DOE/FE-0503

Clean Coal Technology Programs: 

Program Update 2006

Includes Clean Coal Technology Demonstration 

Program (CCTDP), Power Plant Improvement 

Initiative (PPII), and Clean Coal Power Initiative 

(CCPI) Projects

As of June 2006

U.S. Department of Energy

Assistant Secretary for Fossil Energy

Washington, DC 20585 September 2006
DOE/FE-0503

Clean Coal Technology Programs: 

Program Update 2006

Includes Clean Coal Technology Demonstration 

Program (CCTDP), Power Plant Improvement 

Initiative (PPII), and Clean Coal Power Initiative 

(CCPI) Projects

As of June 2006

U.S. Department of Energy

Assistant Secretary for Fossil Energy

Washington, DC 20585 September 2006
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/cctc

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

U.S. Department of Energy

FE-20/Germantown Building

1000 Independence Ave. S.W.

Washington DC 20585-1290

(301) 903-2624

(301) 903-9301 (fax)

gene.kight@hq.doe.gov

 Printed with soy ink on recycled paper

Dr. Victor K. Der

Offi ce of Clean Energy Systems

U.S. Department of Energy

FE-22/Germantown Building

1000 Independence Ave. S.W.

Washington DC 20585-1290

(301) 903-2700
Program Update 2006 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 12345

Chapter 1. Role of Clean Coal Technology 

Demonstrations

0 12345

Chapter 2. Funding and Costs 0 12345

Chapter 3. Projects 0 12345

Appendix A. Historical Perspective, Legislative History, and Public Laws

0 12345

Appendix B. CCTDP Financial History 0 12345

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 Technology & Management Services, Inc.

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-2

Clean Coal Technology Programs ...........................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 ........ 2-4

Chapter 3. Projects

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

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

Project Fact Sheets .................................................... 3-6

Other Information Sources ........................................ 3-6

Emissions Control ....................................................3-11

Advanced Power Systems ....................................... 3-33

Clean Coal Fuels ..................................................... 3-47

Industrial Applications ............................................ 3-57

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-5

Chapter 2. Funding and Costs

Exhibit 2-1, Funding for the CCPI and PPII

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

Exhibit 2-2, Project Costs and Financial

Status of Active CCTDP Projects .............................. 2-2

Exhibit 2-3, PPII Project Costs and Financial

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

Exhibit 2-4, CCPI-1 Project Costs and Financial 

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

Exhibit 2-5, CCPI-2 Project Costs and Financial

Status ......................................................................... 2-5

Chapter 3. Projects

Exhibit 3-1, Project Fact Sheets by Market Sector ... 3-7

Exhibit 3-2, Project Fact Sheets by Program ............ 3-8

Exhibit 3-3, Geographic Locations of Projects ......... 3-9

Exhibit 3-4, Project Schedules by Market Sector.... 3-10

Exhibit 3-5, Stack Emissions Data .......................... 3-41

Exhibit 3-6, ACCP Annual Production Rates .......... 3-51

Appendix A. Historical Perspective, Legislative 

History, and Public Laws

Exhibit A-1, CCTDP Legislative History ..................A-3

Exhibit A-2, PPII Legislative History .......................A-6

Exhibit A-3, CCPI Legislative History .....................A-7

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, CCTDP Financial Activity by Fiscal

Year ............................................................................B-3

Exhibit B-5, Financial Status of the CCTDP as of

June 30, 2006 .............................................................B-3

Exhibit B-6, Apportionment Sequence ......................B-4

Appendix C. NEPA Actions and Status for Active 

Projects

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

Exhibits
ii
ES-1

Executive Summary

Introduction

The purpose of the Clean Coal Technology Programs: Program Update 2006

is to provide an updated status of the 

DOE commercial-scale demonstrations 

of clean coal technologies (CCTs). 

These demonstrations are performed 

under the Clean Coal Technology 

Demonstration Program (CCTDP), the 

Power Plant Improvement Initiative 

(PPII), and the Clean Coal Power Initiative (CCPI). Program Update 2006

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, 

with fact sheets for demonstration projects that are active, recently completed, 

withdrawn, or ended, including status 

as of June 30, 2006.

Role of Clean 

Coal Technology 

Demonstrations

Coal accounts for over 94 percent of 

the proven fossil energy reserves in 

the United States, and supplies over 

50 percent of the electricity vital to the 

nation’s economy and global competitiveness. The expanded use of coal in 

electricity generation, industrial heat 

and power, and production of fuels 

and high value chemicals is dependent on the removal of environmental 

and economic barriers. The need to 

mitigate these barriers brought about 

a major federally sponsored clean 

coal research and development (R&D) 

program in the 1970s. However, it was 

recognized that the success of this coal 

R&D ultimately would be judged on the 

extent to which emerging technologies 

penetrated domestic and international 

marketplaces. 

In order to achieve success in the marketplace, the technical and fi nancial 

risk associated with the deployment 

of new coal technologies had to be 

reduced. Thus, in 1985 DOE initiated 

the CCTDP. This program was directed 

toward taking the most promising technologies emerging from coal R&D and 

demonstrating them at a scale and in an 

operational environment suffi cient to 

determine their potential for satisfying 

the technical, economic, and environmental needs of the marketplace.

These demonstrations were made possible by forging cost-sharing partnerships 

between the federal government, other 

public institutions, and the technology 

suppliers and users, which reduced the 

fi nancial and technical risk of participants to acceptable levels. The CCTDP 

is nearly concluded, with 33 successfully completed demonstration projects. 

In 2001, DOE implemented the PPII 

in a single solicitation applying basic 

CCTDP principles resulting in four 

demonstrations specifi cally addressing electric power reliability concerns. 

In 2002, President Bush launched the 

comprehensive CCPI, which is designed to address an array of domestic 

and global 21st century energy issues 

through a series of demonstrations over 

10 years. 

Collectively, these 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.”

The CCT RD&D Program advances 

a number of Presidential initiatives 

designed to achieve the DOE strategic 

goal, including the President’s Coal Research Initiative, FutureGen Initiative, 

Global Climate Change Initiative, Hydrogen Fuel Initiative, and Clear Skies 

Initiative (CSI). The program further 

addresses the requirements of the Clean 

Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) and the 

Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR).
ES-2

Clean Coal Technology 

Demonstrations

The CCTDP focused on commercializing processes that helped reduce 

sulfur dioxide (SO

2

) and nitrogen 

oxide (NO

x

) emissions; demonstrating 

more efficient and environmentally 

friendly alternatives to traditional pulverized coal boilers; demonstrating 

coal preparation and coal conversion 

technologies leading to cleaner fuels; 

and demonstrating improved industrial 

technologies for clean coal use. With 

33 successfully completed projects, the 

CCTDP has yielded technologies that 

meet existing environmental regulations, compete in the electric power 

marketplace, and provide a technical 

foundation for meeting future environmental demands.

Congress directed establishment of the 

PPII to provide for the commercialscale 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.

CCPI is a 10-year, $2 billion technology demonstration program that fosters 

more effi cient clean coal technologies 

for use in new and existing U.S. electric power generating facilities. Technologies emerging from the program 

will help to meet new environmental 

objectives for America embodied in 

the President’s Clear Skies Initiative, 

Global Climate Change Initiative, 

FutureGen Initiative, the Hydrogen 

Initiative, CAIR, and CAMR. Early 

CCPI demonstrations offer avenues to 

commercialization for the most promising technologies emerging from the 

R&D pipeline since the last major CCT 

solicitation in 1992. Later demonstrations are expected to include cutting 

edge technology of the future, such 

as advanced turbines, gas separation 

membranes, fuel cells, new gasifi cation 

processes, carbon sequestration, hydrogen production, and other advanced 

energy system technologies. The CCPI 

is the capstone of the President’s Coal 

Research Initiative managed by the 

DOE Offi ce of Fossil Energy.

