 2006, GRE initiated design activities for full-scale dryers (135 tons/

hr), which will have improved reliability and fl exibility with regard to management of the higher density fraction from the fi rst stage, heat input, pressure drop, 

moisture reduction, and coal throughput. GRE is installing four dryers on Unit 2 

as part of the project, and because of the success of the prototype, GRE is installing four more dryers on Unit 1 with its own funds. Thus, the entire Coal Creek 

Station is being retrofi tted with lignite coal dryers. 

GRE completed design of the integrated full-scale dryer system in December 

2007. Fabrication and on-site assembly was fi nished in May 2008. By March 2009, 

major dryer internals, such as water coils, air sparger, fi re protection system, and 

explosion protection system were completed for all dryers. Ongoing construction 

activities include installation of electrical cables, controls, and instrumentation; 

and modifi cations to the coal handling system. GRE plans to complete construction of the dryer system and begin testing in fall 2009.

Based on the success of the prototype 

dryer, the entire Coal Creek Station 

is being retrofi tted with lignite coal 

dryers.

The coal dryer technology has generated 

signifi cant domestic and international 

interest. GRE has performed pilotscale tests to determine specifi c coal 

drying characteristics for utilities 

interested in the technology.

Project team members are performing 

engineering efforts to evaluate the 

feasibility and benefi ts of using the 

coal dryer technology for Luminant 

(Texas utility), SaskPower (Canadian 

utility), and Vattenfall (European 

company).

Contacts

Participant

Charles Bullinger

(701) 442-7662

cbullinger@grenergy.com

Great River Energy

2875 Third St., SW

Underwood, ND 58576-9659

NETL

Dr. Sai Gollakota

(304) 285-4151

sai.gollakota@netl.doe.gov

Headquarters

Joseph Giove

(301) 903-4130

joseph.giove@hq.doe.gov
3-34
3-35

Industrial Applications
3-36

Western Greenbrier 

Co-Production 

Demonstration 

Project

Project Discontinued

CCPI-1

Industrial Applications

Direct Coal Use G

By-Product Use O

Participant

 Western Greenbrier CoGeneration (WGC), LLC

Additional Team Members

Alstom Power, Inc.—technology 

supplier

ENERFAB—Architect/Engineer 

(A/E) services/construction

Marshall Miller—owners/

construction management

Location

Rainelle, Greenbrier County, WV

Technology

Alstom Power fl uidized-bed 

combustion

Project Capacity/

Production

100 MW (net) electric power and 

steam for district heating, alkaline 

ash for remediation, and co-production of structural bricks or 

other marketable materials

Coal

4,000 tons/day of bituminous 

waste coal

Project Funding

Total $16,256,940 100%

DOE 8,128,470 50

Participant 8,128,470 50

Objectives

To demonstrate advanced circulating fl uidized-bed (CFB) combustion technology 

in the co-production of 100 MW (net) electric power and steam, and marketable 

ash by-products using bituminous waste coal as the primary feedstock; to use 

residual steam from the steam turbine for industrial use and district heating; and 

to apply alkaline ash from the CFB to remediate acid water formation in waste 

coal impoundments. 

Technology/Project Description

The project proposed to apply advanced CFB technology to convert approximately 4,000 tons/day of coal mining waste materials (“gob”) into 100 MW (net) 

of electricity. Also, up to 20,000 pounds/hour of steam/hot water for industrial 

use and district heating would have been generated. Initially, about 10 percent 

of the ash generated would have been used to produce a salable by-product, and 

about 800 tons/day would have been used for remediation of acid water formation. The CFB power plant was intended to be an anchor tenant in a planned, 

environmentally balanced industrial park (Eco-Park). The advanced CFB would 

have incorporated an inverted cyclone separator and mid-support structure designs to reduce assembly time (6–8 weeks), lower material costs (60 percent less 

structural steel tonnage), and provide a smaller footprint (30–40 percent) than 

conventional designs. In the proposed technology, waste coal and limestone are 

simultaneously fed to the CFB, which raises steam by passing water through 

water walls lining the CFB. The limestone removes the bulk of the sulfur in the 

coal feedstock, and the solids are entrained and re-circulated via the cyclone 

separators to enhance limestone and carbon utilization. An economizer located 

downstream of the cyclones recovers additional heat from the fl ue gas. Selective 

non-catalytic reduction (SNCR), fl ash dryer absorber, and a baghouse provide 

additional control of nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, particulate matter, and mercury. Steam from the CFB boiler drives a nominal 100-MW (net) steam turbine. 
3-37

Also, a portion of the steam can be used for ash by-product processing while hot 

water supplies district heating to tenants in the Eco-Park. Bottom ash and a small 

portion of the fl y ash are collected and returned to the source of the feedstock. 

The mildly alkaline nature of the ash assists in neutralizing the acid runoff from 

the waste pile, alleviating a signifi cant environmental problem. Some of the fl y 

ash is processed and used for production of salable materials, including cements 

and aggregates.

Benefi ts

The project was intended to be a model of industrial ecology by applying advanced 

technology to: (1) generate energy from wastes, alleviating an environmental 

problem; (2) maximize energy generated and associated effi ciency; (3) produce 

salable by-products, enhancing plant economics; and (4) produce remediation 

by-products, enabling signifi cant land reclamation. West Virginia alone has over 

400 million tons of waste coal in abandoned mine dump sites, or gob piles. Water 

coming in contact with these gob piles becomes highly acidic, absorbs minerals, and may contaminate streams and rivers. Successful integration of project 

technologies and approaches would have served as a model for remediation of 

similar refuse sites.

Status/Accomplishments

In June 2003, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process was 

launched with a public scoping meeting to defi ne the requirements for an 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). On January 4, 2007, a public hearing 

was held in Crawley, West Virginia, to gather input on the draft EIS. The fi nal 

EIS was released in December 2007. NEPA requirements were successfully 

completed with a Record of Decision (ROD) published in the Federal Register 

on May 2, 2008.

Alstom Power combusted about 150 tons of Anjean waste coal and 50 tons of the 

Greenbrier Valley limestone at its test facility to obtain furnace design parameters 

and to provide representative ash to Hazen Research for by-product development 

and qualifi cation testing. 

Unfortunately, construction and equipment costs had increased substantially and 

the participant was unable to secure the necessary private fi nancing to move the 

project forward. Following multiple time extensions, DOE ended participation in 

the project in June 2008.

Contacts

Participant

Wayne D. Brown

(304) 438-8000

wbrown@whcogen.com

Western Greenbrier 

Co-Generation, LLC

1 John Raine Drive

Rainelle, WV 25962

NETL

Nelson Rekos

(304) 285-4066

nelson.rekos@netl.doe.gov

Headquarters

Joseph Giove

(301) 903-4130

joseph.giove@hq.doe.gov
3-38
A-1

Appendix A. Historical Perspective, 

Legislative History, and Public Laws

CCTDP Historical 

Perspective

A number of key events prompted the 

creation of the Clean Coal Technology 

Demonstration Program (CCTDP) and 

impacted its focus over the course of 

the fi ve solicitations. The roots of the 

CCTDP can be traced to the acid rain 

debates of the early 1980s, culminating 

in U.S. and Canadian envoys recommending a fi ve-year, $5 billion U.S. 

effort to curb precursors to acid rain 

formation—sulfur dioxide (SO2

) and 

nitrogen oxides (NOx). This recommendation was adopted and became a 

presidential initiative in March 1987.

As part of the response to the recommendations of the Special Envoys on 

Acid Rain in April 1987, the President 

directed the Secretary of Energy to establish a panel to advise the President 

on innovative clean coal technology 

activities. This panel was the Innovative 

Control Technology Advisory Panel. As 

a part of the panel’s activities, the state 

and federal incentive subcommittee prepared a report, Report to the Secretary 

of Energy Concerning Commercialization Incentives, that addressed actions 

that States could take to provide incentives for demonstrating and deploying 

clean coal technologies. The panel 

determined that demonstration and deployment should be managed through 

both State and federal initiatives.

In the same time frame, the Vice 

President’s Task Force on Regulatory 

Relief (later referred to as the Presidential Task Force on Regulatory Relief) 

was established. Among other things, 

the task force examined incentives and 

disincentives for the commercial realization of new clean coal technologies. 

The task force also examined cost-effective emissions reduction measures 

that might be inhibited by various federal, State, and local regulations. The 

task force recommended that preference 

be given to projects located in states 

that offer certain regulatory incentives 

to encourage such technologies. This 

recommendation was accepted and 

became part of the project selection 

considerations beginning with CCTDP 

Round II.

Initial CCTDP emphasis was on controlling SO2

 and NOx emissions from 

existing coal-based power generators. 

Approaches demonstrated through 

the program were coal processing 

to produce clean fuels, combustion 

modification to control emissions, 

postcombustion cleanup of fl ue gas, 

and repowering with advanced power 

generation systems. These early efforts 

(projects resulting from the fi rst three 

solicitations) produced a suite of costeffective compliance options available 

today to address acid rain concerns. 

As the CCTDP evolved, work began 

on drafting what was to become the 

Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 

(CAAA). Through a dialog with the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA) and Congress, the program was 

able to remain responsive to shifts in environmental emphasis. Also, projects in 

place enabled CAAA architects to have 

access to real-time data on emission 

control capabilities while structuring 

proposed acid rain regulations under 

Title IV of the CAAA.

Aside from acid rain, there was an 

emerging issue in the area of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs), also referred 

to as air toxics. Title III of the CAAA 

listed 189 airborne compounds subject 

to control, including trace elements and 

volatile and semi-volatile compounds. 

To assess the impacts on coal-based 

power generation, CCTDP projects 

were leveraged to obtain data through 

an integrated effort among the U.S. 

Department of Energy (DOE), EPA, 

the Electric Power Research Institute 

(EPRI), and the Utility Air Regulatory 

Group. Through this effort, concerns 

about HAPs relative to coal-based power generation have been signifi cantly 

mitigated, enabling focus on but a few 

fl ue gas constituents. Also, because NOx

is a precursor to ozone formation, the 

presence of NOx

 in ozone nonattainment areas, even at low levels, became 

an issue. This precipitated action in the 

CCTDP to include technologies capable 

of deep NOx

 reduction in the portfolio 

of technologies being sought.

In the course of the last two solicitations 

of the CCTDP, a number of energy and 

environmental considerations combined 

to change the emphasis toward seeking 

high-efficiency, very low-emission 

power generation technology. Energy 

demand projections in the United States 

showed the need for continued reliance 

on coal-based power generation, with 

signifi cant growth required into the 21st

century. The CAAA, however, capped 

SO2

 emissions at year 2000 levels, and 

NOx continued to receive increased attention relative to ozone nonattainment. 

Furthermore, particulate emissions 

were coming under increased scrutiny 

because of correlations with lung disorders and the tendency for toxic compounds to adhere to particulate matter. 

Added to these concerns was the growing concern over global warming and, 

more specifi cally, the carbon dioxide 

(CO2

) produced from burning fossil 

fuels. Coal became a primary target 

because of its high carbon-to-hydrogen 

ratio relative to natural gas, resulting 

in somewhat higher CO2

 emissions per 

unit of energy produced. However, coal 
A-2

is the fuel of choice (if not necessity) 

for many developing countries where 

projected growth in electric power 

generation is the greatest. The path 

chosen to respond to these considerations was to pursue advanced power 

generation systems that could provide 

major enhancements in effi ciency and 

control SO2

, NOx, and particulates 

without introducing external parasitic 

control devices. (Increased effi ciency 

translates to less coal consumption per 

unit of energy produced.) As a result, a 

number of advanced power generation 

projects were undertaken, representing 

pioneer efforts recognized throughout 

the world.

CCTDP Legislative 

History

The legislation authorizing the CCTDP 

is found in Public Law 98-473, Joint 

Resolution Making Continuing Appropriations for Fiscal Year (FY) 1985 

and for Other Purposes. Title I set aside 

$750 million of the congressionally rescinded $5.375 billion of the Synthetic 

Fuels Corporation into a special U.S. 

Treasury account entitled the “Clean 

Coal Technology Reserve.” This account was dedicated to “conducting 

cost-shared clean coal technology 

projects for the construction and operation of facilities to demonstrate 

the feasibility of future commercial 

applications of such technology.” Title 

III of this act directed the Secretary of 

Energy to solicit statements of interest 

in and proposals for clean coal projects. 

In keeping with this mandate, DOE issued a program announcement, which 

resulted in the receipt of 176 proposals 

representing both domestic and international projects with a total estimated 

cost in excess of $8 billion.

After this signifi cant initial expression 

of interest in clean coal demonstration 

projects, Public Law 99-190, enacted 

December 1985, appropriated $400 

million to conduct cost-shared demonstration projects. Of the total appropriated funds, approximately $387 

million was made available for costshared projects to be selected through 

a competitive solicitation, or Program 

Opportunity Notice (PON), referred 

to as CCTDP-I. (The remaining funds 

were required for program direction 

and the legislatively mandated Small 

Business Innovation Research Program 

[SBIR] and Small Business Technology 

Transfer Program [STTR].)

In a manner similar to the initiation 

of CCTDP-I, Congress again directed 

DOE to solicit information from the 

private sector in the Department of the 

Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for FY1987 (Public Law 

99-591, enacted October 30, 1986). The 

information received was to be used to 

establish the level of potential industrial interest in another solicitation, this 

time involving clean coal technologies 

capable of retrofi tting, repowering, or 

modernizing existing facilities. Projects 

were to be cost-shared, with industry 

sharing at least 50 percent of the cost. 

As a result of the solicitation, a total of 

39 expressions of interest were received 

by DOE in January 1987.

On March 18, 1987, the President announced the endorsement of the recommendations of the Special Envoys 

on Acid Rain, including a $2.5 billion 

government share of funding for industry/government demonstrations of 

innovative control technology over a 

fi ve-year period. On April 4, 1987, the 

President asked Congress for an additional $350 million in FY1988 and an 

advanced appropriation of $500 million 

in FY1989. Additional appropriations 

of $500 million would be requested in 

fi scal years 1990, 1991, and 1992.

Public Law 100-202, enacted December 

22, 1987, as amended by Public Law 

100-446, appropriated a total of $575 

million to conduct CCTDP-II. About 

$536 million was for projects, with the 

remainder for program direction and the 

SBIR and STTR programs.

The Department of the Interior and 

Related Agencies Appropriations Act 

for FY1989 (Public Law 100-446, 

enacted September 27, 1988) provided 

$575 million for necessary expenses 

associated with clean coal technology 

demonstrations in the CCTDP-III solicitation. Of the total funding, about 

$546 million was made available for 

cost-sharing projects, with the remainder for program direction and the SBIR 

and STTR programs. The act continued 

the requirement that proposals must 

demonstrate technologies capable of 

retrofitting or repowering existing 

facilities. The statute also authorized 

the use of Tennessee Valley Authority power program funds as a source 

of nonfederal cost-sharing, except if 

provided by annual appropriations acts. 

In addition, funds borrowed by Rural 

Electrification Administration (now 

Rural Utilities Service) electric cooperatives from the Federal Financing 

Bank became eligible as cost-sharing 

in the CCTDP-III solicitation, except if 

provided by annual appropriations.

In the Department of the Interior and 

Related Agencies Appropriations Act 

of 1990 (Public Law 101-121, enacted 

October 23, 1989), Congress provided 

$600 million for the CCTDP-IV solicitation. CCTDP-IV, according to the 

act, “shall demonstrate technologies 

capable of replacing, retrofi tting, or 

repowering existing facilities and shall 

be subject to all provisos contained 

under this head in Public Laws 99-

190, 100-202 and 100-446 as amended 

by this Act.” About $563 million was 

made available for federal cofunding 

of projects selected in CCTDP-IV, with 

the remainder for program direction and 

the SBIR and STTR programs.

In Public Law 101-121, enacted October 23, 1989, Congress also provided 

$600 million for the CCTDP-V solicitation. CCTDP-V, according to the 

act, “shall be subject to all provisos 

contained under this head in Public 

Laws 99-190, 100-202 and 100-446 as 

amended by this Act.” Approximately 
A-3

$568 million was made available for 

federal cofunding of projects to be 

selected in this solicitation, with the 

remainder again for program direction 

and the SBIR and STTR programs. 

Subsequent acts (Public Laws 101-164, 

101-302, 101-512, and 102-154) modifi ed the schedule for issuing CCTDP-IV 

and/or CCTDP-V PONs and selecting 

projects. In Public Law 101-512, Congress directed DOE to issue the PON 

for CCTDP-IV not later than February 

1, 1991, with selections to be made 

within 8 months. In Public Law 102-

154, Congress directed DOE to issue 

the CCTDP-V PON not later than July 

6, 1992, with selections to be made 

within 10 months. This later act also directed that CCTDP-V proposals should 

advance signifi cantly the effi ciency and 

environmental performance of coal-using technologies and be applicable to 

either new or existing facilities.

Public Laws 101-164, 101-302, 101-

512, 103-138, and 103-332 adjusted 

the rate at which funds were to be made 

available to the program. 

The CCTDP funds have been further 

adjusted through sequestering requirements of the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings 

Defi cit Reduction Act, recissions, and 

transfers to other Fossil Energy activities. Sequestering reduced CCTDP appropriations as follows:

• $2,028 was sequestered from the 

$575 million appropriated by Public 

Law 100-446, as amended by Public 

Law 101-164.

• $455 was sequestered from the $1.2 

billion appropriated by Public Law 

101-121, as amended by Public 

Laws 101-512, 102-154, 102-381, 

103-138, 103-332, 104-6, 104-208, 

and 105-18.

Recissions and transfers have reduced 

CCTDP appropriations as follows:

• $200 million was rescinded by Public Law 104-6.

• $123 million was rescinded by Public Law 104-208.

• $17 million was rescinded by Public 

Law 105-18.

• $101 million was rescinded by Public Law 105-83.

• $38,000 was rescinded by Public 

Law 106-113 (general reduction).

• $95 million was transferred to the 

Power Plant Improvement Initiative 

by Public Law 106-291.

• $33.7 million was transferred to 

Fossil Energy Research and Development by Public Law 107-63.

• $10,000 was rescinded by Public 

Law 107-206 (Admin and Travel 

Rescission).

• $88 million was rescinded by Public 

Law 108-108.

• $20 million was rescinded by Public 

Law 109-103. 

• $166 million was transferred to Fossil Energy Research and Development by Public Law 110-161.

• $149 million was transferred to the 

Clean Coal Power Initiative (CCPI) 

by Public Law 111-8.

In addition to rescissions and transfers, 

the annual appropriations bills have 

deferred the availability of various 

amounts of previously appropriated 

funds until the start of subsequent fi scal 

years. These deferrals only involved 

funding not needed in the current fi scal year and therefore, did not impact 

ongoing projects. Recently, Public 

Law 111-8 transferred the full amount 

of previously deferred CCTDP funding ($149 million) to the CCPI. With 

no active projects remaining in the 

CCTDP Program, these funds were no 

longer needed. This transfer left less 

than $17 million in unobligated funding in CCTDP accounts. Public Law 

110-161 granted authorization to utilize 

remaining unobligated CCTDP funds 

for the CCPI. 