Clean Coal Technology 

Demonstration Funding

Funding for CCT demonstrations 

(CCTDP, PPII, and CCPI) was previously provided to DOE through the 

annual appropriations bills for the 

Department of Interior and Related 

Agencies. Current appropriations are 

provided through the Energy and Water 

Subcommittees.

Federal funding has exceeded $1.3 billion for the 33 successfully completed 

projects under the CCTDP. Project 

sponsors have contributed over an additional $1.9 billion to these projects, 

representing 60 percent of overall 

project funding, far surpassing the 50 

percent cost-sharing required by law.

The single PPII solicitation was conducted in 2001 with funding provided 

by appropriations for fi scal year 2001 

(FY01) that established a transfer of 

$95 million in previously appropriated 

funding for the CCTDP. As of June 

30, 2006, two projects were ongoing 

and two projects were complete. Three 

projects withdrew during the negotiation phase prior to contract award. One 

project withdrew after award, but prior 

to successful completion. The DOE 

funding commitments for the PPII 

projects total over $30 million, with 

participants contributing an additional 

$40 million or 57 percent of the total 

project costs.

The solicitation and project selections 

for Round 1 of CCPI (CCPI-1) were 

completed in January 2003 with the 

naming of eight projects selected for 

negotiation. As of June 30, 2006, fi ve 

projects were under way with several 
ES-3

projects in the operation phase. One 

project remained in the negotiation 

phase and two projects did not progress 

beyond the negotiation phase. Of the 

six remaining projects, DOE’s funding commitments represent less than 

30 percent ($259 million) of the total 

estimated costs ($941 million) for the 

projects, while participant commitments are over $680 million.

The CCPI Round 2 (CCPI-2) solicitation and selections were made in October 2004, resulting in the selection of 

four projects. As of June 30, 2006, three 

projects were under way and one project ended during the negotiation phase. 

The three active projects are valued at 

$2.7 billion with DOE commitments of 

over $275 million.

Clean Coal Technology 

Programs

The Clean Coal Technology Programs: 

Program Update 2006 provides project 

fact sheets for 20 CCTDP, PPII, and 

CCPI projects. These 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 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 breaks the projects 

down by market sector, demonstration 

program, and participants, and provides 

status as of June 30, 2006. Four of the 

projects have been completed. The following section provides an overview of 

the major technologies included in the 

above market sectors.

Emissions Control

Advanced NOx Controls. Advanced 

NOx controls provide the means to 

meet the following: (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 (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); 

(4) EPA’s Clean Air Mercury Rule 

(CAMR); and (5) the proposed Clear 

Skies Initiative (CSI).

Advanced NOx control technologies 

to meet NOx emission caps proposed 

under the CSI include:

• Low-NOx

 burners and reburning 

systems that limit NOx formation 

by staging the introduction of air 

in the combustion process (combustion modifi cation);

• 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.

Mercury Controls. Mercury controls 

address EPA CAIR/CAMR regulations 

and proposed Clear Skies Initiative 

targets regarding mercury emissions 

from coal-based power generation, 

which represent roughly one-third of 

U.S. mercury emissions. The mercury 

control program includes:

• Sorbents and oxidizing agents to 

transform mercury into a solid, to 

be removed along with fl y ash in 

electrostatic precipitators (ESP) 

or fabric filter dust collectors 

(FFDC);

• 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 to aid mercury control.

Particulate Matter Controls. Particulate matter controls respond to 

EPA’s CAIR regulations and to revised 

NAAQS for PM2.5 for primary particulate matter (fl y ash) and acid aerosols 

that can cause localized plume opacity 

and visibility impairment, and have 

been linked to human health impacts. 

Acid aerosols are required to be reported under the EPA Toxic Release Inventory. Secondary PM2.5 emissions are 

formed chemically in the atmosphere 

by precursors such as NOx and SO2. 

Particulate matter control technologies 

include:
ES-4

• ESP/FFDC hybrids to leverage the 

best features of both NOx and SO2

control technologies;

• Flue gas preconditioning to enhance ESP performance;

• Concentration of particulate matter at ESP outlets for recycle;

• Alkaline injection for sulfur trioxide (SO3

) acid aerosol precursor 

control; and

• Continuous SO3

 analyzers for 

process control and validation.

Advanced Power Systems

Advanced Power Systems. Advanced 

power systems address Global Climate 

Change, Clear Skies, and Hydrogen 

Fuel Initiatives by enhancing power 

generation effi ciency, producing nearzero pollutant emissions, and providing 

for hydrogen separation and carbon dioxide (CO2

) capture and sequestration. 

Advanced power system technologies 

include:

• Integrated gasification combined-cycle (IGCC) systems that: 

convert coal to a clean synthesis 

gas (syngas) amenable to use by 

gas turbines and advanced fuel 

cells, and separate out hydrogen 

and CO2; and transform residual 

gases and solids into salable byproducts.

• Circulating fl uidized-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.

• Hybrids that effectively integrate 

IGCC and CFB technologies.

• Advanced combustion that uses 

oxygen in lieu of air or chemical 

means, such as chemical looping, 

to effect the equivalent of combustion.

Clean Coal Fuels

Upgrading. Upgrading coal enhances 

power plant efficiency and reduces 

emissions per kilowatt of electricity produced, which supports both the 

Clear Skies and Global Climate Change 

Initiatives. Technologies include coal 

drying and ash removal methods to 

significantly increase coal energy 

density.

Conversion. Conversion of coal to 

clean liquid fuels, chemicals, or hydrogen enhances energy security 

and supports the Clear Skies, Global 

Climate Change, and Hydrogen Fuel 

Initiatives. Technologies include coal 

liquefaction, which involves converting 

coal-gasifi cation derived 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.

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 

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 coal-fi red plants. Coal waste 

represents both a threat to groundwater 

contamination and a potential source of 

energy. Coal ash is a relatively untapped 

resource for construction materials that 

is largely disposed of in landfi lls, posing a problem as landfi ll space becomes 

increasingly limited. By-product use 

technologies include:

• Coal waste use in power production, and recycle of ash to support 

reclamation of abandoned coal 

waste piles; and 

• Conversion of coal ash to cement 

substitutes or additives, and construction-grade aggregates.
ES-5

Exhibit ES-1

Projects by Market Sector

Project Program Participant Statusa Page

Emissions Control

 Achieving NSPS Emission Standards Through Integration of 

Low-NOx Burners with an Optimization Plan for Boiler 

Combustion

PPII Sunfl ower Electric Power Corporation Withdrawn 3-12

 Airborne Process Commercial Scale Demonstration CCPI-2 Mustang Clean Energy Withdrawn 3-14

 Big Bend Power Station Neural Network-Sootblower 

Optimization

PPII Tampa Electric Company Completed 3-16

Demonstration of a Full-Scale Retrofi t of the Advanced 

Hybrid Particulate Collector (Advanced HybridTM) 

Technology

PPII Otter Tail Power Company Completed 3-20

Demonstration of Integrated Optimization Software at the 

Baldwin Energy Complex

CCPI-1 NeuCo, Inc. Operation 3-22

Development of Hybrid FLGR/SNCR/SCR Advanced NOx

Control

PPII TIAX, LLC Withdrawn 3-24

 Greenidge Multi-Pollutant Control Project PPII CONSOL Energy, Inc. Construction 3-26

Mercury Specie and Multi-Pollutant Control CCPI-2 Pegasus Technologies Design 3-28

 TOXECON Retrofi t for Mercury and Multi-Pollutant 

Control on Three 90-MW Coal-Fired Boilers

CCPI-1 Wisconsin Electric Power Company Operation 3-30

Advanced Power Systems

 Clean Coal Diesel Demonstration Project CCTDP TIAX, LLC Withdrawn 3-34

Demonstration of a 285-MWe Coal-Based Transport Gasifi er CCPI-2 Southern Company Services, Inc. Design 3-36

 JEA Large-Scale CFB Combustion Demonstration Project CCTDP JEA Completed 3-38

 Kentucky Pioneer Energy IGCC Demonstration Project CCTDP Kentucky Pioneer Energy, LLC Withdrawn 3-42

 Mesaba Energy Project – Unit 1 CCPI-2 MEP-I LLC Design 3-44

Clean Coal Fuels

 Advanced Coal Conversion Process Demonstration CCTDP Western SynCoal LLC Completed 3-48

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

Project

CCPI-1 WMPI PTY., LLC Negotiation 3-52

Increasing Power Plant Effi ciency – Lignite Fuel 

Enhancement

CCPI-1 Great River Energy Design 3-54

Industrial Applications

 Advanced Multi-Product Coal Utilization By-Product 

Processing Plant

CCPI-1 University of Kentucky Research 

Foundation

Design 3-58

Commercial Demonstration of the Manufactured Aggregate 

Processing Technology Utilizing Spray Dryer Ash

PPII Universal Aggregates, LLC Operation 3-60

 Western Greenbrier Co-Production Demonstration Project CCPI-1 Western Greenbrier Co-Generation, LLC Design 3-62

a

 Withdrawn: Project prematurely ended activities, voluntarily or involuntarily at the behest of DOE, prior to the completion of planned project 

activities. Withdrawals have occurred preceding and subsequent to the award of a Cooperative Agreement.
ES-6
1-1

Introduction

Coal is recognized as an essential element in providing the United States 

with energy and economic stability and 

security to its citizens. Coal, which accounts for over 94 percent of the proven 

fossil energy reserves in the United 

States, supplies over 50 percent of the 

electricity vital to the nation’s economy 

and global competitiveness. To support 

continued domestic economic growth 

over the next two decades, demand for 

electricity is projected to increase by 

nearly 50 percent. For reasons of energy 

security and economic stability, coal is 

being counted upon to provide much 

of that generation, maintaining at least 

a 50 percent share of total generation. 

Moreover, coal is envisioned as an 

economically stable source of environmentally friendly fuels such as hydrogen, as well as strategically important 

chemicals. The expanded use of coal is 

dependent on developing technological 

capabilities that eliminate environmental concerns associated with coal use 

at a cost and effi ciency that support 

economic growth. This new generation 

of technologies has been designated 

“clean coal technologies.”

CCT research and development (R&D) 

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 — demonstration. 

Demonstration proves the competitive 

cost and performance of a technology in 

a commercial setting in order to reduce 

risk to acceptable levels in the fi nancial 

and technical arenas. To overcome the 

risks at the demonstration stage, the 

1. Role of Clean Coal Technology 

Demonstrations

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-federal 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 marketplace technical, 

economic, and environmental needs. 

The CCTDP is nearly concluded, with 

33 successfully completed demonstration projects. The fi nal active project 

withdrew in March 2006 prior to 

completion, and is preparing a Final 

Report of activities performed. In 

2001, DOE implemented the Power 

Plant Improvement Initiative (PPII) in 

a single solicitation applying CCTDP 

principles to secure demonstrations 

specifi cally addressing electric power 

reliability concerns. In 2002, President 

Bush launched the comprehensive 

Clean Coal Power Initiative (CCPI), 

which is designed to address an array of 

domestic and global 21st century energy 

issues through a series of demonstrations over 10 years.

Collectively, these 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.

The CCT RD&D program advances 

a number of Presidential initiatives 

designed to achieve the DOE strategic 

goal, including:

• President’s Coal Research Initiative: to produce public benefi ts by 

conducting research and development on coal-related technologies 

that will improve coal’s competitiveness in future energy supply 

markets.
1-2

• Clear Skies Initiative: to cut the 

three worst power plant emissions 

— nitrogen oxides (NO

x

), sulfur 

dioxide (SO

2

), and mercury (Hg) 

— by 70 percent during the next 

15 years using a proven marketbased approach.

• Global Climate Change Initiative: 

to cut greenhouse gas intensity 18 

percent by 2012 by supporting vital climate change research. This 

places the United States on a path 

to slow the growth of greenhouse 

gas emissions and, as the science 

allows, to stop and reverse the 

growth.

• Hydrogen Fuel Initiative: to reverse the growing dependency of 

the United States on foreign oil 

by developing the technologies 

and infrastructure to produce, 

store, and distribute hydrogen for 

use in vehicles and electric power 

generation.

• FutureGen Initiative: to establish 

the capability and feasibility of 

co-producing electricity and hydrogen from coal with essentially 

zero emissions, including the lowcost capture and storage of carbon 

dioxide (CO

2

).

The successful contributions of CCT 

demonstrations to the above goals and 

initiatives are the result of applying 

sound fundamental principles to ensure 

effective government/industry partnerships. These principles include:

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

including full funding 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;

• A technical agenda established 

by industry, not the government, 

enhancing commercialization 

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, refl ecting commercialization goals;

• 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.

Discussed below are the respective 

roles of the CCTDP, PPII, and CCPI in 

ensuring the coal-based systems meet 

21st century energy and environmental 

demands.

CCTDP

Begun in 1985, the CCTDP was the 

most ambitious government-industry 

initiative ever undertaken to develop 

environmental solutions for the use of 

the nation’s abundant coal resources. 

The program’s goal was to demonstrate 

the best, most innovative technology 

emerging from the world’s engineering 

laboratories at a scale large enough so 

that industry could determine whether 

the new processes had commercial 

merit.

Originally, the CCTDP was a response 

to concerns over acid rain, which is 

formed by sulfur and nitrogen pollut-
1-3

ants that can be emitted by coal-burning 

power plants. Based on recommendations from Special Envoys appointed 

by the U.S. and Canadian governments, 

President Reagan commissioned the 

CCTDP as a cost-shared effort among 

the U.S. government, state agencies, and 

the private sector. Projects proposed by 

industry were selected through a series 

of fi ve national competitions aimed at 

attracting promising technologies that 

had not yet been proven commercially. 

The commercial-scale projects have 

included SO

2

 control systems, NO

x

 control technologies, fl uidized-bed combustion, gasification, advanced coal 

processing technologies, and industrial 

process technologies. These technologies have allowed U.S. reliance on 

coal to continue, while cutting multiple 

pollutant emission levels by anywhere 

from 30 percent to 95 percent. More 

than 20 of the technologies tested in 

the original program have achieved 

commercial success.

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 it called 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. 

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 potential global climate-altering impact of 

greenhouse gases.

With coal likely to remain one of the 

nation’s lowest-cost electric power 

suppliers for the foreseeable future, 

President Bush has pledged a new commitment to even more advanced clean 

coal technologies. 

As the President said in presenting his 

National Energy Policy to the American 

public on May 17, 2001, “More than half 

of the electricity generated in America 

today comes from coal. If we weren’t 

blessed with this natural resource, we 

would face even greater [energy] shortages and higher prices today. Yet, coal 

presents an environmental challenge. 

So our plan funds research into new, 

clean coal technologies.”

Building on the successes of the original 

CCTDP, the new CCPI encompasses a 

broad spectrum of research and largescale projects that target today’s most 

pressing environmental challenges. The 

CCPI is designed to be implemented 

over 10 years, with a federal investment 

totaling $2 billion and an industry costshare of 50 percent at a minimum.