Exhibit A-1 lists all the key legislation 

relating to the CCTDP and provides a 

summary of provisions relating to program funding as well as program implementation. At the end of this appendix 

are funding provisions excerpted from 

appropriations and other relevant funding-related acts.
A-4

Exhibit A-1

CCTDP Legislative History (Funding Only)

Public 

Law

Date 

Enacted

CCTDP 

Round Program Funding Implementation Provisions

98-473 10/12/84 Initiation 

of CCTDP 

informational 

solicitation

Rescinded $750 million of $5.375 billion from the Energy 

Security Reserve (Synthetic Fuels Corporation) to be 

deposited in a U.S. Treasury Department account entitled 

“Clean Coal Technology Reserve” for conducting cost-shared 

clean coal technologies (CCT) projects for the construction 

and operation of facilities to demonstrate the feasibility 

for future commercial application of such technology, 

without fi scal year limitation, subject to subsequent annual 

appropriation.

Title III required publication of a notice soliciting 

statements of interest in and proposals for projects 

employing emerging CCTs. A report to Congress was 

required no later than 4/15/85.

99-88 8/15/85 CCTDP-I Deferred $1.6 million for obligation until 10/1/85. Conference Report (H. Rep. 99-236) concurred with 

CCT project guidelines contained in Senate Report 99-

82, with certain modifi cations.

99-190 12/19/85 CCTDP-I Conference Report (H. Rep. 99-450) agreed to a $400-million 

CCTDP as described under the U.S. Treasury Department 

Energy Security Reserve, with the request for proposals to be 

for the full $400 million.

Required a PON (CCTDP-I) to be issued and projects 

to be selected no later than 8/1/86. Project cost-sharing 

provisions were detailed.

99-591 10/30/86 Second 

informational 

solicitation

(Contained no funding provisions for CCTDP.) Title II required publication of a notice soliciting 

statements of interest in, and informational proposals 

for projects employing emerging CCTs capable of 

retrofi tting, repowering, or modernizing existing 

facilities. A report to Congress was required no later 

than 3/6/87.

100-202 12/22/87 CCTDP-II Appropriated $50 million for FY beginning 10/1/87 until 

expended and $525 million for FY beginning 10/1/88 until 

expended.

Required a request for proposals (CCTDP-II) to be 

issued no later than 60 days following enactment, for 

emerging CCTs capable of retrofi tting or repowering 

existing facilities. Extended project selection from 120 

days to 160 days after receipt of proposals. Provided 

for cost-sharing of preaward costs for preparation 

and submission of environmental data upon signing 

of the cooperative agreement. Conference Report 

(H. Rep. 100-498) provided that project cost-sharing 

funds be made available to nonutility as well as utility 

applications. No funds were made available for new, 

stand-alone applications. H. Rep. Report 100-171 

and Senate Report 100-165 outlined provisions for 

participant to repay government contributions.

100-446 9/27/88 CCTDP-III Made available $575 million on 10/1/89 until expended. 

Pub. L. 100-202 was amended by striking $525 million 

and inserting $190 million for FY beginning 10/1/88 until 

expended, $135 million for fi scal year beginning 10/1/89 

until expended, and $200 million for FY beginning 10/1/90 

until expended, provided that outlays for FY89 resulting 

from use of funds appropriated under Pub. L. 100-202, as 

amended, did not exceed $15.5 million.

Request for proposals (CCTDP-III) to be issued by 

5/1/89 for emerging CCTs capable of retrofi tting or 

repowering existing facilities. Proposals were to be 

due 120 days after issuance of the PON; projects were 

to be selected no later than 120 days after receipt of 

proposals.

Funds borrowed by REA electric cooperatives from 

the Federal Financing Bank were made eligible as 

cost-sharing. Funds derived by the Tennessee Valley 

Authority from its power program were deemed 

allowable as cost-sharing except if provided by annual 

appropriations acts.

101-45 6/30/89 CCTDP-III Funds appropriated for FY1989 were made available for a 

third solicitation.

Project selections for the third solicitation were to be 

made not later than 1/1/90.

101-121 10/23/89 CCTDP-IV 

& CCTDP-V

Made available $600 million on 10/1/90 until expended and 

for $600 million on 10/1/91 until expended. Pub. L. 100-446 

was amended by striking $575 million and inserting $450 

million to be made available on 10/1/89 until expended and 

$125 million to be made available on 10/1/90. Unobligated 

balances excess to the needs of the procurement for which 

they originally were made available may be applied to 

other procurements for which requests for proposals had 

not yet been issued, except that no supplemental, backup, 

or contingent selection of projects could be made over and 

above the projects originally selected.

Two solicitations (CCTDP-IV and CCTDP-V) to 

be issued, one each appropriation, to demonstrate 

technologies capable of replacing, retrofi tting, or 

repowering existing facilities, subject to all provisos 

contained in Pub. L. 99-190, 100-202, and 100-446 as 

amended. The PON (CCTDP-IV) using funds becoming 

available on 10/1/90 was to be issued by 6/1/90, with 

selections made by 2/1/91. The PON (CCTDP-V) using 

funds becoming available on 10/1/91 was to be issued 

no later than 9/1/91, with selections made by 5/1/92.
A-5

Exhibit A-1

CCTDP Legislative History (Funding Only)

Public 

Law

Date 

Enacted

CCTDP 

Round Program Funding Implementation Provisions

101-164 11/21/89 CCTDP-IV 

& CCTDP-V

Appropriation for FY1990 was amended by striking $450 

million and inserting $419 million and by striking $125 

million and inserting $156 million.

Solicitations could not be conducted prior to ability to 

obligate funds. Repayment provisions for CCTDP-IV 

and CCTDP-V were to be the same as for CCTDP-III.

101-302 5/25/90 CCTDP-IV 

& CCTDP-V

Obligation of funds previously appropriated for CCTDP-IV 

and was deferred until 9/1/91.

101-512 11/5/90 CCTDP-IV 

& CCTDP-V

Pub. L. 101-121 was amended by striking $600 million 

made available on 10/1/90 until expended and $600 million 

made available on 10/1/91 until expended and inserting $600 

million made available as follows: $35 million on 9/1/91, 

$315 million on 10/1/91, and $250 million on 10/1/92, all 

sums remaining until expended, for use in conjunction with 

a separate general request for proposals, and $600 million 

made available as follows: $150 million on 10/1/91, $225 

million on 10/1/92, and $225 million on 10/1/93, all sums 

remaining until expended, for use with a separate general 

request for proposals.

The CCTDP-IV solicitation was to be issued not later 

than 2/1/91. The CCTDP-V PON was to be issued not 

later than 3/1/92. Project selections were to be made 

within eight months of PON’s issuance. Repayment 

provisions were to be the same as for CCTDP-III. 

Provisions were included to provide protections for 

trade secrets and proprietary information. Conference 

Report (H. Rep. 101-971) recommends changes to 

program policy factors.

102-154 11/13/91 CCTDP-V Pub. L. 102-512 was amended by striking $150 million on 

10/1/91 and $225 million on 10/1/92 and inserting $100 

million on 10/1/91 and $275 million on 10/1/92.

The CCTDP-V PON was delayed to not later than 

7/6/92, with selection to be made within 10 months 

(extended by two months). The PON was to be for 

projects that advance signifi cantly the effi ciency and 

environmental performance of coal-using technologies 

and be applicable to either new or existing facilities. 

Conference Report (H. Rep. 102-256) stated 

expectations that the CCTDP-V solicitation would be 

conducted under the same general types of criteria as 

CCTDP-IV, principally modifi ed only to (1) include 

the wider range of eligible technologies or applications; 

(2) adjust technical criteria to consider allowable 

development activities, strengthen criteria for nonutility 

demonstrations, and adjust commercial performance 

criteria for additional facilities and technologies 

with regard to aspects of general energy effi ciency 

and environmental performance; and (3) clarify and 

strengthen cost and fi nance criteria, particularly with 

regard to development activities.

Funding was allowed for project-specifi c development 

activities for process performance defi nition, 

component design verifi cation, materials selection, and 

evaluation of alternative designs on a cost-shared basis 

up to a limit of 10 percent of the government share of 

project cost.

Development activities eligible for cost-sharing 

included limited modifi cations to existing facilities 

for project-related testing but not construction of new 

facilities.

102-381 10/5/92 Pub. L. 101-512 was amended by striking $250 million on 

10/1/92 and inserting $150 million on 10/1/93 and $100 

million on 10/1/94; and by striking $275 million on 10/1/92 

and $225 million on 10/1/93 and inserting $250 million on 

10/1/93 and $250 million on 10/1/94.

102-486 10/24/92 (Contained no funding provisions for CCTDP.) Section 1301—Coal RD&D and Commercial 

Applications Programs (Title XIII; Subtitle A) 

authorized DOE to conduct programs for RD&D and 

commercial applications of coal-based technologies. 

Secretary of Energy was directed to submit to Congress 

(1) a report that included, among other things, 

recommendations regarding the manner in which the 

cost-sharing demonstrations conducted pursuant to 

the Clean Coal Program (Pub. L. 98-473) might be 

modifi ed and extended in order to ensure the timely 

demonstration of advanced coal-based technologies 

and (2) periodic status reports on the development of 

advanced coal-based technologies and RD&D and 

commercial application attributes.

(continued)
A-6

Exhibit A-1

CCTDP Legislative History (Funding Only)

Public 

Law

Date 

Enacted

CCTDP 

Round Program Funding Implementation Provisions

103-138 11/11/93 Pub. L. 101-512 was amended by striking $150 million on 

10/1/93 and $100 million on 10/1/94 and inserting $100 

million on 10/1/93, $100 million on 10/1/94, and $50 million 

on 10/1/95; and by striking $250 million on 10/1/93 and $250 

million on 10/1/94 and inserting $125 million on 10/1/93, 

$275 million on 10/1/94, and $100 million on 10/1/95.

103-332 9/30/94 Pub. L. 101-512 was amended by striking $100 million on 

10/1/94 and $50 million on 10/1/95 and inserting $18 million 

on 10/1/94, $100 million on 10/1/95, and $32 million on 

10/1/96; and by striking $275 million on 10/1/94 and $100 

million on 10/1/95 and inserting $19.121 million on 10/1/94, 

$100 million on 10/1/95, and $255.879 million on 10/1/96.

An amount not to exceed $18 million available in 

FY1995 may be used for administrative oversight of the 

CCTDP.

104-6 4/10/95 Of funds available for obligation in FY1996, $50 million was 

rescinded. Of the funds to be made available for obligation in 

FY97, $150 million was rescinded.

104-134a 4/26/96 Conference Report (H. Rep. 104-402 to accompany 

H.R. 1977) allowed for the use of up to $18 million in 

CCTDP funds for program administration.

104-208b 9/30/96 Conference Report (H. Rep. 104-863 to accompany H.R. 

3610) noted rescission of $123 million for FY1997 or prior 

years.

House and Senate committees did not object to use of 

up to $16 million in available funds for administration 

of the CCTDP in FY1997 (H. Rep. 104-625 and Senate 

104-319 to accompany H.R. 3662).

105-18 6/12/97 Of funds made available for obligation in FY1997 or prior 

years, $17 million was rescinded.

105-83 11/14/97 Of funds made available for obligation in FY1997 or priors, 

$101 million was rescinded.

105-277 10/21/98 Of funds made available for obligation in prior years, $40 

million was deferred.

Conference Report allowed $14.9 million in CCTDP 

funds for program administration.

106-113 11/29/99 Of funds made available for obligation in prior years, $156 

million was deferred. $38,000 was rescinded as a result of the 

general reduction.

Conference Report did not object to the use of 

up to $14.4 million in CCTDP funds for program 

administration.

106-291 10/11/00 Of funds made available for obligation in prior years, $67 

million was deferred. Another $95 million was transferred to 

the Power Plant Improvement Initiative.

Conference Report (H. Rep. 106–406) did not object 

to the use of up to $14.4 million in CCTDP funds for 

program administration.

107-63 11/5/01 Of funds made available for obligation in prior years, 

$40,000,000 was deferred and $33,700,000 was transferred to 

Fossil Energy Research and Development.

108-7 2/20/03 Of funds made available for obligation in prior years, 

$87,000,000 was deferred.

108-108 11/10/03 Of funds made available for obligation in prior years, 

$97,000,000 was deferred and $88,000,000 rescinded.

108-447 12/8/04 Of funds made available for obligation in prior years, 

$257,000,000 was deferred.

109-103 11/19/05 Of funds made available for obligation in prior years, 

$257,000,000 was deferred and $20,000,000 rescinded.

110-5 2/15/07 Of funds made available for obligation in prior years, 

$257,000,000 was deferred.

110-161 12/26/07 Of funds made available for obligation in prior years, 

$149,000,000 was deferred and $166,000,000 was transferred 

to Fossil Energy Research and Development.

111-8 3/11/09 Of funds made available for obligation in prior years, 

$149,000,000 was transferred to the Clean Coal Power 

Initiative.

a

 H.R. 3019, which became Pub. L. 104-134, replaced H.R. 1977.

b

 H.R. 3610, which became Pub. L. 104-208, replaced H.R. 3662.

(continued)
A-7

PPII Historical 

Perspective

The roots of this program lie in the 

blackouts and brownouts of 1999 and 

2000. The Power Plant Improvement 

Initiative (PPII) is an outgrowth of 

congressional direction provided in 

FY2001 appropriations to DOE’s fossil energy research program. Funding 

was added for the program following 

increasing concerns over the adequacy 

of the nation’s power supplies. Several 

parts of the United States, including the 

West Coast and parts of the Northeast, 

had experienced rolling blackouts and 

brownouts in the previous two years 

caused in large part by sharp rises in 

demand for electricity and lagging 

construction of new power plants.

Eligible projects included technologies 

that boost the effi ciencies of currently 

operating power plants—generating 

more megawatts from the same amount 

of fuel—or that lower emissions and 

allow plants to stay in operation in compliance with environmental standards. 

The program was also open to technologies that improve the economics 

and overall performance of coal-fi red 

power plants.

Private sector proposers must at least 

match the government funding. Proposed technologies must be mature 

enough to be commercialized within 

the next few years, and the cost-shared 

demonstrations must be large enough 

to show that the technology is viable 

for commercial use.

PPII Legislative History

The legislation authorizing PPII is 

found in Public Law 106-291, Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2001. Under 

the act, $95,000,000 was transferred 

from funds appropriated in prior years 

under the CCTDP and made available 

for a general request for proposals for 

the commercial-scale demonstration of 

technologies to assure the reliability of 

the nation’s energy supply from existing 

and new electric generating facilities. 

The funds provided were to be spent 

only in accordance with the provisions 

governing the use of funds contained 

in the CCTDP under which they were 

originally appropriated. Provisions for 

recoupment are identical to CCTDP-III 

except that repayments from the sale or 

licensing of technologies shall be from 

both domestic and foreign transactions, 

and the repayments are retained for 

future projects. Congress provided that 

any project approved under PPII shall 

be considered a Clean Coal Technology 

Demonstration Project, for the purposes 

of Chapters 51, 52, and 60 of title 40 of 

the Code of Federal Regulations.

In Public Law 107-63, Congress provided that funds in excess of the needs 

of the PPII procurement be made available for the Clean Coal Power Initiative 

(CCPI).

Exhibit A-2 lists all the key legislation relating to PPII and provides a 

summary of provisions relating to 

program funding as well as program 

implementation.

CCPI Historical 

Perspective

The CCPI was designed to respond 

to tighter air emission standards, the 

growth in electricity consumption, 

and emerging new technologies. With 

emerging air emission regulations dealing with ozone, particulate matter, and 

mercury, new technologies are needed 

to provide consistent, reliable, low-cost 

energy while meeting these standards. 

Electricity demand is expected to grow 

at a signifi cant pace for the foreseeable 

future. Driven by the rise in the digital 

economy, higher quality electricity is in 

greater demand than ever before. Digital-based technologies are playing an 

ever-increasing role in the development 

of new power plant technologies. Neural networks and artifi cial intelligence 

can be used to fi ne-tune operations and 

increase effi ciency at coal-fi red power 

plants. New environmental control 

technologies could reduce fi ne particulates and mercury to previously unattainable levels. To meet the challenges 

of tighter air emission standards, the 

growth in electricity consumption, and 

emerging new technologies, Congress 

appropriated funds for CCPI.

Exhibit A-2

PPII Legislative History

Public 

Law

Date 

Enacted

Program Funding Implementation Provisions

106-291 10/11/00 Made available $95,000,000 derived by transfer from funds 

appropriated in prior years from the CCTDP for a general request for 

proposals for the commercial-scale demonstration of technologies to 

assure the reliability of the Nation’s energy supply from existing and 

new electric generating facilities for which the Department of Energy 

upon review may provide fi nancial assistance awards.

107-63 11/5/01 Provided that funds excess to the needs of the Power Plant 

Improvement Initiative procurement provided for in Public Law 

106-291 shall be made available for the Clean Coal Power Initiative 

provided for in Public Law 107-63.
A-8

By spreading out multiple solicitations 

over a 10-year period, CCPI will be 

able to emphasize the most pressing 

environmental issues of the day, such as 

climate change, and the latest technologies that are ready for commercial-scale 

demonstration. 

CCPI Legislative History

The legislation authorizing CCPI is 

found in Public Law 107-63, Department of Interior and Related Agencies 

Appropriations Act for FY02. Under 

the act, $150,000,000 was made available for a request for proposals for a 

Clean Coal Power Initiative providing 

for competitively awarded research, development, and demonstration (RD&D) 

projects to reduce the barriers to continued and expanded coal use. Congress 

specifi ed that no CCPI project could be 

selected for which suffi cient funding 

was not available to provide for the total 

project. Also, funds are to be expended 

in accordance with the provisions governing the use of funds contained under 

the heading “Clean Coal Technology” 

in prior appropriations.

Congress specifi ed certain changes to 

the repayment provisions. Specifi cally, 

DOE could include provisions for repayment of government contributions 

to individual projects in an amount 

up to the government contribution to 

the project on terms and conditions 

that are acceptable to DOE, including 

repayments from sale and licensing of 

technologies from both domestic and 

foreign transactions. (In the CCTDP, 

repayment had been limited to domestic transactions.) Also, repayments are 

being retained by DOE for future coalrelated RD&D projects. 

As with PPII, Congress specifi ed that 

any technology selected under CCPI 

shall be considered a “Clean Coal Technology,” and any project selected under 

CCPI shall be considered a “Clean Coal 

Technology Project,” for the purposes 

of 42 U.S.C. 7651n, and Chapters 51, 

52, and 60 of title 40 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations.