Initially, the CCPI is providing government co-fi nancing for new coal technologies that can help utilities meet the 

President’s Clear Skies Initiative to cut 

sulfur, nitrogen, and mercury pollutants 

from power plants nearly 70 percent by 

2018. Also, some of the early projects 

are showing ways to reduce greenhouse 

gases from coal plants by boosting the 

effi ciency at which coal is converted to 

electricity or other energy forms.
1-4

The CCPI is closely linked with R&D 

activities that are conducted throughout 

the core elements of the President’s 

Coal Research Initiative, which are 

driving toward ultra-clean, fossil-fuelbased energy complexes in the 21st

century. The Clean Coal Technology 

Roadmap, developed cooperatively 

with the coal and power industry, addresses short- and long-term coal technology needs. When integrated with 

other DOE initiatives, CCPI will help 

the nation successfully commercialize 

advanced power systems that will produce electricity at effi ciencies nearly 

double that of today’s technologies, 

attain near-zero emissions, produce 

clean fuels, and have CO

2

 management 

capabilities. The President’s Global 

Climate Change Initiative commits the 

United States to reduce greenhouse gas 

intensity (the ratio of greenhouse emissions to economic output) by 18 percent 

over the next decade. Improving power 

plant effi ciency is a potentially signifi -

cant way to reduce carbon emissions in 

the near- and mid-term. In the longer 

term, CCPI technologies offering CO

2

capture and sequestration will remove 

fossil-fueled power as a threat to global 

climate change.

In Round 1 of CCPI (CCPI-1), the 

criteria for candidate projects was very 

broad — specifi cally, the solicitation 

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 six CCPI-1 projects, three are 

expected to contribute to the Global 

Climate Change Initiative to reduce 

greenhouse gases. Two of the projects 

will reduce CO

2

 emissions, a primary 

greenhouse gas, by boosting the fuel 

use effi ciency of power plants. The 

third project will demonstrate a process to convert coal by-products to a 

construction-grade aggregate. In addition, one project will install a high-tech 

process to a power plant that will absorb 

mercury and other air toxic emissions 

from the plant’s fl ue gases, thus contributing to achieving the standards 

set by EPA CAMR and the President’s 

Clear Skies Initiative. The two remaining projects will reduce air pollution 

through advanced gasification and 

combustion systems designed to extract 

the potential energy from waste coal 

piles (scattered throughout many areas 

of Pennsylvania and West Virginia) as 

a new source of fuel.

In February 2004, the second CCPI 

solicitation (CCPI-2) was issued and 

encouraged 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 October 

2004, DOE announced the selection 

of four projects from 13 proposals. As 

of June 30, 2006, three projects were 

under way and one project ended during the negotiation phase. The three 

active projects are valued at $2.7 billion, with DOE commitments of over 

$275 million.

The choice of the CCPI-2 solicitation 

categories refl ected the Department’s 

judgment of the most pressing technological needs confronting the nation’s 

power industry in the 2010 to 2020 

time frame. Two projects involve integrated gasifi cation combined-cycle 

(IGCC) and the third addresses mercury 

control as well as other power plant 

emissions.

The future focus of the clean coal 

program will emphasize cutting-edge 

technologies. For example, rather than 

reducing emissions of a single pollutant, future pollution control projects 

will be encouraged to combine technologies into multi-pollutant control 

“packages” that can achieve superior 
1-5

environmental effectiveness at the lowest possible cost. The remaining competitions are also likely to emphasize 

advanced technologies for reducing 

greenhouse gas emissions through 

dramatic improvements in fuel use 

and power generating effi ciencies, by 

carbon capture and sequestration, or 

perhaps a combination of both.
1-6
2-1

2. Funding and Costs

Exhibit 2-1

Funding for the CCPI and PPII Programs 

(Dollars in Thousands)

Fiscal Year

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Total

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 Projects 47,633 47,633

Program Support 948 1,500 1,490 1,701 493 495 6,627

SBIR & STTRa 3,935 3,909 4,709 1,367 1,372 15,292

Other Adjustmentsb 209 975 2,119 694 500 4,497

Total 95,000 150,000 150,000 172,000 50,000 50,000 667,000

a

 Small Business Innovative Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) Programs. All Fossil Energy programs are required 

to contribute to these programs on an equal percentage basis.

b

 Across-the-board general and omnibus reductions required by the annual Appropriations Bills.

Introduction

Funding for the Clean Coal Technology Demonstration Program (CCTDP), 

Power Plant Improvement Initiative 

(PPII), and Clean Coal Power Initiative (CCPI) previously was provided 

through the annual appropriations bills 

for the Department of the Interior and 

Related Agencies. Current appropriations are provided through the Energy 

and Water Subcommittees.

Congress has appropriated a net amount 

of $2.1 billion for the CCTDP based on 

appropriations bills that began in 1986. 

These funds were committed to demonstration projects selected through fi ve 

competitive solicitations. As of June 

30, 2006, there were 33 successfully 

completed projects. The fi nal active 

project withdrew in March 2006 prior 

to completion, and is preparing a Final 

Report of activities performed.

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

by appropriations for fi scal year 2001 

(FY01) that established a transfer of 

$95 million in previously appropriated 

funding for the CCTDP. As of June 

30, 2006, two projects were ongoing 

and two projects were complete. 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, over $550 million 

has been appropriated for the CCPI. 

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 areas. The 

STTR program implements the Small 

Business Technology Transfer Act 

of 1992, which provides funding for 

small business concerns performing 

cooperative research and development 

(R&D) efforts. Other adjustments 

include across-the-board general and 

omnibus reductions that were imposed 

by Congress.

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 2005 with funding provided by appropriations for FY04 and FY05, along 

with uncommitted funds from prior 

CCPI and PPII appropriations. As of 

June 30, 2006, eight projects were 

under way with one project remaining 

in the negotiation phase. Three projects 

did not progress beyond the negotiation 

phase.
2-2

CCTDP

Congress has appropriated a net amount 

of $2.1 billion for CCTDP project 

awards and program administration expenses. These funds have been committed to demonstration projects selected 

through fi ve competitive solicitations. 

As of June 30, 2006, there were 33 

successfully completed projects. The 

final active project withdrew prior 

to completion in March 2006, and is 

preparing a Final Report of activities 

performed. 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. 

In April 2006, DOE accepted the 

participant’s request from the final 

remaining CCTDP project to terminate 

remaining activities. A Final Report 

of project accomplishments is being 

prepared. Exhibit 2-2 summarizes the 

project costs and fi nancial status of the 

last active CCTDP project. The amount 

of funds DOE has made available as of 

June 30, 2006, for each active project 

is shown in Exhibits 2-2 through 2-5 

under the “DOE Obligated” column. 

“DOE Cost” is the actual amount spent 

from the funds available.

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. 

From 24 applications, eight projects 

were selected for negotiation in September 2001.

As of June 30, 2006, two projects had 

been completed. Three projects withdrew during the negotiation phase prior 

to contract award. One project withdrew after award, but prior to successful completion. There are two ongoing 

projects. No additional solicitations are 

planned, and unused funds are intended 

for use under CCPI.

As of June 30, 2006, the DOE funding 

commitments for the PPII projects total 

over $30 million. The total funding 

commitment for the projects is over 

$70 million. For the PPII projects, 

participants have committed to funding 

57 percent of the total project costs. Exhibit 2-3 summarizes the project costs 

and fi nancial status of the PPII projects 

as of June 30, 2006.

Exhibit 2-2

Project Costs and Financial Status of Active CCTDP Projects 

(Dollars in Thousands)

Total 

Project Costs DOE Share DOE Obligated DOE Cost 

Clean Coal Diesel Demonstration Project

(withdrawn, but preparing fi nal reports) 41,611,958 20,805,979 20,805,979 17,672,062

Total Active CCTDP 41,611,958 20,805,979 20,805,979 17,672,062
2-3

Exhibit 2-3

PPII Project Costs and Financial Status 

(Dollars in Thousands)

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 ended prior to completion)

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 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 33,127,188 14,509,708 12,603,257 0

Total PPII 71,448,993 30,516,836 28,610,385 16,007,128

CCPI

The CCPI supports the National Energy Policy (NEP) recommendation 

to increase investment in clean coal 

technology. The CCPI is a cost-shared 

partnership between government and 

industry to demonstrate advanced coalbased technologies, with the goal of 

accelerating commercial deployment 

of promising technologies to ensure 

the nation has clean, reliable, and 

affordable electricity. Thus far, two 

solicitations have been issued (CCPI-1 

and CCPI-2).

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, two projects 

were withdrawn. Of the remaining 

six projects, fi ve are ongoing and one 

remains in negotiation. As of June 30, 

2006, the total cost of the projects was 

estimated at about $941 million, with 

the DOE share being approximately 

$259 million.

DOE funding commitments for the six 

active CCPI-1 projects represent less 

than 30 percent of the total estimated 

cost, while participant commitments 

exceed $680 million. The largest project in terms of total cost has proposed 
2-4

over 80 percent participant funding, 

showing the strong commitment by 

participants to demonstrate clean coal 

technologies. Exhibit 2-4 summarizes 

the project cost and fi nancial status 

of the CCPI-1 projects as of June 30, 

2006.

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 

Exhibit 2-4

CCPI-1 Project Costs and Financial Status 

(Dollars in Thousands)

Total 

Project Costs DOE Share DOE Obligated DOE Cost 

Advanced Multi-Product Coal Utilization By-Product 

Processing Plant 8,979,544 4,480,793 621,407 486,122

Demonstration of Integrated Optimization Software 

at the Baldwin Energy Complex 19,904,733 8,592,630 8,592,630 5,719,063

 Gilberton Coal-to-Clean Fuels and Power 

Co-Production Project (in negotiation) 612,480,000 100,000,000 0 0

 Increasing Power Plant Effi ciency – Lignite Fuel 

Enhancement 31,512,215 13,518,737 5,428,260 5,428,260

 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 24,859,578

 Western Greenbrier Co-Production Demonstration 

Project 214,983,758 107,491,879 6,034,645 5,944,048

Total CCPI-1 940,838,365 258,943,617 45,536,520 42,437,071

from prior CCPI and PPII appropriations. Round 2 of CCPI (CCPI-2) began 

in February 2004 when DOE issued 

a solicitation offering approximately 

$280 million in federal funds. In October 2004, four projects were selected, 

with DOE committing nearly $297 

million. Subsequently, one project has 

withdrawn and three are under way. The 

IGCC projects under CCPI-2 represent 

several of the largest projects to date, 

with one having the largest total project 

cost at $2.1 billion (DOE commitment 

of $36 million) and one representing 

the largest DOE contribution of $235 

million of a $569 million total project 

cost.

Exhibit 2-5 summarizes the project 

costs and fi nancial status of the CCPI-2 

projects as of June 30, 2006.

General Provisions and 

Project Administration 

Projects in the CCTDP, PPII, and CCPI 

are subject to similar requirements and 

oversight. 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:
2-5

• 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 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 

Exhibit 2-5

CCPI-2 Project Costs and Financial Status 

(Dollars in Thousands)

Total 

Project Costs DOE Share DOE Obligated DOE Cost 

Demonstration of a 285-MWe Coal-Based Transport 

Gasifi er 568,768,646 235,000,000 13,762,832 0

Mercury Specie and Multi-Pollutant Control 15,560,811 6,079,479 3,577,451 553,454

 Mesaba Energy Project – Unit 1 2,155,680,783 36,000,000 22,245,505 7,196,123

Total CCPI-2 2,740,010,240 277,079,479 39,585,788 7,749,577

demonstration and commercial deployment of technologies, which improve 

environmental quality and promote 

the effi cient use of the nation’s coal 

resources. While the specifi c repayment 

terms have varied to some degree between the solicitations, the repayment 

requirement has been present since the 

fi rst CCTDP solicitation. The duration 

of the repayment period is usually 20 

years following the end of the project 

demonstration period. In accordance 

with Congressional direction, funds 

obtained from repayment provisions 

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 
2-6

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.
3-1

3. Projects

Introduction

This document provides fact sheets on 

clean coal technology demonstration 

projects encompassing the Clean Coal 

Technology Demonstration Program 

(CCTDP), Power Plant Improvement 

Initiative (PPII), and Clean Coal 

Power Initiative (CCPI). The project 

fact sheets refl ect activities that have 

occurred since publication of the 2005 

Clean Coal Technology Programs: 

Project Fact Sheets.

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 

17 of the 20 projects covered in the report. The two-page fact sheets provide 

information on project participants, 

location, and funding; present project 

objectives; describe the project and 

technology; delineate benefi ts derived 

from the project; characterize project 

status and accomplishments; and defi ne 

planned schedules. 

Four-page fact sheets are provided for 

three projects (Advanced Coal Conversion Process, JEA Large-Scale CFB 

Combustion Demonstration Project, 

and Big Bend Power Station Neural 

Network-Sootblower Optimization) 

that have completed fi nal documentation of project activities in time for 

inclusion in this report. These fact 

sheets include key fi ndings and suffi cient project discussion to establish 

a context for the fi ndings and identify sources for additional information. 

One of the projects was completed 

in December 2004, with the issuance 

of a fi nal technical report (Advanced 

Coal Conversion Process Demonstration). Although completed in 2004, it 

is included here because performance 

information was not available in time 

for the last fact sheet publication. The 

other three projects were completed in 

June 2005.

Technology Overview

Following is an overview of some of 

the major technology areas, underlying drivers, and associated challenges 

that are the current focus of CCPI, as 

well as PPII and the remaining CCTDP 

projects.

Emissions Control

Advanced NOx Controls. Advanced 

nitrogen oxide (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 (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); (4) EPA’s Clean Air Mercury 

Rule (CAMR); and (5) the proposed 

Clear Skies Initiative (CSI).

Advanced NOx control technologies 

include:

• Low-NOx

 burners and reburning 

systems that limit NOx formation 

by staging the introduction of air 

in the combustion process (combustion modifi cation);

• 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

Advanced optimization software for enhanced emissions control is being demonstrated 

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

• 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 to complete 

combustion in a cooler zone; and (4) 

often are 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 

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.

The challenge is to reduce NOx emissions to 0.15 lb/106 Btu or less with 

technologies costing 25–50 percent 

less than current SCR systems. SCR 

has inherently high capital costs, and 

SNCR is ineffi cient. Thus, the options 

are to improve combustion modifi cation 

techniques, improve SNCR effi ciency, 

and/or use SCR more effectively.

Mercury Controls. Mercury controls 

address proposed CSI targets and EPA 

regulations regarding mercury emissions from coal-based power generation, which represents roughly one-third 

of U.S. mercury emissions. In addition, 

a number of states have adopted or are 

moving to adopt more restrictive limits 

on mercury emissions. Mercury control 

technologies include:

• Sorbents and oxidizing agents to 

transform mercury into a solid 

to be removed along with fly 

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. The mercury captured in the FGD by-product 

(gypsum, often used in wallboard), is 

chemically bound and precluded from 

re-release. Mercury instrumentation 

and controls measure both the mercury 

species (elemental and oxidized) entering the control device, and the total 

mercury entering the stack. TOXECON, 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

The challenge is to achieve 90 percent 

removal of mercury at 70 percent of 

today’s cost of removal with activated 

carbon. Simple activated carbon injection techniques do not offer the effi cient 

contact needed for 90 percent removal, 

because mercury occurs in highly dilute 

concentrations in power plant fl ue gas 

— typically around 30 parts per billion. 

FGD applications offer good mercury 

contact mechanisms, but mercury is 

subject to species shift from solid to 

vapor state in FGD processes. 

Particulate Matter Controls. The 

control of particulate matter (PM), 

including PM equal to or less than 

2.5 microns in size (PM2.5), responds 

to EPA regulations and proposed CSI 

targets. 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 (SO2 and 

NOx

), and problematic acid gases that 

can cause localized plume opacity and 

visibility impairment, and have been 

linked to human health impacts. 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 particulate matter 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 particulate 

matter for capture on collection plates. 

FFDCs use fabric fi lter bags that receive 

and collect particulate matter 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 particulate 

matter. Alkaline injection converts 

SO2 and SO3

 acid precursors into readily captured sulfate particulates, and 

neutralizes other acid gases such as 

hydrochloric and hydrofl ouric acids. 