In 2003, Congress appropriated another 

$150,000,000 for CCPI in Public Law 

108-7. There were no changes in the 

implementing provisions. Again in 

2003 under Public Law 108-108, Congress made an additional $172,000,000 

available for CCPI. In 2004, Congress 

appropriated another $50,000,000 for 

CCPI in Public Law 108-447. 

In 2005, Congress appropriated 

$50,000,000 for CCPI in Public Law 

109-103 for use in a third solicitation. In 

2007, Public Laws 110-5 and 110-161 

made available a total of $130.4 million 

for the third solicitation. In 2009, Public 

Law 111-8 added $288.2 million and the 

American Recovery and Reinvestment 

Act (ARRA) added an additional $800 

million. The ARRA funding could be 

used for new or modifi ed applications 

under the third solicitation.

Exhibit A-3 lists all key legislation 

relating to CCPI and provides a summary of provisions relating to program 

implementation. Following this section 

are funding provisions excerpted from 

appropriations.

Exhibit A-3

CCPI Legislative History

Public 

Law

Date 

Enacted Program Funding Implementation Provisions

107-63 11/5/01 Made available $150,000,000, after coordination with the private 

sector, for a request for proposals for a Clean Coal Power Initiative 

providing for competitively-awarded research, development, and 

demonstration projects to reduce the barriers to continued and 

expanded coal use 107-63.

Provided that funds excess to the needs of the Power Plant 

Improvement Initiative procurement provided for in Public Law 

106-291 shall be made available for the Clean Coal Power 

Initiative provided for in Public Law 107-63.

No project may be selected for which suffi cient funding is 

not available to provide for the total project. Funds shall 

be expended in accordance with the provisions governing 

the use of funds contained under the heading “Clean 

Coal Technology” in prior appropriations. Provisions for 

repayment of government contributions to individual projects 

in an amount up to the government contribution including 

repayments from sale and licensing of technologies from 

both domestic and foreign transactions. Repayments shall be 

retained by DOE for future coal-related research, development 

and demonstration projects. Any technology selected under 

this program shall be considered a Clean Coal Technology, 

and any project selected under this program shall be 

considered a Clean Coal Technology Project, for the purposes 

of 42 U.S.C. 7651n, and Chapters 51, 52, and 60 of title 40 of 

the Code of Federal Regulations.

108-7 2/20/03 Made available $150,000,000, after coordination with the private 

sector, for a request for proposals for a Clean Coal Power Initiative 

providing for competitively-awarded research, development, and 

demonstration projects to reduce the barriers to continued and 

expanded coal use.

Comparable to prior years. 
A-9

Exhibit A-3

CCPI Legislative History

Public 

Law

Date 

Enacted Program Funding Implementation Provisions

108-108 11/10/03 Made an additional $172,000,000 available for CCPI. Comparable to prior years.

108-447 12/8/04 Made an additional $50,000,000 available for CCPI. Comparable to prior years. 

109-58 8/8/05 (Contained no funding provisions). Section 401—Report to Congress – The Secretary shall 

submit to Congress the report required by this subsection 

not later than March 31, 2007. The report shall include, 

with respect to subsection (a), a plan containing (1) a 

detailed assessment of whether the aggregate funding levels 

provided under subsection (a) are the appropriate funding 

levels for that program; (2) a detailed description of how 

proposals will be solicited and evaluated, including a list of 

all activities expected to be undertaken; (3) a detailed list of 

technical milestones for each coal and related technology 

that will be pursued; and (4) a detailed description of 

how the program will avoid problems enumerated in 

Government Accountability Offi ce reports on the Clean Coal 

Technology Program, including problems that have resulted 

in unspent funds and projects that failed either fi nancially or 

scientifi cally.

Section 402—Project Criteria – Section provided detailed 

requirements to be eligible to receive assistance under CCPI, 

including specifi cs regarding effi ciency, environmental 

performance, cost competitiveness, and that at least 70 percent 

of the funds are used only to fund projects on coal-based 

gasifi cation technologies.

Section 403—Report to Congress – Not later than 1 year 

after the date of enactment of this Act, and once every 2 years 

thereafter through 2014, the Secretary, in consultation with 

other appropriate Federal agencies, shall submit to Congress 

a report describing—(1) the technical milestones set forth in 

section 402 and how those milestones ensure progress toward 

meeting the requirements of subsections (b)(1)(B) and (b)(2) 

of section 402; and (2) the status of projects funded under this 

subtitle.

109-103 11/19/05 Made an additional $50,000,000 available for CCPI. Comparable to prior years.

110-5 2/15/07 Made an additional $60,433,000 available for CCPI. Comparable to prior years.

110-161 12/26/07 Made an additional $70,000,000 available for CCPI. Comparable to prior years.

111-5 2/17/09 Made $3,400,000,000 available to Fossil Energy under the American 

Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. $800,000,000 was made 

available for CCPI.

Senate conference language recommended a second closing 

date under CCPI-3 for new or modifi ed applications and 

consideration of applications that utilize petroleum coke for 

some or all of the project’s fuel input.

111-8 3/11/09 Made an additional $288,174,000 available for CCPI. Specifi ed a two-year time limit from time of project selection 

to award that may be extended at the Secretary’s discretion for 

matters outside the control of the applicant, or if the Secretary 

determines that extension of the time limit is in the public 

interest.

(continued)
A-10

Public Laws—CCTDP, 

PPII, and CCPI

Public Law 99-190

Public Law 99-190, 99 Stat. 1251 

(1985)

Clean Coal Technology

Within 60 days following enactment of 

this Act [Dec. 19, 1985] the Secretary 

of Energy shall, pursuant to the Federal Nonnuclear Energy Research and 

Development Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 

5901, et seq.), issue a general request 

for proposals for clean coal technology projects for which the Secretary 

of Energy upon review may provide 

fi nancial assistance awards. Proposals for clean coal technology projects 

under this section shall be submitted 

to the Department of Energy within 

60 days after issuance of the general 

request for proposals. The Secretary 

of Energy shall make any project selections no later than August 1, 1986: 

Provided, That the Secretary may vest 

fee title or other property interests 

acquired under cost-shared clean coal 

technology agreements in any entity, 

including the United States: Provided 

further, That the Secretary shall not 

fi nance more than 50 per centum of the 

total costs of a project as estimated by 

the Secretary as of the date of award of 

fi nancial assistance: Provided further, 

That cost-sharing by project sponsors is 

required in each of the design, construction, and operating phases proposed to 

be included in a project: Provided further, That fi nancial assistance for costs 

in excess of those estimated as of the 

date of award of original fi nancial assistance may not be provided in excess 

of the proportion of costs borne by the 

Government in the original agreement 

and only up to 25 per centum of the 

original fi nancial assistance: Provided 

further, That revenues or royalties from 

prospective operation of projects beyond the time considered in the award 

of financial assistance, or proceeds 

from prospective sale of the assets of 

the project, or revenues or royalties 

from replication of technology in future 

projects or plants are not cost-sharing 

for the purposes of this appropriation: 

Provided further, That other appropriated Federal funds are not cost-sharing 

for the purposes of this appropriation: 

Provided further, That existing facilities, equipment, and supplies, or previously expended research or development funds are not cost-sharing for the 

purposes of this appropriation, except 

as amortized, depreciated, or expensed 

in normal business practice. 

Conference Report (H.R. Conf. 

Rep. No. 450, 99th Cong., 1st Sess. 

[1985])

Clean Coal Technology

The managers have agreed to a 

$400,000,000 Clean Coal Technology 

program as described under the Department of the Treasury, Energy Security Reserve. Bill language is included 

which provides for the selection of 

projects no later than August 1, 1986. 

Within that period, a general request for 

proposals must be issued within 60 days 

and proposals must be submitted to the 

Department within 60 days after issuance of the general request for proposals. Language is also included allowing 

the Secretary of Energy to vest title in 

interests acquired under agreements in 

any entity, including the United States, 

and delineating cost-sharing requirements. Funds for these activities and 

projects are made available to the Clean 

Coal Technology program in the Energy 

Security program.

It is the intent of the managers that 

contributions in the form of facilities 

and equipment be considered only to 

the extent that they would be amortized, 

depreciated or expensed in normal business practice. Normal business practice 

shall be determined by the Secretary 

and is not necessarily the practice of 

any single proposer. Property which 

has been fully depreciated would not 

receive any cost-sharing value except to 

the extent that it has been in continuous 

use by the proposer during the calendar 

year immediately preceding the enactment of this Act. For this property, a 

fair use value for the life of the project 

may be assigned. Property offered as 

a cost-share by the proposer that is 

currently being depreciated would be 

limited in its cost-share value to the 

depreciation claimed during the life of 

the demonstration project. Furthermore, 

in determining normal business practice, the Secretary should not accept 

valuation for property sold, transferred, 

exchanged, or otherwise manipulated 

to acquire a new basis for depreciation 

purposes or to establish a rental value 

in circumstances which would amount 

to a transaction for the mere purpose of 

participating in this program.

The managers agree that, with respect 

to cost-sharing, tax implications of proposals and tax advantages available to 

individual proposers should not be considered in determining the percentage of 

Federal cost-sharing. This is consistent 

with current and historical practices in 

Department of Energy procurements.

It is the intent of the managers that there 

be full and open competition and that 

the solicitation be open to all markets 

utilizing the entire coal resource base. 

However, projects should be limited to 

the use of United States mined coal as 

the feedstock and demonstration sites 

should be located within the United 

States.

The managers agree that no more than 

$1,500,000 shall be available in FY86 

and $2,000,000 each year thereafter for 

contracting, travel and ancillary costs of 

the program, and that manpower costs 

are to be funded under the fossil energy 

research and development program.

The managers direct the Department, 

after projects are selected, to provide a 

comprehensive report to the Congress 

on proposals received.
A-11

The managers also expect the request for proposals to be the full 

$400,000,000 program, and not only 

for the fi rst $100,000,000 available in 

fi scal year 1986.

Public Law 100-202

Public Law 100-202, 101 Stat. 

1329-1 (1987)

Clean Coal Technology

For necessary expenses of, and associated with, Clean Coal Technology demonstrations pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 5901 

et seq., $50,000,000 are appropriated 

for the fi scal year beginning October 

1, 1987, and shall remain available 

until expended, and $525,000,000 are 

appropriated for the fi scal year beginning October 1, 1988, and shall remain 

available until expended.

No later than sixty days following 

enactment of this Act, the Secretary 

of Energy shall, pursuant to the Federal Nonnuclear Energy Research and 

Development Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 

5901 et seq.), Issue a general request 

for proposals for emerging clean coal 

technologies which are capable of 

retrofitting or repowering existing 

facilities, for which the Secretary of 

Energy upon review may provide fi -

nancial assistance awards. Proposals 

under this section shall be submitted 

to the Department of Energy no later 

than ninety days after issuance of the 

general request for proposals required 

herein, and the Secretary of Energy 

shall make any project selections no 

later than one hundred and sixty days 

after receipt of proposal: Provided, 

That projects selected are subject to all 

provisos contained under this head in 

Public Law 99-190: Provided further, 

That pre-award costs incurred by project sponsors after selection and before 

signing an agreement are allowable to 

the extent that they are related to (1) 

the preparation of material requested by 

the Department of Energy and identifi ed as required for the negotiation; or 

(2) the preparation and submission of 

environmental data requested by the 

Department of Energy to complete 

National Environmental Policy Act 

requirements for the projects: Provided 

further, That pre-award costs are to be 

reimbursed only upon signing of the 

project agreement and only in the same 

ratio as the cost-sharing for the total 

project: Provided further, That reports 

on projects selected by the Secretary of 

Energy pursuant to authority granted 

under the heading “Clean coal technology” in the Department of the Interior 

and Related Agencies Appropriations 

Act, 1986, as contained in Public Law 

99-190, which are received by the 

Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President of the Senate 

prior to the end of the fi rst session of the 

100th Congress shall be deemed to have 

met the criteria in the third proviso of 

the fourth paragraph under the heading 

“Administrative provision, Department 

of Energy” in the Department of the 

Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1986, as contained in 

Public Law 99-190, upon expiration 

of 30 calendar days from receipt of the 

report by the Speaker of the House of 

Representatives and the President of 

the Senate.

Conference Report (H.R. Conf. 

Rep. No. 498, 100th Cong., 1st 

Sess. [1987])

Clean Coal Technology

Appropriates $575,000,000 for clean coal 

technology instead of $350,000,000 as 

proposed by the House and $850,000,000 

as proposed by the Senate. The comparison by year is as follows:

Bill language, proposed by the House, 

which would have prohibited using 

grants has been deleted. The managers 

agree that project funding is expected 

to be based on cooperative agreements, 

but that grants might be applicable to 

support work also funded from this 

account.

The managers agree to deleted Senate 

language providing personnel fl oors for 

Clean Coal Technology. The managers 

further agree that the budget estimates 

for personnel and contract support are 

to be followed. The agreement included 

58 new positions above current employment fl oors for the fossil energy 

organization and 30 positions within 

the fl oors. Out of clean coal technology 

funds, up to $3,980,000 is for fi scal year 

1988 personnel-related costs and up to 

$16,520,000 is for all contract costs 

needed to make project selections and 

complete negotiations for both clean 

coal procurements. Contract costs 

necessary to monitor approved projects 

should be requested in the fi scal year 

1989 budget. Increases above to those 

amount are subject to reprogramming 

procedures. No funds other than personnel related costs for the 30 positions 

included in the program direction are 

to be provided from the fossil energy 

research and development account.

The length of time for selection of 

projects by the Secretary of Energy 

has been extended from 120 days to 

160 days based on experience from the 

original clean coal procurement. Once 

projects have been selected the Secretary should establish project milestones 

and guidelines for project negotiations 

in order to expedite the negotiation 

process to the extent feasible.

The managers agree that the funds 

provided are available for non-utility 

applications as well as for utility applications.

The managers agree that no funds are 

provided for the demonstration of clean 

coal technologies which are intended 

solely for new, stand alone, applications. The Senate had proposed up to 

25 percent of the funds be available for 

this purpose. 

Bill language has been included which 

provides that reports on projects selected in the fi rst round of clean coal 

procurements that are received before 

the end of the fi rst session of the 100th 

Congress will satisfy reporting require-
A-12

ments 30 calendar days after receipt by 

Congress. This provision applies to a 

maximum of two project reports.

Public Law 100-446

Public Law 100-446, 102 Stat. 1774 

(1988)

Clean Coal Technology

For necessary expenses of, and associated with, Clean Coal Technology 

demonstrations pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

5901 et seq., $575,000,000 shall be 

made available on October 1, 1989, and 

shall remain available until expended: 

Provided, That projects selected pursuant to a general request for proposals 

issued pursuant to this appropriation 

shall demonstrate technologies capable 

of retrofi tting or repowering existing 

facilities and shall be subject to all 

provisions contained under this head 

in Public Laws 99-190 and 100-202 as 

amended by this Act.

The first paragraph under this head 

in Public Law 100-202 is amended 

by striking “and $525,000,000 are 

appropriated for the fi scal year beginning October 1, 1988” and inserting 

“$190,000,000 are appropriated for 

the fi scal year beginning October 1, 

1988, and shall remain available until 

expended, $135,000,000 are appropriated for the fi scal year beginning October 1, 1989, and shall remain available 

until expended, and $200,000,000 are 

appropriated for the fi scal year beginning October 1, 1990”: Provided, That 

outlays in fi scal year 1989 resulting 

from the use of funds appropriated under this head in Public Law 100-202, as 

amended by this Act, may not exceed 

$15,500,000: Provided further, That 

these actions are taken pursuant to section 202(b)(1) of Public Law 100-119 

(2 U.S.C. 909).

For the purposes of the sixth proviso 

under this head in Public Laws 99-190, 

funds derived by the Tennessee Valley Authority from its power program 

are hereafter not to be precluded from 

qualifying as all or part of any costsharing requirement, except to the 

extent that such funds are provided by 

annual appropriations Acts: Provided, 

That unexpended balances of funds 

made available in the “Energy Security 

Reserve” account in the Treasury for the 

Clean Coal Technology Program by the 

Department of the Interior and Related 

Agencies Appropriations Acts, 1986, as 

contained in section 101(d) of Public 

Law 99-190, shall be merged with this 

account: Provided further, That for the 

purposes of the sixth proviso in Public 

Law 99-190 under this heading, funds 

provided under section 306 of Public 

Law 93-32 shall be considered nonFederal: Provided further, That reports 

on projects selected by the Secretary of 

Energy pursuant to authority granted 

under the heading “Clean coal technology” in the Department of the Interior 

and Related Agencies Appropriations 

Act, 1986, as contained in Public Law 

99-190, which are received by the 

Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President of the Senate 

prior to the end of the second session 

of the 100th Congress shall be deemed 

to have met the criteria in the third proviso of the fourth paragraph under the 

heading “Administrative Provisions, 

Department Energy” in the Department 

of the Interior and Related Agencies 

Appropriations Act, 1986, as contained 

in Public Law 99-190, upon expiration 

of 30 calendar days from receipt of the 

report by the Speaker of the House of 

Representatives and the President of 

the Senate.

Conference Report (H.R. Conf. 

Rep. No. 862, 100th Cong., 2nd 

Sess. [1988])

Clean Coal Technology

Amendment No. 131: Reported in technical disagreement. The managers on 

the part of the House will offer a motion 

to recede and concur in the amendment 

of the Senate with an amendment as 

follows:

In lieu of the matter proposed by said 

amendment insert the following: For 

necessary expenses of, and associated 

with, Clean Coal Technology demonstrations pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 5901 

et seq., $575,000,000 shall be made 

available on October 1, 1989, and 

shall remain available until expended: 

Provided, That projects selected pursuant to a general request for proposals 

issued pursuant to this appropriation 

shall demonstrate technologies capable 

of retrofi tting or repowering existing 

facilities and shall be subject to all 

provisos contained under this head in 

Public Laws 99-190 and 100-202 as 

amended by this Act.

The managers on the part of the Senate 

will move to concur in the amendment 

of the House to the amendment of 

the Senate. The amendment provides 

$575,000,000 in fi scal year 1990 for a 

third Clean Coal Technology procurement as proposed by the Senate, and 

clarifi es that the procurement is for retrofi t and repowering technologies and is 

subject to the cost-sharing provisions of 

the previous two procurements.

The managers agree that a request for 

proposals should be issued by May 1, 

1989, with proposals due no later than 

120 days after issuance of the request 

for proposals, and that the Secretary of 

Energy should make project selections 

no later than 120 days after receipt of 

proposals.

Amendment No. 132: Reported in technical disagreement. The managers on 

the part of the House will offer a motion 

to recede and concur in the amendment 

of the Senate with an amendment as 

follows:

Restore the matter stricken by said 

amendment, amended to read as follows: The fi rst paragraph under this 

head in Public Law 100-202 is amended 

by striking “and $525,000,000 are 

appropriated for the fi scal year beginning October 1, 1988” and inserting 

“$190,000,000 are appropriated for the 
A-13

fi scal year beginning October 1, 1988, 

and shall remain available until expended, $135,000,000 are appropriated 

for the fi scal year beginning October 

1, 1989, and shall remain available 

until expended, and $200,000,000 are 

appropriated for the fi scal year beginning October 1, 1990”: Provided, That 

outlays in FY89 resulting from the use 

of funds appropriated under this head 

in Public Law 100-202, as amended by 

this Act, may not exceed $15,500,000: 

Provided further, That these actions are 

taken pursuant to section 202(b)(1) of 

Public Law 100-119 (2 U.S.C. 909).