SO3 analyzers measure input and output 

levels for control and validation.

The challenge is to control primary 

PM2.5 to 0.01 lb/106

 Btu or less with 

a 99.99 percent collection effi ciency, 

and reduce acid aerosols by 95 percent. 

ESPs effi ciently capture large volumes 

of primary PM in size ranges down to 

10 microns. FFDCs effi ciently capture 

fi ne particulates down to 0.1 micron, 

but at an economic penalty under large 

volumes; and many FFDC fabrics cannot stand the rigors of high SO2

 concentrations in the fl ue gas. Neither system 

alone can cost-effectively comply with 

a 99.99 percent removal of PM2.5. The 

use of existing preconditioning agents 

to enhance ESP performance through 

agglomeration requires large quantities 

of ammonia, which under recent legislation has been classifi ed as extremely 

hazardous. Aerosols readily escape 

conventional pollutant control devices. 

SCR applications exacerbate SO3

 production through catalytic oxidation of a 

An advanced hybrid particulate collector 

is being demonstrated at Otter Tail Power 

Company’s Big Stone Power Plant in Big 

Stone City, South Dakota.

Advanced CFB is being demonstrated at JEA’s Northside Station in Jacksonville, 

Florida.
3-4

portion of the larger SO2 fraction in the 

fl ue gas. No continuous SO3 analyzer 

exists with the EPA Test Method sensitivity of 0.05 mg/m3

, which is needed 

to validate control.

Advanced Power Systems

Advanced Power Systems. Advanced 

power systems address Global Climate 

Change, Clear Skies, and Hydrogen 

Fuel Initiatives by enhancing power 

generation effi ciency, producing nearzero pollutant emissions, and providing 

for hydrogen separation and carbon 

dioxide (CO2) capture and sequestration. 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 fl uidized-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 precipitate chemical reactions, producing syngas — primarily hydrogen 

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 is being 

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

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 SO

2

 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 

SO

2

 capture through lengthy and direct 

sorbent/SO

2

 contact. 

The challenge is to move today’s coalbased advanced power systems from 

roughly 40 percent efficiency to 50 

percent by 2010 and 60 percent by 2020 

with capital costs approaching that of 

conventional coal-fi red technologies.

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 the Clear Skies 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 enhances energy security and supports the Global Climate Change and 

Hydrogen Fuel Initiatives. Technologies include 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 resides in reducing 

process costs so that products are competitive with transportation fuels in the 

world market.

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 

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 coal-fi 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. By-product 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 from the current 30 

percent to at least 50 percent by 2010. 
3-6

Project Fact Sheets

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

which is labeled in the order that the 

fact sheets appear. An index by program 

(CCTDP, PPII, CCPI-1, and CCPI-2) is 

provided in Exhibit 3-2. Within these 

breakdowns, 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 side bars and headers surrounding the 

more detailed project information in 

each fact sheet. Above each schematic, 

specifi c technical thrusts within the four 

market sectors are indicated by a fi lledin 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. Schedules are provided 

by a series of vertically oriented bars 

designating the basic functional phases, 

starting with Preaward at the bottom 

and proceeding through Design, Construction, Operation, and fi nal technical 

Report Preparation and completion. 

The length of the bar does not connote 

time (all phase bars are the same size); 

the time per phase is provided by dates 

at the beginning and end of each bar. 

Other milestone data of interest are 

provided to the right of the phase bars. 

General status is indicated by a continuous bar to the left of the phase bars that 

is shaded up to the approximate percent 

of completion of a phase.

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 withdrawn 

from the program include the term 

Project Withdrawn below the project 

title. Withdrawn projects are projects 

that have prematurely ended activities, 

either voluntarily or involuntarily at the 

behest of DOE. Withdrawals have occurred preceding and subsequent to the 

award of a Cooperative Agreement.

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 Offi ce of Fossil Energy Web site 

provides the primary Internet gateway 

to clean coal technology program 

and project information 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 — the 

CCT Compendium at http://www.netl.

doe.gov/technologies/coalpower/cctc/

cctc_main.htm. Also, 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.
3-7

Exhibit 3-1

Project Fact Sheets by Market Sector

Project Program Participant Statusa Page

Emissions Control

 Achieving NSPS Emission Standards Through 

Integration of Low-NOx

 Burners with an Optimization 

Plan for Boiler Combustion

PPII Sunfl ower Electric Power Corporation Withdrawn 3-12

 Airborne Process Commercial Scale Demonstration CCPI-2 Mustang Clean Energy Withdrawn 3-14

 Big Bend Power Station Neural Network-Sootblower 

Optimization

PPII Tampa Electric Company Completed 3-16

Demonstration of a Full-Scale Retrofi t of the Advanced 

Hybrid Particulate Collector (Advanced HybridTM) 

Technology

PPII Otter Tail Power Company Completed 3-20

Demonstration of Integrated Optimization Software at 

the Baldwin Energy Complex

CCPI-1 NeuCo, Inc. Operation 3-22

Development of Hybrid FLGR/SNCR/SCR Advanced 

NOx

 Control

PPII TIAX, LLC Withdrawn 3-24

 Greenidge Multi-Pollutant Control Project PPII CONSOL Energy, Inc. Construction 3-26

 Mercury Specie and Multi-Pollutant Control CCPI-2 Pegasus Technologies Design 3-28

 TOXECON Retrofi t for Mercury and Multi-Pollutant 

Control on Three 90-MW Coal-Fired Boilers

CCPI-1 Wisconsin Electric Power Company Operation 3-30

Advanced Power Systems

Clean Coal Diesel Demonstration Project CCTDP TIAX, LLC Withdrawn 3-34

Demonstration of a 285-MWe Coal-Based Transport 

Gasifi er

CCPI-2 Southern Company Services, Inc. Design 3-36

 JEA Large-Scale CFB Combustion Demonstration 

Project

CCTDP JEA Completed 3-38

 Kentucky Pioneer Energy IGCC Demonstration Project CCTDP Kentucky Pioneer Energy, LLC Withdrawn 3-42

 Mesaba Energy Project – Unit 1 CCPI-2 MEP-I LLC Design 3-44

Clean Coal Fuels

 Advanced Coal Conversion Process Demonstration CCTDP Western SynCoal LLC Completed 3-48

 Gilberton Coal-to-Clean Fuels and Power CoProduction ProjectCCPI-1 WMPI PTY., LLC Negotiation 3-52

Increasing Power Plant Effi ciency – Lignite Fuel 

Enhancement

CCPI-1 Great River Energy Design 3-54

Industrial Applications

Advanced Multi-Product Coal Utilization By-Product 

Processing Plant

CCPI-1 University of Kentucky Research 

Foundation

Design 3-58

 Commercial Demonstration of the Manufactured 

Aggregate Processing Technology Utilizing Spray 

Dryer Ash

PPII Universal Aggregates, LLC Operation 3-60

 Western Greenbrier Co-Production Demonstration 

Project

CCPI-1 Western Greenbrier Co-Generation, LLC Design 3-62

a

 Withdrawn: Project prematurely ended activities, voluntarily or involuntarily at the behest of DOE, prior to the completion of planned project 

activities. Withdrawals have occurred preceding and subsequent to the award of a Cooperative Agreement.
3-8

Exhibit 3-2

Project Fact Sheets by Program

Project Participant Statusa Page

CCTDP

 Advanced Coal Conversion Process Demonstration Western SynCoal LLC Completed 3-48

Clean Coal Diesel Demonstration Project TIAX, LLC Withdrawn 3-34

 JEA Large-Scale CFB Combustion Demonstration Project JEA Completed 3-38

 Kentucky Pioneer Energy IGCC Demonstration Project Kentucky Pioneer Energy, LLC Withdrawn 3-42

PPII

Achieving NSPS Emission Standards Through Integration of Low-NOx

Burners with an Optimization Plan for Boiler Combustion

 Sunfl ower Electric Power Corporation Withdrawn 3-12

 Big Bend Power Station Neural Network-Sootblower Optimization Tampa Electric Company Completed 3-16

 Commercial Demonstration of the Manufactured Aggregate Processing 

Technology Utilizing Spray Dryer Ash

 Universal Aggregates, LLC Operation 3-60

Demonstration of a Full-Scale Retrofi t of the Advanced Hybrid 

Particulate Collector (Advanced HybridTM) Technology

 Otter Tail Power Company Completed 3-20

Development of Hybrid FLGR/SNCR/SCR Advanced NOx

 Control TIAX, LLC Withdrawn 3-24

 Greenidge Multi-Pollutant Control Project CONSOL Energy, Inc. Construction 3-26

CCPI-1

Advanced Multi-Product Coal Utilization By-Product Processing Plant University of Kentucky Research Foundation Design 3-58

Demonstration of Integrated Optimization Software at the Baldwin 

Energy Complex

 NeuCo, Inc. Operation 3-22

 Gilberton Coal-to-Clean Fuels and Power Co-Production Project WMPI PTY., LLC Negotiation 3-52

Increasing Power Plant Effi ciency – Lignite Fuel Enhancement Great River Energy Design 3-54

 TOXECON Retrofi t for Mercury and Multi-Pollutant Control on Three 

90-MW Coal-Fired Boilers

 Wisconsin Electric Power Company Operation 3-30

 Western Greenbrier Co-Production Demonstration Project Western Greenbrier Co-Generation, LLC Design 3-62

CCPI-2

 Airborne Process Commercial Scale Demonstration Mustang Clean Energy Withdrawn 3-14

Demonstration of a 285-MWe Coal-Based Transport Gasifi er Southern Company Services, Inc. Design 3-36

 Mercury Specie and Multi-Pollutant Control Pegasus Technologies Design 3-28

 Mesaba Energy Project – Unit 1 MEP-I LLC Design 3-44

a

 Withdrawn: Project prematurely ended activities, voluntarily or involuntarily at the behest of DOE, prior to the completion of planned project 

activities. Withdrawals have occurred preceding and subsequent to the award of a Cooperative Agreement.
3-9

Exhibit 3-3

Geographic Locations of Projects
3-10

Exhibit 3-4

Project Schedules by Market Sector
3-11

Emissions Control
3-12

PPII

Emissions Control

Mercury G NOx O

SO2 G PM2.5 G

Objectives

To demonstrate reduction of nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions to 0.15 lb/106 Btu by 

applying advanced low-NOx

 burners (LNBs), coupled with separated overfi re air 

(SOFA), sensors to measure key boiler parameters, and an artifi cial intelligence 

(AI) system to effectuate control; and to increase power output 7 MW by reducing the boiler heat rate. 

Technology/Project Description

The project demonstrates modifi cation of “fi rst generation” LNBs and addition of 

SOFA and neural network controls to meet New Source Performance Standards 

(NSPS) for NOx (0.15 lb/106 Btu), and improve heat rate on a 360-MW wall-fi red 

boiler. This approach is being used in lieu of selective catalytic reduction (SCR) 

to reduce costs to ratepayers. Existing “fi rst-generation” LNBs, which reduced 

NOx emissions by 50 percent from uncontrolled emission rates, will be modifi ed 

to optimize both the fl ame shape and the mixing of air and fuel. SOFA will be 

installed to allow the LNBs to operate under fuel-rich conditions, which reduces 

NOx

 by providing air to complete combustion in a cooler zone above the LNBs. 

Staging the combustion and completing the combustion in a relatively cool zone 

of the boiler reduces NOx

 emissions by avoiding hot spots and thermal NOx

emissions formation temperatures (2,800 oF and above). Sensors and controls 

will be incorporated to measure and effectuate fuel fl ow and fuel/air balancing, 

and neural networks (AI systems) will allow integration of sensor input into 

optimization software to enhance boiler performance. With the high reactivity 

of the Powder River Basin coal being used, the LNB/SOFA system with neural 

network controls is expected to achieve an additional 40 percent reduction in 

NOx

 emissions (beyond the original 50 percent reduction achieved). AI controls 

are expected to reduce boiler slagging and thereby improve heat rate. Incorporation of the combustion modifi cation elements (LNB, SOFA, and AI sensors and 

controls) and modifi cation of existing LNBs will be implemented sequentially 

to assess the benefi ts attributable to each action.

Achieving NSPS 

Emission Standards 

Through Integration of 

Low-NOx

 Burners with 

an Optimization Plan 

for Boiler Combustion

Project Withdrawn

Participant

 Sunfl ower Electric Power 

Corporation

Additional Team 

Members

Electric Power Research Institute 

— cofunder

GE Energy and Environmental 

Research Corp. — technology 

supplier

Location

Garden City, Finney County, KS 

(Sunfl ower Electric’s Holcomb 

Station, Unit No. 1)

Technology

Modifi ed low-NOx burners 

(LNBs) with other combustionstaging controls

Plant Capacity/

Production

360 MW

Coal

Powder River Basin 

subbituminous

Project Funding

Total $3,005,169 100%

DOE 1,387,530 48

Participant 1,617,639 52
3-13

S

T

A

T

U

S

R

e

p

o

r

t

O

p

e

r

a

t

i

o

n

C

o

n

s

t

r

u

c

t

i

o

n

D

e

s

i

g

n

P

r

e

A

w

a

r

d

Project Duration

30 Months

Period of Operation

Project Withdrawn

Status/Schedule

*Estimated date

Benefi ts

The combustion modifi cation approach used in this project to meet NSPS NOx

emissions has distinct advantages over SCR, which is the conventional approach. 

While SCR can achieve low NOx levels, it is 4 to 5 times more expensive than 

combustion modifi cation; is diffi cult to retrofi t; increases plant operating costs; 

reduces plant effi ciency; and both uses and emits ammonia. The LNB/SOFA system in combination with AI sensors and controls offers a low-cost NOx

 emissions 

compliance option that should enhance boiler effi ciency and avoid escalation of 

annual operating costs. The outage time required for the combustion modifi cation retrofi t should be far less than that required for an SCR system. There are as 

many as 30 units throughout the United States for which this technology could 

be deployed to meet the current NSPS level (units that use high-reactivity coals, 

such as Powder River Basin coal). Additionally, there are about 60 units throughout the United States that will be able to achieve signifi cant NOx

 reductions, to 

levels of about 0.22 lb/106 Btu.

Status/Accomplishments

The project was selected for award on September 26, 2001. The cooperative agreement was awarded on December 17, 2002. To satisfy the National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA), DOE issued an Environmental Assessment (EA) in March 

2003 and signed a Finding of No Signifi cant Impact (FONSI) on March 11, 2003. 

Construction began immediately after signing of the FONSI.

A combustion optimization sensor package and coal fl ow monitoring system were 

installed. The existing LNBs were modifi ed; however, problems caused delay of 

SOFA system installation. Sunfl ower decided to replace the existing LNBs and 

solicited bids for installation of new ultra low-NOx

 burners and SOFA. Bids for 

the new low-NOx

 burners came in higher than expected.

Due to signifi cant cost increases associated with replacing the modifi ed low-NOx

burners and other factors, Sunfl ower decided to withdraw their application to 

proceed with the second and fi nal funding phase for the project. A Final Report 

of project activities was completed in June 2006.