The managers on the part of the Senate 

will move to concur in the amendment 

of the House to the amendment of the 

Senate. The amendment changes the 

availability of $525,000,000 originally made available for fi scal year 

1989 in Public Law 100-202 by making $190,000,000 available in 1989, 

$135,000,000 available in 1990, and 

$200,000,000 available in 1991 and 

also provides an outlay ceiling in fi scal 

year 1989. The House had proposed 

$100,000,000 in fiscal year 1989, 

$225,000,000 in fiscal year 1990, 

and $200,000,000 in fi scal year 1989, 

$225,000,000 in fi scal year 1990, and 

$200,000,000 in fi scal year 1991, and 

the Senate struck the House language.

Both of these changes are necessary because of budget allocation constraints, 

but neither action has an effect on the 

execution of the Clean Coal program, or 

on the Congress’ overall support for the 

program, as is evidenced by additional 

appropriations provided for a third 

procurement of technologies.

The managers agree that administrative contract expenses may be incurred 

up to the budget level of $9,820,000, 

but caution that close control of such 

expenditures is necessary to assure 

that the outlay ceiling provided will be 

suffi cient to cover project costs.

Amendment No. 133: Modifi es public 

law citation as proposed by the Senate.

Amendment No. 134: Reported in technical disagreement. The managers on 

the part of the House will offer a motion 

to recede and concur in the amendment 

of the Senate which clarifi es that funds 

borrowed by REA Electric Cooperatives from the Federal Financing Bank 

are eligible as cost-sharing in the clean 

coal technology program.

Amendment No. 135: Reported in 

technical disagreement. The managers on the part of the House will offer 

a motion to recede and concur in the 

amendment of the Senate which specifi es clean coal projects may proceed 30 

calendar days after receipt by Congress 

of required reports, provided the reports 

are received prior to the end of the 

100th Congress.

Public Law 101-45

Public Law 101-45, 103 Stat. 97 

(1989)

Clean Coal Technology

Notwithstanding any other provision 

of law, funds originally appropriated 

under this head in the Department of 

the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1989, shall be available for a third solicitation of clean coal 

technology demonstration projects, 

which projects are to be selected by 

the Department not later than January 

1, 1990.

Public Law 101-121

Public Law 101-121, 103 Stat. 701 

(1989)

Clean Coal Technology

For necessary expenses of, and associated with, Clean Coal Technology demonstrations pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. 5901 et seq., $600,000,000 

shall be made available on October 1, 

1990, and shall remain available until 

expended, and $600,000,000 shall be 

made available on October 1, 1991, and 

shall remain available until expended: 

Provided, That projects selected pursuant to a separate general request for 

proposals issued pursuant to each of 

these appropriations shall demonstrate 

technologies capable of replacing, retrofi tting or repowering existing facilities and shall be subject to all provisos 

contained under this head in Public 

Laws 99-190, 100-202, and 100-446 as 

amended by this Act: Provided further,

That the general request for proposals 

using funds becoming available on 

October 1, 1990, under this paragraph 

shall be issued no later than June 1, 

1990, and projects resulting from such 

a solicitation must be selected no later 

than February 1, 1991: Provided further,

That the general request for proposals 

using funds becoming available on 

October 1, 1991, under this paragraph 

shall be issued no later than September 

1, 1991, and projects resulting from 

such a solicitation must be selected no 

later than May 1, 1992. 

The fi rst paragraph under this head in 

Public Law 100-446 is amended by 

striking “$575,000,000 shall be made 

available on October 1, 1989” and 

inserting “$450,000,000 shall be made 

available on October 1, 1989, and shall 

remain available until expended, and 

$125,000,000 shall be made available 

on October 1, 1990”: Provided, That 

these actions are taken pursuant to section 202(b)(1) of Public Law 100-119 

(2 U.S.C. 909). 

With regard to funds made available 

under this head in this and previous appropriations Acts, unobligated 

balances excess to the needs of the 

procurement for which they originally 

were made available may be applied to 

other procurements for which requests 

for proposals have not yet been issued: 

Provided, That for all procurements for 

which project selections have not been 

made as of the date of enactment of 

this Act no supplemental, backup, or 

contingent selection of projects shall be 

made over and above projects originally 

selected for negotiation and utilization 

of available funds: Provided further, 

That reports on projects selected by the 
A-14

Secretary of Energy pursuant to authority granted under this heading which are 

received by the Speaker of the House 

of Representatives and the President of 

the Senate less than 30 legislative days 

prior to the end of the fi rst session of the 

101st Congress shall be deemed to have 

met the criteria in the third proviso of 

the fourth paragraph under the heading 

“Administrative provisions, Department of Energy” in the Department 

of the Interior and Related Agencies 

Appropriations Act, 1986, as contained 

in Public Law 99-190, upon expiration 

of 30 calendar days from receipt of the 

report by the Speaker of the House of 

Representatives and the President of 

the Senate or at the end of the session, 

whichever occurs later.

Conference Report (H.R. Conf. 

Rep. No. 264, 101st Cong., 1st 

Sess. [1989])

Clean Coal Technology

Amendment No. 112: Reported in 

technical disagreement. The managers on the part of the House will offer 

a motion to recede and concur in the 

amendment of he Senate which adds 

the word “replacing” to the defi nition 

of clean coal technology. The managers 

agree that the inclusion of “replacing” 

for clean coal IV and V is intended to 

cover the complete replacement of an 

existing facility if because of design or 

site specifi c limitations, repowering or 

retrofi tting of the plant is not a desirable option. 

Amendment No. 113: Appropriates 

$450,000,000 for fiscal year 1990 

for clean coal technology instead of 

$500,000,000 as proposed by the House 

and $325,000,000 as proposed by the 

Senate. This appropriation along with 

$125,000,000 provided for fi scal year 

1991 in Amendment 114 fully funds 

the third round of clean coal technology projects. The managers agree that 

additional manpower is required, particularly at the Department’s Energy 

Technology Centers, in order to manage adequately the increased workload 

from the accumulation of active clean 

coal technology projects and the inclusion of additional procurements in this 

bill. Although a legislative fl oor is not 

included, the managers agree that at 

least eighty personnel will be required 

in addition to the approximately thirty 

FTE’s now included in the fossil energy 

research and development appropriation. The managers agree further that 

funds from the fossil energy research 

and development appropriation should 

not be used to pay the cost of more than 

the equivalent FTE’s paid under that 

account in fi scal year 1989.

Amendment No. 114: Reported in technical disagreement. The managers on 

the part of the House will offer a motion 

to recede and concur in the amendment 

of the Senate with an amendment as 

follows:

In lieu of the matter stricken and inserted by said amendment, insert: and 

shall remain available until expended, 

and $125,0000,000.

The managers on the part of the Senate 

will move to concur in the amendment 

of the House to the amendment of 

the Senate. The amendment provides 

$125,000,000 in fi scal year 1991 for 

the third clean coal technology procurement instead of $75,000,000 as proposed by the House and $100,000,000 

as proposed by the Senate.

Amendment No 115: Deletes Senate 

proposed appropriation of $150,000,000 

for fi scal year 1992 for clean coal technology. The House proposed no such 

appropriation.

Amendment No. 116: Restores House 

language stricken by the Senate which 

prohibits the use of supplemental, backup, or contingent project selections in 

clean coal technology procurements. 

Amendment No. 117: Restores the word 

“further” stricken by the Senate.

Public Law 101-164

Public Law 101-164, 103 Stat. 1109 

(1989)

Clean Coal Technology

The second paragraph under this head 

contained in the Act making appropriations for the Department of the Interior 

and Related Agencies for the fiscal 

year ending September 30, 1990, is 

amended by striking “$450,000,000” 

and inserting “$419,000,000” and by 

striking “$125,000,000” and inserting 

“$156,000,000.” 

Conference Report (H.R. Conf. 

Rep. No. 315, 101st Cong.) 1st 

Sess. [1989])

The managers have agreed to reduce the 

funds appropriated by the Energy and 

Water Development Appropriations Act 

for Fiscal Year 1990 (Public Law 101-

101) for the “Nuclear Waste Disposal 

Fund” by $46,000,000. This reduction 

will make funds available for the drug 

prevention effort.

The managers have agreed to reductions 

to the Interior and Related Agencies 

Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 

1990 (Public Law 101-121) in order to 

accommodate additional drug related 

appropriations.

The reductions are in three areas. The 

new budget authority for Clean Coal 

Technology of $450,000,000 for fi scal 

year 1990 is reduced by $31,000,000 

with this same amount added to the 

advance appropriation for fi scal year 

1991. With this change the new amount 

for fi scal year 1990 is $419,000,000 

while fiscal year 1991 increases to 

$156,000,000. The second area of 

change is the imposition of an outlay 

ceiling on Strategic Petroleum Reserve 

oil acquisition. Outlays will be reduced 

from an estimated $169,945,000 to 

$147,125,000 and will decrease the fi ll 

rate from approximately 50,000 barrels per day to approximately 46,000 

or 47,000 barrels per day. The third 

reduction relates to the Pennsylvania 
A-15

Avenue Development Corporation. The 

borrowing authority is reduced from 

$5,000,000 to $100,000.

The conference agreement includes 

bill language reducing the amount of 

funds transferred from trust funds to 

the Health Care Financing Administration Program Management account 

by $32,000,000 from $1,917,172,000 

to $18,851,712,000. This reduction, 

along with the outlays reserved from 

the regular 1990 Labor, Health and 

Human Services, and Education appropriations bill, will be suffi cient to 

support the subcommittee’s share of 

the cost of anti-drug abuse funding. The 

conferees intend that the reduction in 

trust fund transfers be associated with 

activities to implement catastrophic 

health insurance, where funding needs 

may be diminished.

Public Law 101-302

Public Law 101-302, 104 Stat. 213 

(1990)

Clean Coal Technology

Funds previously appropriated under 

this head for clean coal technology 

solicitations to be issued no later than 

June 1, 1990, and no later than September 1, 1991, respectively, shall not 

be obligated until September 1, 1991: 

Provided, That the aforementioned 

solicitations shall not be conducted 

prior to the ability to obligate these 

funds: Provided further, That pursuant to section 202(b) of the Balanced 

Budget and Emergency Defi cit Control 

Reaffi rmation Act of 1987, this action 

is a necessary (but secondary) result 

of a signifi cant policy change: Provided further, That for the clean coal 

solicitations identifi ed herein, provisions included for the repayment of 

government contributions to individual 

projects shall be identical to those included in the Program Opportunity 

Notice for Clean Coal Technology III 

(CCTDP-III) Demonstration Projects 

(solicitation number DE-PSO1-89 FE 

61825), issued by the Department of 

Energy on May 1, 1989. 

Conference Report (H.R. Conf. 

Rep. No. 493, 101st Cong., 2nd 

Sess. [1990])

Clean Coal Technology

Amendment No. 89: Reported in technical disagreement. The managers on 

the part of the House will offer a motion 

to recede and concur in the amendment 

of the senate with an amendment as 

follows:

In lieu of the matter proposed by said 

amendment insert:

Department of Energy Clean Coal 

Technology

Funds previously appropriated under 

this head for clean coal technology 

solicitations to be issued no later than 

June 1, 1990, and no later than September 1, 1991, respectively, shall not 

be obligated until September 1, 1991: 

Provided, That the aforementioned 

solicitations shall not be conducted 

prior to the ability to obligate these 

funds: Provided further, That pursuant to section 202 (b) of the Balanced 

Budget and Emergency Defi cit Control 

reaffi rmation/Act of 1987 this action is 

a necessary (but secondary) result of 

a signifi cant policy change: Provided 

further, That for the clean coal solicitations identifi ed herein, provisions 

included for the repayment of government contributions to individual projects shall be identical to those included 

in the PON for Clean Coal Technology 

III (CCTDP-III) Demonstration Projects (solicitation number DE-PS01-89 

FE 61825), issued by the Department 

of Energy on May 1, 1989.

The managers on the part of the Senate 

will move to concur in the amendment 

of the House to the amendment of the 

Senate.

The amendment delays the fourth and 

fi fth clean coal technology solicitations 

as proposed by the Senate and specifi es 

that, when issued, these solicitations 

must use repayment provisions used 

successfully in the third solicitation. 

This provision was included in the 

House introduced bill (H.R. 4828) 

and modifi es a Senate amendment to 

the original Dire Emergency Supplemental.

The managers agree that changes to the 

clean air bill, proposed by a House authorizing committee, that would modify 

the Clean Coal Technology program 

must be resolved before a reasonable 

solicitation can be issued. The proposed 

delay will allow such resolution. 

The managers have added language 

to ensure that provisions dealing with 

the repayment of government provided 

funds will remain the same as the third 

round of procurements. These provisions were developed over a four year 

period based on experience of previous 

procurements and negotiations, and 

input from industrial participants, Congress, and the managers of the program. 

They appear to be working well.

Based on the long-term experience, 

and the clear fact that implementation 

of this type of technology will become 

even more important with passage 

of clean air legislation, the managers 

reject proposals put forth by the Department of Energy to increase rates 

substantially. Such proposals, while 

they might increase the recovery of 

government-provided funds over periods of up to 20 years, might also act as 

a deterrent to industrial participation in 

the program, which is already over 50 

percent cost-shared by industry. The 

purpose of the program is to accelerate 

the introduction of clean uses of coal in 

a more effi cient manner in compliance 

with stringent new air quality standards, 

not the provision of investment returns 

to the Government at the expense of 

nascent markets.
A-16

Public Law 101-512

Public Law 101-512, 104 Stat. 1915 

(1990)

Clean Coal Technology

The fi rst paragraph under this head in 

Public Law 101-121 is amended by 

striking “$600,000,000 shall be made 

available on October 1, 1990, and shall 

remain available until expended, and 

$600,000,000 shall be made available 

on October 1, 1991, and shall remain 

available until expended” and inserting 

“$600,000,000 shall be made available 

as follows: $35,000,000 on September 

1, 1991, $315,000,000 on October 1, 

1991, and $250,000,000 on October 

1, 1992, all such sums to remain available until expended for use in conjunction with a separate general request for 

proposals, and $600,000,000 shall be 

made available as follows: $150,000,000 

on October 1, 1991, $225,000,000 on 

October 1, 1992, and $225,000,000 

on October 1, 1993, all such sums to 

remain available until expended for use 

in conjunction with a separate general 

request for proposals”: Provided, That

these actions are taken pursuant to section 202(b)(1) of Public Law 100-119 

(2 U.S.C. 909): Provided further, That 

a fourth general request for proposals 

shall be issued not later than February 

1, 1991, and a fi fth general request for 

proposals shall be issued not later than 

March 1, 1992: Provided further, That 

project proposals resulting from such 

solicitations shall be selected not later 

than eight months after the date of the 

general request for proposals: Provided 

further, That for clean coal solicitations 

required herein, provisions included for 

the repayment of government contributions to individual projects shall be 

identical to those included in the PON 

for Clean Coal Technology III (CCTDPIII) Demonstration Projects (solicitation 

number DE-PS01-89 FE 61825), issued 

by the Department of Energy on May 

1, 1989: Provided further, That funds 

provided under this head in this or 

any other appropriations Act shall be 

expended only in accordance with the 

provisions governing the use of such 

funds contained under this head in this 

or any other appropriations Act. 

With regard to funds made available 

under this head in this and previous appropriations Acts, unobligated balances 

excess to the needs of the procurement 

for which they originally were made 

available may be applied to other procurements for use on projects for which 

cooperative agreements are in place, 

within the limitations and proportions 

of Government fi nancing increases currently allowed by law: Provided, That 

the Department of Energy, for a period 

of up to fi ve (5) years after completion 

of the operations phase of a cooperative 

agreement may provide appropriate 

protections, including exemptions from 

subchapter II of chapter 5 of title 5, 

United States Code, against the dissemination of information that results from 

demonstration activities conducted 

under the Clean Coal Technology Program and that would be a trade secret 

or commercial or fi nancial information 

that is privileged or confi dential if the 

information had been obtained from and 

fi rst produced by a non-Federal party 

participating in a Clean Coal Technology project: provided further, That, in 

addition to the full-time permanent Federal employees specifi ed in section 303 

of Public Law 97-257, as amended, no 

less than 90 full-time Federal employees shall be assigned to the Assistant 

Secretary for Fossil Energy for carrying 

out the programs under this head using 

funds available under this head in this 

and any other appropriations Act and 

of which 35 shall be for PETC and 30 

shall be for METC: Provided further, 

That reports on projects selected by the 

Secretary of Energy pursuant to authority granted under this heading which are 

received by the Speaker of the House 

of Representatives and the President of 

the Senate less than 30 legislative days 

prior to the end of the second session 

of the 101st Congress shall be deemed 

to have met the criteria in the third proviso of the fourth paragraph under the 

heading “administrative provisions, Department of Energy” in the Department 

of the Interior and Related Agencies 

Appropriations Act, 1986, as contained 

in Public Law 99-190, upon expiration 

of 30 calendar days from receipt of the 

report by the Speaker of the House of 

Representatives and the President of 

the Senate or at the end of the session, 

whichever occurs later. 

Conference Report (H.R. Conf. 

Rep. No. 971, 101st Cong., 2nd 

Sess. [1990])

Clean Coal Technology

Amendment No. 142: Provides 

$35,000,000 for clean coal technology 

on September 1, 1991 as proposed by 

the House instead of $100,000,000 as 

proposed by the Senate. This amendment and Amendment No. 143 shift the 

availability of $65,000,000 from fi scal 

year 1991 to fi scal year 1992.

Amendment No. 143: Provides 

$315,000,000 for clean coal technology on October 1, 1991 as proposed by 

the House instead of $250,000,000 as 

proposed by the Senate. This amendment and Amendment No. 142 shift the 

availability of $65,000,000 from fi scal 

year 1991 to fi scal year 1992.

Amendment No. 144: Provides dates for 

two solicitations for clean coal technology as proposed by the Senate. The date 

for CCTDP-IV is amended to February 

1, 1991 from January 1, 1991. The date 

for CCTDP-V is not changed from the 

Senate date of March 1, 1992.

The managers have agreed to a February 1, 1991 date for the next solicitation 

to enable the Department to publish a 

draft solicitation for comment by interested parties. It is expected that there 

will be changes to evaluation criteria 

and other factors that make it imperative that potential proposers have an 

opportunity to comment on the content 

of the solicitation.
A-17

The managers urge the Department to 

include potential benefi ts to remote, 

import-dependent sites as a program 

policy factor in evaluating proposals. 

The Department should also consider 

projects which can provide multiple 

fuel resource options for regions which 

are more than seventy-five percent 

dependent on one fuel form for total 

energy requirements.

Amendment No. 145: Requires selection of projects within eight months 

of the requests for proposals required 

by Amendment No. 144 as proposed 

by the Senate. The House had no such 

provision.

Amendment No. 146: Requires repayment of government contributions to 

projects under conditions identical to 

the most recent clean coal solicitation 

as proposed by the Senate. The House 

had no such provision.

Amendment No. 147: Provides that 

funds for clean coal technology may be 

expended only under conditions contained in appropriations Acts. The Senate language had prohibited geographic 

restrictions on the expenditure of funds. 

The House had no such provision. The 

managers direct that no preferential 

consideration be given to any project 

referenced explicitly or implicitly in 

other legislation.

The managers agree to delete bill language dealing with geographic restrictions based on such restrictions being 

deleted from clean air legislation.

Amendment No. 148: Earmarks employees to two fossil energy technology centers as proposed by the Senate. 

The House had no such provision. The 

managers agree that the earmarks for 

PETC and METC are minimum levels 

and may be increased as necessary. 

The managers agree that no more than 

the current 30 full-time equivalent positions from fossil energy research and 

development may be used in the clean 

coal program in fi scal year 1991.

Public Law 102-154

Public Law 102-154, 105 Stat. 990 

(1991)

Clean Coal Technology

The first paragraph under this head 

in Public Law 101-512 is amended 

by striking the phrase “$150,000,000 

on October 1, 1991, $225,000,000 

on October 1, 1992” and inserting 

“$100,000,000 on October 1, 1991, 

$275,000,000 on October 1, 1992.” 

Notwithstanding the issuance date for 

the fi fth general request for proposals 

under this head in Public Law 101-512, 

such request for proposals shall be issued not later than July 6, 1992, and 

notwithstanding the proviso under this 

head in Public Law 101-512 regarding 

the time interval for selection of proposals resulting from such solicitation, 

project proposals resulting from the 

fi fth general request for proposals shall 

be selected not later than ten months 

after the issuance date of the fi fth general request for proposals: Provided,

That hereafter the fi fth general request 

for proposals shall be subject to all 

provisos contained under this head in 

previous appropriations Acts unless 

amended by this Act. 

Notwithstanding the provisos under 

this head in previous appropriations 

Acts, projects selected pursuant to the 

fi fth general request for proposals shall 

advance signifi cantly the effi ciency and 

environmental performance of coalusing technologies and be applicable 

to either new or existing facilities: 

Provided, That budget periods may be 

used in lieu of design, construction, 

and operating phases for cost-sharing 

calculations: Provided further, That the 

Secretary shall not fi nance more than 

50 per centum of the total costs of any 

budget period: Provided further, That 

project specifi c development activities 

for process performance defi nition, component design verifi cation, materials 

selection, and evaluation of alternative 

designs may be funded on a cost-shared 

basis up to a limit of 10 per centum of 

the Government’s share of project cost: 

Provided further, That development 

activities eligible for cost-sharing may 

include limited modifi cations to existing facilities for project related testing 

but do not include construction of new 

facilities. 

With regard to funds made available 

under this head in this and previous appropriations Acts, unobligated balances 

excess to the needs of the procurement 

for which they originally were made 

available may be applied to other procurements for use on projects for which 

cooperative agreements are in place, 

within the limitations and proportions 

of Government fi nancing increases currently allowed by law: Provided, That 

hereafter, the Department of Energy, 

for a period of up to fi ve years after 

completion of the operations phase of 

a cooperative agreement may provide 

appropriate protections, including exemptions from subchapter II of chapter 

5 of title 5, United States Code, against 

the dissemination of information that 

results from demonstration activities 

conducted under the Clean Coal Technology Program and that would be a 

trade secret or commercial or fi nancial 

information that is privileged or confi dential if the information had been 

obtained from and fi rst produced by 

a non-Federal party participating in a 

Clean Coal Technology project: Provided further, That hereafter, in addition to the full-time permanent Federal 

employees specifi ed in section 303 of 

Public Law 97-257, as amended, no 

less than 90 full-time Federal employees shall be assigned to the Assistant 

Secretary for Fossil Energy for carrying out the programs under this head 

using funds available under this head 

in this and any other appropriations 

Act and of which not less than 35 shall 

be for PETC and not less than 30 shall 

be for METC: Provided further, That 

hereafter reports on projects selected 

by the Secretary of Energy pursuant to 

authority granted under this heading 
A-18

which are received by the Speaker of 

the House of Representatives and the 

President of the Senate less than 30 

legislative days prior to the end of each 

session of Congress shall be deemed to 

have met the criteria in the third proviso 

of the fourth paragraph under the heading “Administrative provisions, Department of Energy” in the Department 

of the Interior and Related Agencies 

Appropriations Act, 1986, as contained 

in Public Law 99-190, upon expiration 

of 30 calendar days from receipt of the 

report by the Speaker of the House of 

Representatives and the President of 

the Senate or at the end of the session, 

whichever occurs later. 

Conference Report (H.R. Conf. 

Rep. No. 256, 102nd Cong., 1st 

Sess. [1991])

Clean Coal Technology

Amendment No. 165: Reported in technical disagreement. The managers on 

the part of the House will offer a motion 

to recede and concur in the amendment 

of the Senate with an amendment as 

follows:

In lieu of the matter stricken and inserted by said amendment insert:

Notwithstanding the issuance date for 

the fi fth general request for proposals 

under this head in Public Law 101-512, 

such request for proposals shall be issued not later than July 6, 1992, and 

notwithstanding the proviso under this 

head in Public Law 101-512 regarding 

the time interval for selection of proposals resulting from such solicitation, 

project proposals resulting from the 

fi fth general request for proposals shall 

be selected not later than ten months 

after the issuance date of the fi fth general request for proposals: Provided, 

That hereafter the fi fth general request 

for proposals.

The managers on the part of the Senate 

will move to concur in the amendment 

of the House to the amendment of the 

Senate.

The amendment changes the issuance 

date for the fi fth general request for 

proposals to July 6, 1992 instead of 

March 1, 1992 as proposed by the 

House and August 10, 1992 as proposed 

by the Senate and the allowable length 

of time from issuance of the request 

for proposals to selection of projects 

to ten months. The amendment also 

deletes Senate proposed bill language 

pertaining to a sixth general request for 

proposals as discussed below.

The managers agree that the additional 

two months in the procurement process 

for the fi fth round of proposals should 

include an additional month to allow 

for the preparation of proposals by the 

private sector, and up to an additional 

month for Department of Energy review and evaluation of proposals when 

compared to the process for the fourth 

round.

The managers have agreed to delete 

bill language regarding a sixth round 

of proposals, but agree that funding will 

be provided for a sixth round based on 

unobligated and unneeded amounts that 

may become available from the fi rst fi ve 

rounds. The report from the Secretary 

on available funds, which was originally in the Senate amendment, is still 

a requirement and such report should 

be submitted to the House and Senate 

Committees on Appropriations not later 

than May 1, 1994. Based on that report, 

the funding, dates and conditions for the 

sixth round will be included in the fi scal 

year 1995 appropriation.

The managers expect that the fi fth solicitation will be conducted under the 

same general types of criteria as the 

fourth solicitation principally modifi ed 

only (1) to include the wider range of 

eligible technologies or applications; 

(2) to adjust technical criteria to consider allowable development activities, 

to strengthen criteria for non-utility 

demonstrations, and to adjust commercial performance criteria for additional 

facilities and technologies with regard 

to aspects of general energy effi ciency 

and environmental performance; and 

(3) to clarify and strengthen cost and 

fi nance criteria particularly with regard 

to development activities.

Amendment No. 166: Restores House 

language deleted by the Senate which 

refers to a fi fth general request for proposals. The Senate proposed language 

dealing with both a fi fth and a sixth 

round.

Amendment No. 167: Reported in 

technical disagreement. The managers on the part of the House will offer 

a motion to recede and concur in the 

amendment of the Senate which directs 

the Secretary of Energy to reobligate up 

to $44,000,000 from the fourth round 

of Clean Coal Technology proposals 

to a proposal ranked highest in its specifi c technology category by the Source 

Evaluation Board if other than the highest ranking project in that category was 

selected originally by the Secretary, and 

if such funds become unobligated and 

are suffi cient to fund such projects. This 

amendment would earmark such funds, 

if they become available, to a specifi c 

project not chosen in the Department of 

Energy selection process for the fourth 

round of Clean Coal Technology.

Amendment No. 168: Technical amendment which deletes House proposed 

punctuation and numbering as proposed 

by the Senate.

Amendment No. 169: Deletes House 

proposed language which made unobligated funds available for procurements 

for which requests for proposals have 

not been issued.

Amendment No. 170: Reported in technical disagreement. The managers on 

the part of the House will offer a motion 

to recede and concur in the amendment 

of the Senate which adds “not less than” 

to employment fl oor language for PETC 

as proposed by the Senate. The House 

had no such language.
A-19

Amendment No. 171: Reported in technical disagreement. The managers on 

the part of the House will offer a motion 

to recede and concur in the amendment 

of the Senate which adds “not less 

than” to employment fl oor language for 

METC as proposed by the Senate. The 

House had no such language.

Public Law 102-381

Public Law 102-381, 106 Stat. 1374 

(1992)

Clean Coal Technology

The fi rst paragraph under this head in 

Public Law 101-512, as amended, is 

further amended by striking the phrase 

“and $250,000,000 on October 1, 

1992” and inserting “$150,000,000 on 

October 1, 1993, and $100,000,000 on 

October 1, 1994” and by striking the 

phrase “$275,000,000 on October 1, 

1992, and $225,000,000 on October 1, 

1993” and inserting “$250,000,000 on 

October 1, 1993, and $250,000,000 on 

October 1, 1994”

Public Law 103-138

Public Law 103-138, 107 Stat. 1379 

(1993)

Clean Coal Technology

The first paragraph under this head 

in Public Law 101-512, as amended, 

is further amended by striking the 

phrase “$150,000,000 on October 1, 

1993, and $100,000,000 on October 

1, 1994” and inserting “$100,000,000 

on October 1, 1993, $100,000,000 on 

October 1, 1994, and $50,000,000 on 

October 1, 1995” and by striking the 

phrase “$250,000,000 on October 1, 

1993, and $250,000,000 on October 

1, 1994” and inserting “$125,000,000 

on October 1, 1993, $275,000,000 on 

October 1, 1994, and $100,000,000 on 

October 1, 1995” 

Public Law 103-332

Public Law 103-332, 108 Stat. 2499 

(1994)

Clean Coal Technology

The fi rst paragraph under this head in 

Public Law 101-512, as amended, is 

further amended by striking the phrase 

“$100,000,000 on October 1, 1994, 

and $50,000,000 on October 1, 1995” 

and inserting “$18,000,000 on October 

1, 1994, $100,000,000 on October 1, 

1995, and $32,000,000 on October 

1, 1996”; and by striking the phrase 

“$275,000,000 on October 1, 1994, 

and $100,000,000 on October 1, 1995” 

and inserting “$19,121,000 on October 

1, 1994, $100,000,000 on October 1, 

1995, and $255,879,000 on October 1, 

1996”: Provided, That not to exceed 

$18,000,000 available in fi scal year 

1995 may be used for administrative 

oversight of the Clean Coal Technology program.

Public Law 104-6

Public Law 104-6, 109 Stat. 73 

(1995)

Clean Coal Technology (Rescission)

Of the funds made available under this 

heading for obligation in fi scal year 

1996, $50,000,000 are rescinded and 

of the funds made available under this 

heading for obligation in fi scal year 

1997, $150,000,000 are rescinded: 

Provided, That funds made available 

in previous appropriations Acts shall 

be available for any ongoing project 

regardless of the separate request for 

proposal under which the project was 

selected. 

Public Law 104-134

Conference Report (H.R. Conf. 

Rep. No. 402, 104th Cong., 1st 

Sess. [1995])

The managers do not object to the use of 

up to $18,000,000 in clean coal technology program funds for administration 

of the clean coal program.

Public Law 104-208

Public Law 104-208, 110 Stat. 3009 

(1996)

Clean Coal Technology (Rescission)

Of the funds made available under this 

heading for obligation in fi scal year 

1997 or prior years, $123,000,000 are 

rescinded: Provided, That funds made 

available in previous appropriations 

Acts shall be available for any ongoing project regardless of the separate 

request for proposal under which the 

project was selected.

Conference Report (H.R. Conf. 

Rep. No. 863, 104th Cong., 2nd 

Sess., [1996])

Clean Coal Technology (Rescission)

Of the funds made available under this 

heading for obligation in fi scal year 

1997 or prior years, $123,000,000 are 

rescinded: Provided, That funds made 

available in previous appropriations 

Acts shall be available for any ongoing project regardless of the separate 

request for proposal under which the 

project was selected.

Senate Report (S. Rep. No. 319, 

104th Cong., 2nd Sess. [1996])

The Committee does not object to the 

use of up to $16,000,000 in available 

funds for administration of the clean 

coal program in fi scal year 1997.

House Report (H.R. Rep. No. 625, 

104th Cong., 2nd Sess. [1996]) 

The Committee does not object to the 

use of up to $16,000,000 in available 

funds for administration of the clean 

coal program in fi scal year 1997.

Public Law 105-18

Public Law 105-18, 111 Stat. 158 

(1997)

Clean Coal Technology (Rescission)

Of the funds made available under this 

heading for obligation in fi scal year 

1997 or prior years, $17,000,000 are 
A-20

rescinded: Provided, That funds made 

available in previous appropriations 

Acts shall be available for any ongoing project regardless of the separate 

request for proposal under which the 

project was selected.

Public Law 105-83

Public Law 105-83, 111 Stat. 37 

(1997)

Of the funds made available under this 

heading for obligation in fi scal year 

1997 or prior years, $101,000,000 are 

rescinded: Provided, That funds made 

available in previous appropriations 

Acts shall be available for any ongoing project regardless of the separate 

request for proposal under which the 

project was selected.

Public Law 105-277

Public Law 105-277, 112 Stat. 2681 

(1998)

Clean Coal Technology

(Deferral)

Of the funds made available under this 

heading for obligation in prior years, 

$10,000,000 of such funds shall not 

be available until October 1, 1999; 

$15,000,000 shall not be available until 

October 1, 2000; and $15,000,000 shall 

not be available until October 1, 2001: 

Provided, That funds made available 

in previous appropriations Acts shall 

be available for any ongoing project 

regardless of the separate request for 

proposal under which the project was 

selected. 

Conference Report (H.R. Conf. 

Rep. No. 825, 105th Cong. 2nd 

Sess. [1998])

Clean Coal Technology

The conference agreement provides for 

the deferral of $40,000,000 in previously appropriated funds for the clean 

coal technology program as proposed 

by the Senate. The House did not propose to defer funding. The Committees 

agree that $14,900,000 may be used 

for administration of the clean coal 

technology program.

Public Law 106-113

Public Law 106-113, 113 Stat. 1501 

(1999)

Clean Coal Technology

(Deferral)

Of the funds made available under this 

heading for obligation in prior years, 

$156,000,000 shall not be available 

until October 1, 2000: Provided, That 

funds made available in previous appropriations Acts shall be available for 

any ongoing project regardless of the 

separate request for proposal under 

which the project was selected.

Conference Report (H.R. Rep. No. 

406, 106th Cong., 1st Sess. [1999])

Clean Coal Technology (Deferral)

The conference agreement provides for 

the deferral of $156,000,000 in previously appropriated funds for the clean 

coal technology program as proposed 

by the Senate instead of a deferral 

of $256,000,000 as proposed by the 

House. The managers agree that up to 

$14,400,00 may be used for program 

direction.

Public Law 106-291

Public Law 106-291, 114 Stat. 922 

(2000)

Clean Coal Technology (Deferral)

Of the funds made available under this 

heading for obligation in prior years, 

$67,000,000 shall not be available 

until October 1, 2001: Provided, That 

funds made available in previous appropriations Acts shall be available for 

any ongoing project regardless of the 

separate request for proposal under 

which the project was selected.

Fossil Energy Research and 

Development (including transfers 

of funds)

For necessary expenses in carrying out 

fossil energy research and development 

activities, under the authority of the 

Department of Energy Organization 

Act (Public Law 95-91), including the 

acquisition of interest, including defeasible and equitable interests in any real 

property or any facility or for plant or 

facility acquisition or expansion, and 

for conducting inquiries, technological 

investigations and research concerning 

the extraction, processing, use, and 

disposal of mineral substances without 

objectionable social and environmental 

costs (30 U.S.C. 3, 1602, and 1603), 

performed under the minerals and materials science programs at the Albany Research Center in Oregon $540,653,000, 

to remain available until expended, of 

which $12,000,000 for oil technology 

research shall be derived by transfer 

from funds appropriated in prior years 

under the heading “Strategic Petroleum 

Reserve, SPR Petroleum Account” and 

of which $95,000,000 shall be derived 

by transfer from funds appropriated in 

prior years under the heading “Clean 

Coal Technology”, such funds to be 

available for a general request for proposals for the commercial-scale demonstration of technologies to assure the 

reliability of the Nation’s energy supply 

from existing and new electric generating facilities for which the Department 

of Energy upon review may provide 

fi nancial assistance awards: Provided, 

That the request for proposals shall be 

issued no later than one hundred and 

twenty days following enactment of 

this Act, proposals shall be submitted 

no later than ninety days after the issuance of the request for proposals, and 

the Department of Energy shall make 

project selections no later than one 

hundred and sixty days after the receipt 

of proposals: Provided further, That no 

funds are to be obligated for selected 

proposals prior to September 30, 2001: 

Provided further, That funds provided 
A-21

shall be expended only in accordance 

with the provisions governing the use 

of funds contained under the heading 

under which they were originally appropriated: Provided further, That provisions for repayment of Government 

contributions to individual projects 

shall be identical to those included in 

the Program Opportunity Notice (Solicitation Number DE-PS01-89FE61825), 

issued by the Department of Energy on 

May 1, 1989, except that repayments 

from sale or licensing of technologies 

shall be from both domestic and foreign 

transactions: Provided further, That 

such repayments shall be deposited in 

this account to be retained for future 

projects: Provided further, That any 

project approved under this program 

shall be considered a Clean Coal Technology Demonstration Project, for the 

purposes of Chapters 51, 52, and 60 of 

title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations: Provided further, That no part of 

the sum herein made available shall be 

used for the fi eld testing of nuclear explosives in the recovery of oil and gas: 

Provided further, That up to 4 percent 

of program direction funds available 

to the National Energy Technology 

Laboratory may be used to support 

Department of Energy activities not 

included in this account.

Public Law 107-63

Public Law 107-63, 115 Stat. 414 

(2001)

Clean Coal Technology (Deferral)

Of the funds made available under this 

heading for obligation in prior years, 

$40,000,000 shall not be available 

until October 1, 2002: Provided, That 

funds made available in previous appropriations Acts shall be available for 

any ongoing project regardless of the 

separate request for proposal under 

which the project was selected.

Fossil Energy Research and 

Development (Including Transfer 

of Funds)

For necessary expenses in carrying out 

fossil energy research and development 

activities, under the authority of the 

Department of Energy Organization 

Act (Public Law 95-91), including the 

acquisition of interest, including defeasible and equitable interests in any real 

property or any facility or for plant or 

facility acquisition or expansion, and 

for conducting inquiries, technological 

investigations and research concerning 

the extraction, processing, use, and 

disposal of mineral substances without 

objectionable social and environmental 

costs (30 U.S.C. 3, 1602, and 1603), 

$616,490,000, to remain available until 

expended, of which $11,000,000 is to 

begin a 7-year project for construction, 

renovation, furnishing, and demolition 

or removal of buildings at National 

Energy Technology Laboratory facilities in Morgantown, West Virginia and 

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; and for acquisition of lands, and interests therein, 

in proximity to the National Energy 

Technology Laboratory, and of which 

$33,700,000 shall be derived by transfer 

from funds appropriated in prior years 

under the heading ‘Clean Coal Technology’, and of which $150,000,000 and 

such sums as may be appropriated in 

FY03 are to be made available, after 

coordination with the private sector, 

for a request for proposals for a Clean 

Coal Power Initiative providing for 

competitively-awarded demonstrations 

of commercial-scale technologies to 

reduce the barriers to continued and 

expanded coal use: Provided, That the 

request for proposals shall be issued 

no later than 120 days following enactment of this Act, proposals shall be 

submitted no later than 150 days after 

the issuance of the request for proposals, and the Department of Energy shall 

make project selections no later than 

160 days after the receipt of proposals: Provided further, That no project 

may be selected for which suffi cient 

funding is not available to provide for 

the total project: Provided further, That 

funds shall be expended in accordance 

with the provisions governing the use 

of funds contained under the heading 

‘Clean Coal Technology’ in prior appropriations: Provided further, That 

the Department may include provisions for repayment of Government 

contributions to individual projects 

in an amount up to the Government 

contribution to the project on terms 

and conditions that are acceptable to 

the Department including repayments 

from sale and licensing of technologies from both domestic and foreign 

transactions: Provided further, That 

such repayments shall be retained by 

the Department for future coal-related 

research, development and demonstration projects: Provided further, That 

any technology selected under this program shall be considered a Clean Coal 

Technology, and any project selected 

under this program shall be considered 

a Clean Coal Technology Project, for 

the purposes of 42 U.S.C. Sec. 7651n, 

and Chapters 51, 52, and 60 of title 40 

of the Code of Federal Regulations: 

Provided further, That funds excess to 

the needs of the Power Plant Improvement Initiative procurement provided 

for under this heading in Public Law 

106-291 shall be made available for the 

Clean Coal Power Initiative provided 

for under this heading in this Act: Provided further, That no part of the sum 

herein made available shall be used for 

the fi eld testing of nuclear explosives 

in the recovery of oil and gas: Provided 

further, That up to 4 percent of program 

direction funds available to the National 

Energy Technology Laboratory may be 

used to support Department of Energy 

activities not included in this account.
A-22

Public Law 108-7

Public Law 108-7, 117 Stat. 11 

(2003)

Clean Coal Technology (Deferral)

Of the funds made available under this 

heading for obligation in prior years, 

$87,000,000 shall not be available until 

October 1, 2003: Provided, That funds 

made available in previous appropriations Acts shall be available for any ongoing project regardless of the separate 

request for proposal under which the 

project was selected.

Fossil Energy Research and 

Development

For necessary expenses in carrying out 

fossil energy research and development 

activities, under the authority of the 

Department of Energy Organization 

Act (Public Law 95-91), including the 

acquisition of interest, including defeasible and equitable interests in any real 

property or any facility or for plant or 

facility acquisition or expansion, and 

for conducting inquiries, technological 

investigations and research concerning 

the extraction, processing, use, and 

disposal of mineral substances without 

objectionable social and environmental 

costs (30 U.S.C. 3, 1602, and 1603), 

$624,900,000, to remain available 

until expended, of which $4,000,000 

is to continue a multi-year project for 

construction, renovation, furnishing, 

and demolition or removal of buildings at National Energy Technology 

Laboratory facilities in Morgantown, 

West Virginia and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; and of which $150,000,000 are 

to be made available, after coordination 

with the private sector, for a request 

for proposals for a Clean Coal Power 

Initiative providing for competitivelyawarded research, development, and 

demonstration projects to reduce the 

barriers to continued and expanded 

coal use: Provided, That no project 

may be selected for which suffi cient 

funding is not available to provide for 

the total project: Provided further, That 

funds shall be expended in accordance 

with the provisions governing the use 

of funds contained under the heading 

“Clean Coal Technology” in prior appropriations: Provided further, That the 

Department may include provisions for 

repayment of Government contributions 

to individual projects in an amount up 

to the Government contribution to the 

project on terms and conditions that are 

acceptable to the Department including 

repayments from sale and licensing 

of technologies from both domestic 

and foreign transactions: Provided 

further, That such repayments shall be 

retained by the Department for future 

coal-related research, development 

and demonstration projects: Provided 

further, That any technology selected 

under this program shall be considered a 

Clean Coal Technology, and any project 

selected under this program shall be 

considered a Clean Coal Technology 

Project, for the purposes of 42 U.S.C. 

7651n, and Chapters 51, 52, and 60 of 

title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations: Provided further, That no part of 

the sum herein made available shall be 

used for the fi eld testing of nuclear explosives in the recovery of oil and gas: 

Provided further, That up to 4 percent 

of program direction funds available to 

the National Energy Technology Laboratory may be used to support Department of Energy activities not included 

in this account.

Public Law 108-108

Public Law 108-108, 117 Stat. 1241 

(2003)

Clean Coal Technology (Deferral 

and Recision)

Of the funds made available under this 

heading for obligation in prior years, 

$97,000,000 shall not be available until 

October 1, 2004, and $88,000,000 are 

rescinded: Provided, That funds made 

available in previous appropriations 

Acts shall be available for any ongoing project regardless of the separate 

request for proposal under which the 

project was selected.

Fossil Energy Research and 

Development

For necessary expenses in carrying out 

fossil energy research and development 

activities, under the authority of the 

Department of Energy Organization 

Act (Public Law 95-91), including the 

acquisition of interest, including defeasible and equitable interests in any real 

property or any facility or for plant or 

facility acquisition or expansion, and 

for conducting inquiries, technological 

investigations and research concerning 

the extraction, processing, use, and 

disposal of mineral substances without 

objectionable social and environmental 

costs (30 U.S.C. 3, 1602, and 1603), 

$681,163,000, to remain available 

until expended, of which $4,000,000 

is to continue a multi-year project for 

construction, renovation, furnishing, 

and demolition or removal of buildings 

at National Energy Technology Laboratory facilities in Morgantown, West 

Virginia and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; 

of which not to exceed $536,000 may 

be utilized for travel and travel-related 

expenses incurred by the headquarters 

staff of the Offi ce of Fossil Energy; 

and of which $172,000,000 are to be 

made available, after coordination 

with the private sector, for a request 

for proposals for a Clean Coal Power 

Initiative providing for competitivelyawarded research, development, and 

demonstration projects to reduce the 

barriers to continued and expanded 

coal use: Provided, That no project 

may be selected for which suffi cient 

funding is not available to provide for 

the total project: Provided further, That 

funds shall be expended in accordance 

with the provisions governing the use 

of funds contained under the heading 

“Clean Coal Technology’’ in 42 U.S.C. 

5903d: Provided further, That the Department may include provisions for repayment of Government contributions 

to individual projects in an amount up 

to the Government contribution to the 

project on terms and conditions that are 

acceptable to the Department including 
A-23

repayments from sale and licensing 

of technologies from both domestic 

and foreign transactions: Provided 

further, That such repayments shall be 

retained by the Department for future 

coal-related research, development 

and demonstration projects: Provided 

further, That any technology selected 

under this program shall be considered 

a Clean Coal Technology, and any project selected under this program shall be 

considered a Clean Coal Technology 

Project, for the purposes of 42 U.S.C. 

7651n, and Chapters 51, 52, and 60 of 

title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations: Provided further, That no part of 

the sum herein made available shall be 

used for the fi eld testing of nuclear explosives in the recovery of oil and gas: 

Provided further, That up to 4 percent 

of program direction funds available 

to the National Energy Technology 

Laboratory may be used to support 

Department of Energy activities not 

included in this account.

Conference Report (H.R. Conf. 

Rep. No. 108-330, 108th Cong., 1st 

Sess. [2003])

Clean Coal Technology (Deferral 

and Recision)

The conference agreement defers 

$97,000,000 in clean coal technology funds as proposed by the Senate 

instead of a deferral of $86,000,000 as 

proposed by the House. The conference 

agreement also rescinds $88,000,000 

in clean coal technology funds. These 

funds have been added to the base 

budget for the fossil energy research 

and development account where all 

continuing research programs and associated administrative expenses should 

be funded. Clean coal technology funds 

are limited to completing active projects under that program. Once those 

projects are completed, a separate clean 

coal technology account will no longer 

be required. 

The managers have not included 

bill language authorizing the use of 

clean coal technology funds for the 

FutureGen program as proposed by 

the Senate. Funding is included in the 

fossil energy research and development 

account for FutureGen. The managers agree that clean coal technology 

funds should not be transferred to fund 

ongoing programs in fossil energy 

research and development. Rather, a 

rescission of excess clean coal funds 

should be proposed and, to the extent 

new and expanded research program 

funds are required, including funds for 

FutureGen, they should be budgeted 

directly in the fossil energy research 

and development account. 

Fossil Energy Research and 

Development

The conference agreement includes 

$681,163,000 for fossil energy research and development, instead of 

$609,290,000 as proposed by the House 

and $593,514,000 as proposed by the 

Senate. The conference agreement 

includes funds for several ongoing 

programs that were previously funded 

under the clean coal technology account, funding to begin the FutureGen 

program, and funding increases for 

programs that provide critical underpinning for, and are critical for the success 

of, FutureGen. The increase in funding 

above the Senate proposed level is offset fully by the rescission of $88 million 

in clean coal technology funding. The 

numerical changes described below are 

to the House recommended level. 

The conference agreement includes 

increases of $42,000,000 for the clean 

coal power initiative and $9,000,000 

to initiate the FutureGen program. 

The funds provided for the FutureGen 

program are contingent on the receipt 

of a complete program plan that clearly 

and fully delineates by project and by 

year the funding for each element of, 

and milestone associated with, the 

FutureGen program. This plan should 

be closely coordinated with industry 

cooperators and submitted to the House 

and Senate Committees on Appropriations no later than December 31, 2003. 

The managers understand the need for a 

lower cost share for the initial research 

and planning stages of the FutureGen 

program, but any demonstration component must include at least a 50 percent industry cost share. 

Public Law 108-447

Public Law 108-447, 118 Stat. 2809 

(2004)

Clean Coal Technology (Deferral)

Of the funds made available under this 

heading for obligation in prior years, 

$257,000,000 shall not be available 

until October 1, 2005: Provided, That 

funds made available in previous appropriations Acts shall be available for 

any ongoing project regardless of the 

separate request for proposal under 

which the project was selected.

Fossil Energy Research and 

Development

For necessary expenses in carrying out 

fossil energy research and development 

activities, under the authority of the 

Department of Energy Organization 

Act (Public Law 95-91), including the 

acquisition of interest, including defeasible and equitable interests in any real 

property or any facility or for plant or 

facility acquisition or expansion, and 

for conducting inquiries, technological 

investigations and research concerning 

the extraction, processing, use, and 

disposal of mineral substances without 

objectionable social and environmental 

costs (30 U.S.C. 3, 1602, and 1603), 

$579,911,000, to remain available 

until expended, of which $4,000,000 

is to continue a multi-year project for 

construction, renovation, furnishing, 

and demolition or removal of buildings at National Energy Technology 

Laboratory facilities in Morgantown, 

West Virginia and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: Provided, That of the amounts 

provided, $18,000,000 is to continue 

a multi-year project coordinated with 

the private sector for FutureGen, with-
A-24

out regard to the terms and conditions 

applicable to clean coal technology 

projects: Provided further, That the 

initial planning and research stages of 

the FutureGen project shall include a 

matching requirement from non-Federal sources of at least 20 percent of the 

costs: Provided further, That any demonstration component of such project 

shall require a matching requirement 

from non-Federal sources of at least 50 

percent of the costs of the component: 

Provided further, That of the amounts 

provided, $50,000,000 is available, after coordination with the private sector, 

for a request for proposals for a Clean 

Coal Power Initiative providing for 

competitively-awarded research, development, and demonstration projects to 

reduce the barriers to continued and expanded coal use: Provided further, That 

no project may be selected for which 

suffi cient funding is not available to 

provide for the total project: Provided 

further, That funds shall be expended 

in accordance with the provisions governing the use of funds contained under 

the heading ‘Clean Coal Technology’ 

in 42 U.S.C. 5903d: Provided further, 

That the Department may include provisions for repayment of Government 

contributions to individual projects in 

an amount up to the Government contribution to the project on terms and 

conditions that are acceptable to the 

Department including repayments from 

sale and licensing of technologies from 

both domestic and foreign transactions: 

Provided further, That such repayments 

shall be retained by the Department 

for future coal-related research, development and demonstration projects: 

Provided further, That any technology 

selected under this program shall be 

considered a Clean Coal Technology, 

and any project selected under this program shall be considered a Clean Coal 

Technology Project, for the purposes of 

42 U.S.C. 7651n, and chapters 51, 52, 

and 60 of title 40 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations: Provided further, That 

funds shall be expended in accordance 

with the provisions governing the use 

of funds contained under the heading 

‘Clean Coal Technology’ in prior appropriations: Provided further, That 

no part of the sum herein made available shall be used for the fi eld testing 

of nuclear explosives in the recovery 

of oil and gas: Provided further, That 

up to 4 percent of program direction 

funds available to the National Energy 

Technology Laboratory may be used to 

support Department of Energy activities 

not included in this account.

Conference Report (H.R. Conf. 

Rep. No. 108-792, 108th Cong. 2nd 

Sess. [2004])

Clean Coal Technology (Deferral)

The conference agreement defers the 

availability of $257,000,000 in clean 

coal technology funds until October 

1, 2005, as proposed by the Senate instead of a deferral of $237,000,000 as 

proposed by the House. The FutureGen 

program is not funded in this account, as 

proposed by the House, but is funded in 

the fossil energy research and development account.

The managers expect the Department to 

include a table on the FutureGen program, as outlined in the House Report 

108-542, in future budget requests for 

fossil energy research and development 

account. The managers make no assumptions on the future use of deferred 

clean coal technology funds.

Fossil Energy Research and 

Development

The conference agreement provides 

$579,911,000 for fossil energy research and development instead of 

$601,875,000 as proposed by the House 

and $542,529,000 as proposed by the 

Senate. The changes described below 

are to the House recommended funding level. 

FutureGen—There is an increase of 

$18,000,000 for the FutureGen power 

plant initiative. 

Clean Coal Power Initiative—There is 

a decrease of $55,000,000 for the clean 

coal power initiative. 

The managers note that funding will 

need to be increased substantially in 

FY06 if the program is to remain on a 

schedule consistent with the President’s 

clean coal initiative.

Public Law 109-103 

Public Law 109-103, 119 Stat. 2247 

(2005) 

Clean Coal Technology (Deferral 

and Rescission)

Of the funds made available under this 

heading for obligation in prior years, 

$257,000,000 shall not be available 

until October 1, 2006: Provided, That 

funds made available in previous appropriations Acts shall be made available for any ongoing project regardless 

of the separate request for proposal 

under which the project was selected: 

Provided further, That $20,000,000 of 

uncommitted balances is rescinded.

Fossil Energy Research and 

Development 

For necessary expenses in carrying out 

fossil energy research and development 

activities, under the authority of the 

Department of Energy Organization 

Act (Public Law 95-91), including the 

acquisition of interest, including defeasible and equitable interests in any real 

property or any facility or for plant or 

facility acquisition or expansion, the 

hire of passenger motor vehicles, the 

hire, maintenance, and operation of 

aircraft, the purchase, repair, and cleaning of uniforms, the reimbursement to 

the General Services Administration 

for security guard services, and for 

conducting inquiries, technological 

investigations and research concerning the extraction, processing, use, and 

disposal of mineral substances without 

objectionable social and environmental 

costs (30 U.S.C. 3, 1602, and 1603), 

$597,994,000, to remain available 
A-25

until expended, of which $18,000,000 

is to continue a multi-year project 

coordinated with the private sector 

for FutureGen, without regard to the 

terms and conditions applicable to clean 

coal technological projects: Provided, 

That the initial planning and research 

stages of the FutureGen project shall 

include a matching requirement from 

non-Federal sources of at least 20 

percent of the costs: Provided further, 

That any demonstration component of 

such project shall require a matching 

requirement from non-Federal sources 

of at least 50 percent of the costs of the 

component: Provided further, That of 

the amounts provided, $50,000,000 is 

available, after coordination with the 

private sector, for a request for proposals for a Clean Coal Power Initiative 

providing for competitively-awarded 

research, development, and demonstration projects to reduce the barriers 

to continued and expanded coal use: 

Provided further, That no project may 

be selected for which suffi cient funding is not available to provide for the 

total project: Provided further, That 

funds shall be expended in accordance 

with the provisions governing the use 

of funds contained under the heading 

‘Clean Coal Technology’ in 42 U.S.C. 

5903d as well as those contained under 

the heading ‘Clean Coal Technology’ in 

prior appropriations: Provided further, 

That the Department may include provisions for repayment of Government 

contributions to individual projects 

in an amount up to the Government 

contribution to the project on terms 

and conditions that are acceptable to 

the Department including repayments 

from sale and licensing of technologies from both domestic and foreign 

transactions: Provided further, That 

such repayments shall be retained by 

the Department for future coal-related 

research, development and demonstration projects: Provided further, That 

any technology selected under this 

program shall be considered a Clean 

Coal Technology, and any project 

selected under this program shall be 

considered a Clean Coal Technology 

Project, for the purposes of 42 U.S.C. 

7651n, and chapters 51, 52, and 60 of 

title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations: Provided further, That no part of 

the sum herein made available shall be 

used for the fi eld testing of nuclear explosives in the recovery of oil and gas: 

Provided further, That up to 4 percent 

of program direction funds available to 

the National Energy Technology Laboratory may be used to support Department of Energy activities not included 

in this account: Provided further, That 

for fi scal year 2006 salaries for Federal 

employees performing research and 

development activities at the National 

Energy Technology Laboratory can 

continue to be funded from program 

accounts: Provided further, That the 

Secretary of Energy is authorized to 

accept fees and contributions from 

public and private sources, to be deposited in a contributed funds account, 

and prosecute projects using such fees 

and contributions in cooperation with 

other Federal, State, or private agencies 

or concerns: Provided further, That 

revenues and other moneys received 

by or for the account of the Department of Energy or otherwise generated 

by sale of products in connection with 

projects of the Department appropriated 

under the Fossil Energy Research and 

Development account may be retained 

by the Secretary of Energy, to be available until expended, and used only for 

plant construction, operation, costs, 

and payments to cost-sharing entities 

as provided in appropriate cost-sharing 

contracts or agreements.

Public Law 110-5

Public Law 110-5, 121 Stat. 8 (2007)

The fi nal continuing resolution for fi scal year 2007 did not contain language 

specifi c to the Clean Coal Technology 

Demonstration Program or the Clean 

Coal Power Initiative. For the Clean 

Coal Technology Demonstration Program, the availability of $257,000,000 

was deferred until October 1, 2007. 

For the Clean Coal Power Initiative, 

$60,433,000 was made available.

House Report 109-474 (2006)

Clean Coal Technology (Rescission)

The Committee recommends the rescission of $257,000,000 in clean coal 

technology funding. These balances are 

no longer needed to complete active 

projects in this program. For several 

years the Administration has proposed, 

and Congress has to some extent 

obliged, the deferral of these balances 

to the out-years, for the appearance of 

retaining them for FutureGen activities. 

The practice of ‘deferring balances’ 

or ‘transferring balances’ is purely a 

budgetary optical illusion. Congress 

appropriates FutureGen activities on 

an annual basis. There are no budgetary savings by utilizing prior year clean 

coal technology balances. The Committee will continue to evaluate budget 

requests for FutureGen activities on an 

annual basis, and appropriate directly, 

without the budget scoring gimmickry 

of clean coal technology prior year 

balances. 

Fossil Energy Research and 

Development

Clean coal power initiative—This 

program researches, develops, and 

demonstrates commercial readiness to 

implement advanced clean coal-based 

technologies that enhance electricity 

reliability, increase generation capacity, 

and reduce emissions. The Committee recommends $36,400,000 for the 

clean coal power initiative (CCPI), an 

increase of $31,443,000 over the budget 

request. This funding will support the 

third round of demonstration projects, 

incorporating the latest advances in 

clean coal technologies. The Committee believes it is important to keep 

momentum in this program towards 

the accumulation of balances for future 

rounds of CCPI awards. The Committee does not accept the Department’s 

argument that this next solicitation is 

not needed because the technologies 
A-26

demonstrated will be too late for incorporation in FutureGen. The Committee 

views FutureGen as a major step in the 

development of coal fi red power plants, 

but not the end of new technology in 

this area. 

Senate Report 109-274 (2006)

Clean Coal Technology (Including 

Deferral and Rescission)

The Committee recommends the deferral of $203,000,000 in clean coal 

technology funding until fi scal year 

2008. The Committee recommends that 

the Department rescind $50,000,000 of 

prior year balances from excess contingency estimates in demonstration 

projects. 

Fossil Energy Research and 

Development

Clean Coal Power Initiative—The 

Committee recommends $70,000,000. 

The Committee is frustrated by the remarkably low level of funding provided 

to this initiative which demonstrates 

advanced coal technologies including 

carbon capture, mercury control and 

other co-production opportunities. The 

budget only provided $4,957,000. The 

Committee is aware that not all of the 

previously awarded projects have been 

successfully developed for a variety of 

reasons, and available balances will not 

be used. The Department has identifi ed 

one project that will not be able to spend 

the remaining balances of $50,000,000. 

The Committee directs the Department 

to rescind the available balances and 

apply that funding to the Clean Coal 

Power Initiatives for a future competitive award. In addition, the Committee 

provides an additional $20,000,000. 

Combined with existing balances 

of $70,000,000 provided in the current year, the Department will have 

$140,000,000 to commit to the next 

CCPI solicitation.

Public Law 110-161

Public Law 110-161, 121 Stat. 1844 

(2007)

Clean Coal Technology (Deferral 

and Transfer)

Of the funds made available under this 

heading for obligation in prior years, 

$149,000,000 shall not be available 

until October 1, 2008: Provided, That 

funds made available in previous appropriations Acts shall be made available for any ongoing project regardless 

of the separate request for proposal 

under which the project was selected: 

Provided further, That $166,000,000 of 

uncommitted balances are transferred to 

Fossil Energy Research and Development to be used until expended.

Fossil Energy Research and 

Development

For necessary expenses in carrying out 

fossil energy research and development 

activities, under the authority of the 

Department of Energy Organization 

Act (Public Law 95-91), including the 

acquisition of interest, including defeasible and equitable interests in any real 

property or any facility or for plant or 

facility acquisition or expansion, and 

for the hire of passenger motor vehicles, 

the hire, maintenance, and operation of 

aircraft, the purchase, repair, and cleaning of uniforms, the reimbursement to 

the General Services Administration 

for security guard services, and for 

conducting inquiries, technological 

investigations and research concerning the extraction, processing, use, and 

disposal of mineral substances without 

objectionable social and environmental 

costs (30 U.S.C. 3, 1602, and 1603), 

$750,000,000, to remain available until expended, of which $166,000,000 

shall be derived by transfer from 

‘Clean Coal Technology’: Provided 

further, That funds appropriated for 

prior solicitations under the Clean Coal 

Technology Program, Power Plant Improvement Initiative, and Clean Coal 

Power Initiative, but not required by 

the Department to meet its obligations 

on projects selected under such solicitations, may be utilized for the Clean Coal 

Power Initiative Round III solicitation 

under this Act in accordance with the 

requirements of this Act rather than 

the Acts under which the funds were 

appropriated: Provided further, That 

no project may be selected for which 

full funding is not available to provide 

for the total project: Provided further, 

That fi nancial assistance for costs in 

excess of those estimated as of the date 

of award of original Clean Coal Power 

Initiative fi nancial assistance may not 

be provided in excess of the proportion of costs borne by the Government 

in the original agreement and shall be 

limited to 25 percent of the original 

fi nancial assistance: Provided further, 

That at least 50 percent cost-sharing 

shall be required in each budget period 

of a project: Provided further, That in 

accordance with section 988(e) of Public Law 109-58, repayment of the DOE 

contribution to a project shall not be a 

condition of making an award under this 

solicitation: Provided further, That no 

part of the sum herein made available 

shall be used for the fi eld testing of 

nuclear explosives in the recovery of 

oil and gas: Provided further, That in 

this Act and future Acts, up to 4 percent 

of program direction funds available to 

the National Energy Technology Laboratory may be used to support Department of Energy activities not included 

in this Fossil Energy account: Provided 

further, That in this Act and future Acts, 

the salaries for Federal employees 

performing research and development 

activities at the National Energy Technology Laboratory can continue to be 

funded from any appropriate DOE program accounts: Provided further, That 

revenues and other moneys received 

by or for the account of the Department of Energy or otherwise generated 

by sale of products in connection with 

projects of the Department appropriated 

under the Fossil Energy Research and 
A-27

Development account may be retained 

by the Secretary of Energy, to be available until expended, and used only for 

plant construction, operation, costs, 

and payments to cost-sharing entities 

as provided in appropriate cost-sharing 

contracts or agreements.

Public Law 111-5

Public Law 111-5, 123 Stat. 115 

(2009)

American Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act of 2009 

Fossil Energy Research and 

Development

For an additional amount for ‘Fossil 

Energy Research and Development’, 

$3,400,000,000.

House Report 111-016 (2009)

Fossil Energy Research and 

Development

For an additional amount for ‘Fossil 

Energy Research and Development’, 

$3,400,000,000.

Senate Report 111-003 (2009)

Fossil Energy Research and 

Development

The Committee provides an additional 

$4,600,000,000, to remain available 

for projects awarded by September 

30, 2010. Of the amounts appropriated, $2,000,000,000 is available 

for one or more near-zero emissions 

powerplant(s) designed to capture and 

sequester a high percentage of carbon 

dioxide. 

Of the amounts appropriated, 

$1,000,000,000 is available, in addition to amounts appropriated in the 

fi scal year 2009 spending bill and such 

other amounts available from prior 

appropriations, for selections under 

the Department’s Clean Coal Power 

Initiative Round III Funding Opportunity Announcement. The Department is 

encouraged to establish a second closing date on or after April 1, 2009 for 

the receipt of new or modifi ed applications. Notwithstanding the mandatory 

eligibility requirements of the Funding 

Opportunity Announcement, the Committee fi nds that projects using petroleum coke as a fuel may directly lead to 

improvements in technology applicable 

to coal-based systems and is consistent 

with program objectives. Therefore, 

language is included in the bill directing 

the Department to consider applications 

that utilize petroleum coke for some or 

all of the project’s fuel input. 

Of the amounts appropriated, 

$1,520,000,000 is available for a competitive solicitation pursuant to section 

703 of Public Law 110-140 for projects 

that demonstrate carbon capture from 

industrial sources. Such projects may 

include plant effi ciency improvements 

for integration with carbon capture 

technology. Preferences will be given 

to projects that capture and sequester at 

least 75 percent of the carbon dioxide 

that would otherwise be emitted to the 

atmosphere or put such carbon dioxide to benefi cial reuse that provides 

an equivalent net reduction of carbon 

emissions to the atmosphere. 

Of the amounts appropriated, 

$50,000,000 is available for a competitive solicitation pursuant to section 

702(c)(3)(B) of Public Law 110-140 

to conduct site characterization for a 

minimum of 10 candidate geologic 

sequestration formations. The Secretary 

may provide awards to project recipients previously provided funding for 

large-scale testing by the Department 

of Energy. Preference should be given 

to qualifying projects which include a 

private-public partnership with State 

Geological Surveys, and have storage 

sites near high point sources of carbon 

dioxide emissions. 

$20,000,000 is available to carry out 

the geologic sequestration training and 

research grant program authorized in 

section 705(b) of Public Law 110-140, 

and $10,000,000 is available for program direction funding. The Committee recognizes the broad sequestration 

experience resident in the Offi ce of 

Fossil Energy. 

Public Law 111-8

Public Law 111-8, 123 Stat. 524 

(2009)

Clean Coal Technology (Transfer)

Of the funds made available under this 

heading for obligation in prior years, 

$149,000,000 of uncommitted balances are transferred to Fossil Energy 

Research and Development to be used 

until expended: Provided, That funds 

made available in previous appropriations Acts shall be made available for 

any ongoing project regardless of the 

separate request for proposal under 

which the project was selected.

Fossil Energy Research and 

Development

For necessary expenses in carrying out 

fossil energy research and development 

activities, under the authority of the 

Department of Energy Organization 

Act (Public Law 95-91), including the 

acquisition of interest, including defeasible and equitable interests in any real 

property or any facility or for plant or 

facility acquisition or expansion, and 

for conducting inquiries, technological 

investigations and research concerning 

the extraction, processing, use, and 

disposal of mineral substances without 

objectionable social and environmental 

costs (30 U.S.C. 3, 1602, and 1603), 

$876,320,000, to remain available until 

expended, of which $149,000,000 shall 

be derived by transfer from ‘Clean 

Coal Technology’: Provided, That of 

the amounts provided, $288,174,000 

is available for the Clean Coal Power 

Initiative Round III solicitation, pursuant to title IV of the Public Law 109-58: 

Provided further, That funds appropriated for prior solicitations under the 

Clean Coal Technology Program, Power Plant Improvement Initiative, Clean 

Coal Power Initiative, and FutureGen, 
A-28

but not required by the Department 

to meet its obligations on projects 

selected under such solicitations, may 

be utilized for the Clean Coal Power 

Initiative Round III solicitation under 

this Act in accordance with the requirements of this Act rather than the Acts 

under which the funds were appropriated: Provided further, That no Clean 

Coal Power Initiative project may be 

selected for which full funding is not 

available to provide for the total project: Provided further, That if a Clean 

Coal Power Initiative project selected 

after enactment of this legislation for 

negotiation under this or any other Act 

in any fi scal year, is not awarded within 

2 years from the date the application 

was selected, negotiations shall cease 

and the Federal funds committed to 

the application shall be retained by the 

Department for future coal-related research, development and demonstration 

projects, except that the time limit may 

be extended at the Secretary’s discretion for matters outside the control of 

the applicant, or if the Secretary determines that extension of the time limit is 

in the public interest: Provided further, 

That the Secretary may not delegate this 

responsibility for applications greater 

than $10,000,000: Provided further, 

That fi nancial assistance for costs in 

excess of those estimated as of the date 

of award of original Clean Coal Power 

Initiative fi nancial assistance may not 

be provided in excess of the proportion 

of costs borne by the Government in the 

original agreement and shall be limited 

to 25 percent of the original fi nancial 

assistance: Provided further, That 

funds shall be expended in accordance 

with the provisions governing the use 

of funds contained under the heading 

‘Clean Coal Technology’ in 42 U.S.C. 

5903d as well as those contained under 

the heading ‘Clean Coal Technology’ in 

prior appropriations: Provided further, 

That any technology selected under 

these programs shall be considered a 

Clean Coal Technology, and any project 

selected under these programs shall be 

considered a Clean Coal Technology 

Project, for the purposes of 42 U.S.C. 

7651n, and chapters 51, 52, and 60 of 

title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations: Provided further, That funds 

available for the Clean Coal Power Initiative Round III Funding Opportunity 

Announcement may be used to support 

any technology that meets the requirements of the Round III Announcement 

relating to carbon capture and storage 

or other benefi cial uses of CO2

, without 

regard to the 70 and 30 percent funding allocations specified in section 

402(b)(1)(A) and 402(b)(2)(A) of Public Law 109-58: Provided further, That 

no part of the sum herein made available shall be used for the fi eld testing of 

nuclear explosives in the recovery of oil 

and gas: Provided further, That, of the 

amount appropriated in this paragraph, 

$43,864,150 shall be used for projects 

specifi ed in the table that appears under 

the heading ‘Congressionally Directed 

Fossil Energy Projects’ in the text and 

table under this heading in the explanatory statement described in section 4 (in 

the matter preceding division A of this 

consolidated Act).
B-1

Appendix B. CCTDP Financial History

This appendix provides historical funding and cost information on the CCTDP. 

Over a series of fi ve solicitations, the 

CCTDP produced 33 successfully completed projects. The fi nal active project 

withdrew prior to completion in March 

2006. Exhibit B-1 summarizes the costs 

associated with the 33 successfully 

completed projects.

Exhibit B-1

CCTDP Project Costs and Cost-Sharing for Successfully Completed Projects

(Dollars in Thousands)

Total Cost-Share Dollars Cost-Share Percent

Project Costs % DOEb Participants DOE Participants

Subprogram

CCTDP-I 844,363 23 239,640 604,723 28 72

CCTDP-II 318,577 9 139,195 179,382 44 56

CCTDP-III 1,138,741 30 483,665 655,076 42 58

CCTDP-IV 950,429 25 437,876 512,553 46 54

CCTDP-V 0 0 0 0 0 0

Totala 3,252,110 100 1,300,376 1,951,734 40 60

Application Category

Advanced Electric Power 

Generation

1,978,492 61 812,912 1,165,580 41 59

Environmental Control Devices 620,110 19 252,832 367,278 41 59

Coal Processing for Clean Fuels 431,810 13 192,029 239,781 44 56

Industrial Applications 221,698 7 42,603 179,095 19 81 

Totala 3,252,110 100 1,300,376 1,951,734 40 60

a Totals may not add up to the total fi gure shown due to rounding.

b DOE share does not include $156,499,000 obligated for withdrawn projects and audit expenses.

Exhibit B-2 presents the allocation 

of appropriated CCTDP funds (after 

adjustment) and the amount available 

for each solicitation. Additional activities funded by CCTDP appropriations 

are the Small Business Innovation 

Research (SBIR) Program, the Small 

Business Technology Transfer (STTR) 

Program, and program direction for 

CCTDP management.

Exhibit B-3, on the following page, depicts the apportionment of appropriated 

funds to DOE. Funds can be transferred 

among subprogram budgets to meet 

project and program needs.

Exhibit B-2

Relationship Between Appropriations and Subprogram Budgets

(Dollars in Thousands)

Appropriation 

Enacted Subprogram

Adjusted 

Appropriations

SBIR & STTR 

Budgetsa

Program Direction 

Budget

Projects

Budget

P.L. 99-190 CCTDP-I 380,600 4,902 144,767 230,931

P.L. 100-202 CCTDP-II 473,776 6,781 32,512 434,483

P.L. 100-446 CCTDP-III 304,298 6,906 22,548 274,844

P.L. 101-121b CCTDP-IV 331,990 7,065 24,990 299,935

P.L. 101-121b CCTDP-V 263,934 5,427 25,000 233,507

Total 1,754,598 31,081 249,817 1,473,700

a Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) Programs.

b P.L. 101-121 was revised by P.L. 101-512, 102-154, 102-381, 103-138, 103-332, 104-6, 104-208, 105-18, 105-83, 105-277, 

106-113, 106-291, 107-63, 108-7, 108-108, 108-447, 109-103, 110-5, 110-161, and 111-8.
B-2 Exhibit B-3

Annual CCTDP Funding by Appropriations and Subprogram Budgets

(Dollars in Thousands)

Fiscal Year 1986–98 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Totald

Adjusted AppropriationsaP.L. 99-190 380,600 380,600P.L. 100-202 433,834 9,962 14,980 15,000 473,776P.L. 100-446 574,998 (156,000) 156,000 (33,700) (185,000) 97,000 304,298

P.L. 101-121b 427,000 (162,000) 26,990 (47,000) 87,000 331,990

P.L. 101-121b 449,934 (257,000) (20,000) (58,000) 263,934

Total 2,266,366 (146,038) 8,980 8,290 (47,000) (98,000) (160,000) (20,000) 0 (58,000) 0 1,754,598

Subprogram BudgetsCCTDP-I Projects 288,331 (14,400) (14,000) (14,000) (15,000) 230,931CCTDP-II Projects 394,541 9,962 14,980 15,000 434,483CCTDP-III Projects 545,544 (156,000) 156,000 (33,700) (185,000) 97,000 274,844

CCTDP-IV Projects 394,935 (162,000) 27,000 40,000 299,935CCTDP-V Projects 419,507 (87,000) 87,000 (257,000) (20,000) (58,000) 233,507Projects Subtotal 2,042,858 (160,438) (5,020) (5,700) (62,000) (98,000) (160,000) (20,000) 0 (58,000) 0 1,473,700Program Direction 192,427 14,400 14,000 13,990 15,000 249,817

Fossil Energy Subtotal 2,235,285 (146,038) 8,980 8,290 (47,000) (98,000) (160,000) (20,000) 0 (58,000) 0 1,723,517

SBIR & STTRc 31,081 31,081

Totald 2,266,366 (146,038) 8,980 8,290 (47,000) (98,000) (160,000) (20,000) 0 (58,000) 0 1,754,598

a Shown are appropriations less amounts sequestered under the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Defi cit Reduction Act.b Shown is the fi scal year apportionment schedule of P.L. 101-121 as revised by P.L. 101-512, 102-154, 102-381, 103-138, 103-332, 104-6, 104-208, 105-18, 105-83, 105-277, 106-113, 106-291, 107-63, 

108-7, 108-108, 108-447, 109-103, 110-5, 110-161, and 111-8.

c Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) Programs.d Totals may not appear to add due to rounding.
B-3

Exhibit B-4

Financial Status of the CCTDP

(Dollars in Thousands)

Subprogram

Appropriations 

Allocated to 

Subprogramb

Apportioned

to Date

Committed

to Date

Obligated

to Date

Cost

to Date

CCTDP-I 230,931 230,931 257,048 257,048 257,048

CCTDP-II 434,483 434,483 165,335 165,335 165,335

CCTDP-III 274,844 274,844 506,012 506,012 506,012

CCTDP-IV 299,935 299,935 476,770 476,770 476,770

CCTDP-V 233,507 233,507 51,710 51,710 51,710

Projects Subtotal 1,473,700 1,473,700 1,456,875 1,456,875 1,456,875

SBIR & STTRa 31,081 31,081 31,081 31,081 31,081

Program Direction 249,817 249,817 249,817 249,817 249,383

Total 1,754,598 1,754,598 1,737,773 1,737,773 1,737,339

a Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) Programs. 

b Totals may not appear to add up to the total fi gure shown due to rounding.

Exhibit B-4 shows the fi nancial status 

of the CCTDP by subprogram. SBIR 

and STTR funds are included in this 

exhibit to account for all funding.

Exhibit B-5 indicates the apportionment sequence as modifi ed by Public 

Law 111-8. These values represent the 

amount of budget authority available 

for the CCTDP.

Exhibit B-5

Apportionment Sequence

(Dollars in Thousands)

FY Annual Cumulative

1986 99,400 99,400

1987 149,100 248,500

1988 199,100 447,600

1989 190,000 637,600

1990 554,000 1,191,600

1991 390,995 1,582,595

1992 415,000 1,997,595

1993 0 1,997,595

1994 225,000 2,222,595

1995 37,055 2,259,650

1996 150,000 2,409,650

1997 (2,121) 2,407,529

1998 (101,000) 2,306,529

1999 (40,163) 2,266,366

2000 (146,038) 2,120,328

2001 8,980 2,129,308

2002 8,290 2,137,598

2003 (47,000) 2,090,598

2004 (98,000) 1,992,598

2005 (160,000) 1,832,598

2006 (20,000) 1,812,598

2007 0 1,812,598

2008 (58,000) 1,754,598

2009 0 1,754,598
B-4
C-1

Appendix C. NEPA Actions and 

Status for Active Projects

Introduction

Projects under the clean coal technology demonstration programs comply 

with the procedural requirements of 

the National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) of 1969 and associated regulations promulgated by the Council on 

Environmental Quality (CEQ) at 40 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 

Parts 1500-1508, and by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) at 10 CFR 

Part 1021.

In carrying out NEPA, DOE examines 

the environmental aspects of each 

proposed demonstration project in 

the evaluation phase of the selection 

process. Each proposed project is rated 

against environmental evaluation criteria, which are heavily weighted in the 

scoring process.

Upon selection, project participants 

are required to prepare and submit 

additional environmental information. 

The detailed site- and project-specifi c 

information is used, along with independent information gathered by DOE, 

as the basis for site-specific NEPA 

documents that are prepared by DOE 

for each selected project. These NEPA 

documents are prepared, considered, 

and published in full conformance with 

CEQ and DOE regulations for NEPA 

compliance. The three documents that 

serve as possible outcomes of the NEPA 

process are outlined below.

Categorical Exclusions

“Subpart D—Typical Classes of Actions” of the DOE NEPA regulations 

provides for categorical exclusions 

(CX) as a class of actions that DOE 

has determined do not individually or 

cumulatively have a signifi cant effect 

on the human environment.

Environmental Assessments

Environmental Assessments (EA) have 

the following three functions:

1. To provide suffi cient evidence and 

analysis for determining whether a 

proposed action requires preparation of an Environmental Impact 

Statement (EIS) or a Finding of No 

Signifi cant Impact (FONSI);

2. To aid an agency’s compliance with 

NEPA when no EIS is necessary; 

i.e., to provide an interdisciplinary 

review of proposed actions, assess 

potential impacts, and identify 

better alternatives and mitigation 

measures; and

3. To facilitate preparation of an EIS 

when one is necessary.

The content of an EA is determined on 

a case-by-case basis and depends on 

the nature of the action. If appropriate, 

a DOE EA also includes any fl oodplain 

or wetlands assessment that has been 

prepared, and may include analyses 

needed for other environmental determinations.

If an agency determines on the basis of 

an EA that it is not necessary to prepare 

an EIS, a FONSI is issued. CEQ regulations describe the FONSI as a document 

that briefl y presents the reasons why an 

action will not have signifi cant effect on 

the human environment and for which 

an EIS therefore will not be prepared. 

The FONSI includes the EA, or a summary of it, and notes any other related 

environmental documents. The CEQ 

and DOE regulations also provide for 

notifi cation of the public that a FONSI 

has been issued. Also, DOE provides 

copies of the EA and FONSI to the 

public on request.

Environmental Impact 

Statements

The primary purpose of an EIS is 

to serve as an action-forcing device 

to ensure that the policies and goals 

defi ned in NEPA are infused into the 

programs and actions of the federal 

government. An EIS contains a full 

and fair discussion of all signifi cant 

environmental impacts. The EIS should 

inform decision-makers and the public 

of reasonable alternatives that would 

avoid or minimize adverse impacts 

or enhance the quality of the human 

environment.

The CEQ regulations state that an EIS is 

to be more than a disclosure document; 

it is to be used by federal offi cials in 

conjunction with other relevant material to plan actions and make decisions. 

Analysis of alternatives is to encompass 

those alternatives to be considered by 

the ultimate decision-maker, including 

a complete description of the proposed 

action. In short, the EIS is a means of 

assessing the environmental impacts of 

a proposed DOE action (rather than justifying decisions already made), prior to 

making a decision whether to proceed 

with the proposed action. Consequently, 

before a Record of Decision (ROD) is 

issued, DOE may not take any action 

that would have an adverse environmental effect or limit the choice of 

reasonable alternatives.

NEPA Actions and Status

Exhibit C-1 provides the NEPA action 

taken and the status of that action for 

each of the active clean coal technology 

demonstration projects. The projects 

are presented by program and are listed 

alphabetically within each program.
C-2

Exhibit C-1

NEPA Action and Status

Project NEPA Action Status

PPII

 Greenidge Multi-Pollutant Control Project EA FONSI issued 12/3/04

CCPI-1

Demonstration of Integrated Optimization Software at the Baldwin Energy Complex CX Completed 2/18/04

 Gilberton Coal-to-Clean Fuels and Power Co-Production Project EIS Halted

Increasing Power Plant Effi ciency – Lignite Fuel Enhancement EA FONSI issued 1/6/04

 TOXECONTM Retrofi t for Mercury and Multi-Pollutant Control on Three 90-MW 

Coal-Fired Boilers EA FONSI issued 9/19/03

Western Greenbrier Co-Production Demonstration Project EIS ROD issued 5/2/08

CCPI-2

Demonstration of a Coal-Based Transport Gasifi er EIS In process

Mercury Specie and Multi-Pollutant Control CX Completed 3/28/05

 Mesaba Energy Project – Unit 1 EIS In process
D-1

Appendix D. Acronyms, 

Abbreviations, and Symbols

¢ cent

°C degrees Celsius

°F degrees Fahrenheit

$ dollars (U.S.)

$/kW dollars per kilowatt

$/ton dollars per ton

% percent

® registered trademark

TM trademark

ACFB atmospheric circulating 

fl uidized-bed

ACFM actual cubic feet per 

minute

A/E architect/engineering

AFBC atmospheric fl uidized-bed 

combustion

AHPC Advanced Hybrid 

Particulate Collector

AI artifi cial intelligence

APH air preheater

API application programming 

interface

ARRA American Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act of 2009

ASTM American Society of 

Testing Materials

atm atmosphere(s)

avg. average

B&W The Babcock & Wilcox 

Company

BOP balance of plant

BSA by-product storage area

Btu(s) British thermal unit(s)

Btu/kWh British thermal units per 

kilowatt-hour

CAAA Clean Air Act 

Amendments of 1990

CAER Center for Applied Energy 

Research

CAIR Clean Air Interstate Rule

CAMR Clean Air Mercury Rule

CAVR Clean Air Visibility Rule 

CCPI Clean Coal Power 

Initiative

CCPI-1 First CCPI solicitation

CCPI-2 Second CCPI solicitation

CCPI-3 Third CCPI solicitation

CCS carbon capture and 

storage 

CCT clean coal technology

CCTDP Clean Coal Technology 

Demonstration Program

CCTDP-I First CCTDP solicitation

CCTDP-II Second CCTDP 

solicitation

CCTDP-III Third CCTDP solicitation

CCTDP-IV Fourth CCTDP solicitation

CCTDP-V Fifth CCTDP solicitation

CD-ROM Compact disk-read only 

memory

CDS circulating dry scrubber

CEM continuous emissions 

monitor

CEMS continuous emission 

monitoring system

CEQ Council on Environmental 

Quality

CFB circulating fl uidized-bed

CFBDS circulating fl uidized-bed 

dry scrubber

CFR Code of Federal 

Regulations 

CO carbon monoxide

CO2 carbon dioxide

COS carbonyl sulfi de

CSC convective syngas cooler

CUB coal utilization 

by-product(s)

CX Categorical Exclusion

DCAA Defense Contract Audit 

Agency

DCS digital control system 

DEP Department of 

Environmental Protection

DOE U.S. Department of 

Energy

DOE/HQ U.S. Department of 

Energy Headquarters

DSE dust stabilization 

enhancement

EA Environmental Assessment

EIA U.S. Energy Information 

Administration

EIS Environmental Impact 

Statement

EIV Environmental 

Information Volume

EPA U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency

EPAct Energy Policy Act

EPC Engineering, Procurement 

& Construction

EPRI Electric Power Research 

Institute

ESP electrostatic precipitator

FBC fl uidized-bed combustion

FD forced draft

FE Offi ce of Fossil Energy

FFDC Fabric fi lter dust collector

FGD fl ue gas desulfurization

FOA Funding Opportunity 

Announcement 

FONSI fi nding of no signifi cant 

impact

FSQ full-slurry quench

ft, ft2

, ft3 foot (feet), square feet, 

cubic feet

FT Fischer-Tropsch

FY fi scal year

gal gallon(s)

gal/ft3 gallons per cubic foot

GHG greenhouse gases
D-2

gob coal waste used as a fuel

gpm gallons per minute

gr grains

GRE Great River Energy

GUI graphical user interface

GW gigawatt(s)

GWe gigawatt(s)-electric

H2 molecular hydrogen

H2

S hydrogen sulfi de

H2SO4 sulfuric acid

HAPs hazardous air pollutants

HCl hydrogen chloride

HF hydrofl uoric acid

Hg mercury

HHV higher heating value

hr. hour(s)

HRSG heat recovery steam 

generator

ID induced draft

IGCC integrated gasifi cation 

combined-cycle

in, in2

, in3 inch(es), square inch(es), 

cubic inch(es)

kV kilovolt

kW kilowatt(s)

kWh kilowatt-hour(s)

lb pound

LHV lower heating value

LLC limited liability company

LNB low-NOx

 burner

LP low pressure

LPA Large Particle Ash 

MHz megahertz

mills/kWh mills per kilowatt-hour

min minute(s)

mo month(s)

MOU Memorandum of 

Understanding

MPC model predictive control

MW megawatt(s)

MWe megawatt(s)-electric

MWt megawatt(s)-thermal

N2 molecular nitrogen

N/A not applicable

NAAQS National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards

NaHCO3 sodium bicarbonate

NaNO3 sodium nitrate

NaOH sodium hydroxide

Na2

CO3 sodium carbonate

Na2SO4 sodium sulfate

NEPA National Environmental 

Policy Act

NETL National Energy 

Technology Laboratory

NH3 ammonia

NH4

HCO3 ammonium bicarbonate

NH4

NO3 ammonium nitrate

(NH4

)2SO4 ammonium sulfate

NO2 nitrogen dioxide

NOx nitrogen oxides

NSPS New Source Performance 

Standards

O2 molecular oxygen

O3 ozone

O&M operation and maintenance

OMB Offi ce of Management 

and Budget 

PAC powdered activated carbon

PC pulverized coal

PCD particulate collection 

device

PM particulate matter

PM2.5 particulate matter less than 

2.5 microns in diameter

PON Program Opportunity 

Notice

PPII Power Plant Improvement 

Initiative

PRB Powder River Basin

ppm parts per million (mass)

ppmv parts per million by 

volume

PSC Public Service 

Commission

PSDF Power Systems 

Development Facility

psi pound(s) per square inch

psia pound(s) per square inch 

absolute

psig pound(s) per square inch 

gauge

Pty Proprietary

Pub.L. Public Law

R&D research and development

RD&D research, development, 

and demonstration

RFP request for proposals

ROD Record of Decision

RRI Rich Reagent Injection

S sulfur

SBIR Small Business Innovation 

Research

scf standard cubic feet

scfm standard cubic feet per 

minute

SCR selective catalytic 

reduction

SCS Southern Company 

Services, Inc.

SDA spray dryer ash

SIP State Implementation Plan

SNCR selective noncatalytic 

reduction

SO2 sulfur dioxide

SO3 sulfur trioxide

STTR Small Business 

Technology Transfer 

Programs

syngas synthetic gas

TBD to be determined

TRI Toxics Release Inventory

UKRF University of Kentucky 

Research Foundation

U.S. United States

VIP value improving practices

VOA virtual online analyzer

WGC Western Greenbrier CoGenerating LLC

WMPI Waste Management 

Processors, Inc.

yr. year(s)
D-3

Other

Some companies have adopted an acronym as their corporate names. The 

following corporate names refl ect the 

former name of the company.

JEA Jacksonville Electric Authority

KBR Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc.

State Abbreviations

AK Alaska

AL Alabama

AR Arkansas

AZ Arizona

CA California

CO Colorado

CT Connecticut

DC District of Columbia

DE Delaware

FL Florida

GA Georgia

HI Hawaii

IA Iowa

ID Idaho

IL Illinois

IN Indiana

KS Kansas

KY Kentucky

LA Louisiana

MA Massachusetts

MD Maryland

ME Maine

MI Michigan

MN Minnesota

MO Missouri

MS Mississippi

MT Montana

NC North Carolina

ND North Dakota

NE Nebraska

NH New Hampshire

NJ New Jersey

NM New Mexico

NV Nevada

NY New York

OH Ohio

OK Oklahoma

OR Oregon

PA Pennsylvania

PR Puerto Rico

RI Rhode Island

SC South Carolina

SD South Dakota

TN Tennessee

TX Texas

UT Utah

VA Virginia

VI Virgin Islands

VT Vermont

WA Washington

WI Wisconsin

WV West Virginia

WY Wyoming
D-4
Index-1

Index of Projects and Participants

A

Achieving NSPS Emission Standards 

Through Integration of Low-NOx 

Burners with an Optimization Plan 

for Boiler Combustion 2-2

Advanced Multi-Product Coal Utilization 

By-Product Processing Plant 2-3

Antelope Valley Station CO2 Capture and 

Sequestration Project ES-3

B

Basin Electric Power Cooperative ES-3, 

3-7

Big Bend Power Station Neural NetworkSootblower Optimization 2-2

C

Commercial Demonstration of Advanced 

IGCC with Full Carbon Capture 

ES-3

Commercial Demonstration of the 

Manufactured Aggregate 

Processing Technology Utilizing 

Spray Dryer Ash 2-2

CONSOL Energy, Inc. ES-3, 3-6, 3-7, 

3-14–3-17

D

Demonstration of a Coal-Based Transport 

Gasifi er ES-3, 2-4, 3-6, 3-8, 

3-24–3-25, C-2

Demonstration of a Full-Scale Retrofi t of 

the Advanced Hybrid Particulate 

Collector Technology 2-2, 3-8

Demonstration of Integrated Optimization 

Software at the Baldwin Energy 

Complex ES-3, ES-4, 2-3, 3-1, 

3-6, 3-8, 3-10–3-13, C-2

E

Excelsior Energy, Inc. 3-26–3-27

G

Gilberton Coal-to-Clean Fuels and Power 

Co-Production Project ES-3, 3-6, 

3-8, 3-30–3-31, C-2

Great River Energy ES-3, 3-6, 3-7, 

3-32–3-33, D-2

Greenidge Multi-Pollutant Control 

Project ES-3, ES-4, 2-2, 3-1, 3-6, 

3-8, 3-14–3-17, C-2

H

Hydrogen Energy International LLC 

ES-3, 3-7

I

Increasing Power Plant Effi ciency – 

Lignite Fuel Enhancement ES-3, 

2-3, 3-6, 3-8, 3-32–3-33, C-2

M

MEP-I LLC ES-3, 3-6, 3-7, 3-26–3-27

Mercury Specie and Multi-Pollutant 

Control ES-3, 2-4, 3-6, 3-8, 

3-18–3-19, C-2

Mesaba Energy Project – Unit 1 ES-3, 

2-4, 3-6, 3-8, 3-26–3-27, C-2

N

NeuCo, Inc. ES-3, ES-4, 3-6, 3-7, 

3-10–3-13, 3-18–3-19

P

Pegasus Technologies 3-18–3-19

S

Southern Company Services, Inc. ES-3, 

3-6, 3-7, 3-24–3-25, D-2

T

TOXECON Retrofi t for Mercury and 

Multi-Pollutant Control on Three 

90-MW Coal-Fired Boilers ES-3, 

2-3, 3-6, 3-8, 3-20–3-21, C-2

W

Wabash River Coal Gasifi cation 

Repowering Project 3-26

Western Greenbrier Co-Generation, LLC 

ES-3, 3-6, 3-7, 3-36–3-37, D-2

Western Greenbrier Co-Production 

Demonstration Project ES-3, 2-3, 

3-6, 3-8, 3-36–3-37, C-2

Wisconsin Electric Power Company 

ES-3, 3-6, 3-7, 3-20–3-21

WMPI PTY., LLC ES-3, 3-6, 3-7, 

3-30–3-31, D-2
Index-2
Contents

Executive Summary

Chapter 1. Role of Clean Coal Technology Demonstrations

Chapter 2. Funding and Costs

Chapter 3. Projects

Appendix A. Historical Perspective, Legislative History, and Public Laws

Appendix B. CCTDP Financial History

Appendix C. NEPA Actions and Status for Active Projects

Appendix D. Acronyms, Abbreviations, and Symbols

Index of Projects and Participants