Contacts

Participant

Wayne E. Penrod

(620) 275-5418

wepenrod@sunfl ower.net

Sunfl ower Electric Power 

Corporation

2075 W. St. John Street

Garden City, KS 67846 Selection 9/01

Award 12/02

Construction 3/03

Operation N/A

Operation 

Completed N/A

Final Report

Issued 6/06

NETL

George W. Pukanic

(412) 386-6085

george.pukanic@netl.doe.gov

Headquarters

Joseph Giove

(301) 903-4130

joseph.giove@hq.doe.gov

NEPA Completed 

(EA and FONSI) 3/03

Project 

Withdrawn 6/05

Draft Report

Issued 9/05
3-14

Objectives

To successfully demonstrate 99.5 percent removal of sulfur dioxide (SO2), 98 

percent removal of sulfur trioxide (SO3

), 98 percent removal of nitrogen oxides 

(NOx), and 90 percent removal of mercury while producing a high-quality, highvalue granular fertilizer by-product; to improve cost competitiveness of coal-fi red 

capacity by showing that a signifi cant revenue stream can be generated from the 

fertilizer by-product; to demonstrate the commercial applicability of the Airborne 

Process to existing and new coal-fi red plants; and to demonstrate 96 percent 

process availability during the fi rst year of operation. 

Technology/Project Description

The project will demonstrate the Airborne Process for high-capture effi ciency 

multi-pollutant emissions control, and high-value fertilizer production at the 300-

MW (net) pulverized coal-fi red Mustang Generating Station. In the process, dry 

sodium bicarbonate (NaHCO3

) is injected in the fl ue gas duct downstream of the 

plant’s particulate matter collection system (an electrostatic precipitator). The 

NaHCO3

 mixes with the fl ue gas containing SO2, SO3 (the PM2.5 acid gas mist 

precursor), and NOx. The sorbent and gases further react in a downstream sodium 

wet scrubber, forming sodium sulfate (Na2SO4) and sodium nitrate (NaNO3). 

The process converts vapor-state elemental mercury to an oxidized form that 

is captured in the wet scrubber and precipitated from solution for safe disposal. 

The Na2SO4 and NaNO3 compounds are further processed in the regeneration 

system by reaction with ammonium bicarbonate (NH4HCO3) to form a sodium 

bicarbonate (NaHCO3) sorbent, which is reused in the fl ue gas scrubbing process, 

and an ammonium sulfate/ammonium nitrate ((NH4)

2

SO4/NH4NO3) mixture. This 

mixture is processed by Airborne’s patented granulation process into a salable 

fertilizer product. 

Participant

 Mustang Clean Energy 

(a subsidiary of Peabody Energy)

Additional Team 

Members

Airborne Clean Energy, LLC 

— technology supplier/manager

Veolia Water North America 

— regeneration engineer/constructor

Icon Construction — fertilizer 

engineer/constructor

Mustang Energy Company, LLC 

— power plant owner/operator

Location

Milan, McKinley County, NM 

(Mustang Generating Station)

Technology

Airborne Process for SOx, NOx, 

and mercury control with salable 

fertilizer by-products

Project Capacity/

Production

346 MW (gross); 300 MW (net)

Coal

El Segundo subbituminous

Project Funding (Proposed)

Total $93,195,888 100%

DOE 19,700,000 21

Participant 73,495,888 79

CCPI-2

Emissions Control

Mercury O NOx O

SO2 O PM2.5 O

Airborne Process 

Commercial Scale 

Demonstration

Project Withdrawn
3-15

Benefi ts

The Airborne process offers a high-capture effi ciency multi-pollutant control 

system that enables coal-fi red plants to cost-effectively comply with current and 

projected emission standards, while producing a valuable by-product to help 

offset a portion of the operating costs and pay down the capital investment. The 

multi-pollutant control feature reduces capital investment per pound of pollutant 

controlled by using common capital equipment to control more than one pollutant. 

In addition to offsetting some of the operating costs with a by-product revenue 

stream, operating costs are reduced by regenerating sorbent for the process and 

avoiding solid waste disposal costs.

Status/Accomplishments

The project was one of four projects selected under the second round of the Clean 

Coal Power Initiative (CCPI), which received 13 proposals. 

The New Mexico air permitting process has impacted the negotiation schedule. 

Peabody’s application for an air permit was submitted to the state; however, the 

state was not anticipated to issue a permit for the project in the near future. In 

May 2005, DOE informed the participant that documented progress needed to be 

made toward obtaining an air permit, or negotiation activities could end. On June 

14, 2006, DOE sent a letter to the participant withdrawing from negotiations.

Project Duration

Project Withdrawn

Period of Operation

Project Withdrawn

Selection 10/04

Contacts

Participant

Dianna Tickner

(314) 342-7613

dtickner@peabodyenergy.com

Peabody Energy

701 Market Street

St. Louis, MO 63101

NETL

Ted McMahon

(304) 285-4865

ted.mcmahon@netl.doe.gov

Headquarters

Joseph Giove

(301) 903-4130

joseph.giove@hq.doe.gov

S

T

A

T

U

S

R

e

p

o

r

t

O

p

e

r

a

t

i

o

n

C

o

n

s

t

r

u

c

t

i

o

n

D

e

s

i

g

n

P

r

e

A

w

a

r

d

Final Report

Issued N/A

Operation

Completed N/A

Status/Schedule

*Estimated date

Draft Report

Issued N/A

Operation N/A

Award N/A

Construction N/A

Withdrawn 6/06
3-16

PPII

Emissions Control

Mercury G NOx O

SO2 G PM2.5 O

Objectives

To demonstrate that the Pegasus Technologies Neural Network-Intelligent Sootblowing System (NN-ISB) control system, along with advanced instrumentation 

and water cannons, can optimize sootblowing on a 445-MW boiler, reduce nitrogen oxide (NOx

) emissions by up to 30 percent, improve heat rate by 2 percent, 

and reduce particulate matter (PM) emissions by up to 5 percent.

Technology/Project Description

The project demonstrates Pegasus Technologies’ NN-ISB control system, along 

with advanced instrumentation and water cannons, to optimize engagement of 

sootblowing systems in the control of boiler fouling on a 445-MW wet-bottom, 

turbo-fi red boiler. Heat fl ux sensors, slag sensors, and temperature profi ling 

instrumentation are applied at key locations to provide real-time data to the NNISB, which interprets the data through optimization software developed to send 

appropriate signals to existing sootblower controls. Signals are sent only to the 

sootblowers in the specifi c section(s) of the boiler requiring cleaning. The NNISB operates in a closed loop mode; i.e., the on-line system responds to real-time 

data and adjusts controls without need of manual activation by the plant operator. 

Adjustments are made to optimization software as results are obtained. Also, water 

cannons are installed to provide sootblowing of boiler tube-walls in the furnace 

area. The NN-ISB optimization system is programmed to activate sootblowers 

only when and where needed. The need is determined by signals indicating that 

heat transfer from combustion products to the heat-absorbing surfaces in the boiler 

is being impacted to the point where NOx

 emissions and heat loss could rise to 

unacceptable levels. Activation also is infl uenced by opacity readings. Spikes in 

opacity readings indicate that the PM control system is being overloaded, which 

calls for earlier or sequential activation of sootblowers.

Benefi ts

NN-ISB technology offers a low-cost approach to enhancing the effi ciency and 

reducing NOx

 and PM emissions at coal-fi red plants by optimizing control of 

heat transfer surface fouling. Fouling of heat transfer surfaces in coal-fi red boilBig Bend Power 

Station Neural 

Network-Sootblower 

Optimization

Demonstration 

Operations Complete

Participant

 Tampa Electric Company

Additional Team Members

Pegasus Technologies (a division 

of NeuCo, Inc.) — 

technology supplier

Location

Apollo Beach, Hillsborough 

County, FL (Tampa Electric’s 

Big Bend Power Station)

Technology

NeuCo’s Neural NetworkIntelligent Sootblowing System 

(NN-ISB) control system with 

advanced sensors and water cannons

Plant Capacity/

Production

445 MW

Coal

Bituminous

Project Funding

Total $2,381,614 100%

DOE 905,013 38

Participant 1,476,601 62
3-17

Project Duration

30 Months

Period of Operation

24 Months

Status/Schedule

*Estimated date

ers by ash and slag compromises plant effi ciency by impeding transfer of heat 

to the working fl uid (water/steam). Heat remains in the fl ue-gas and exits to the 

environment without benefi cial use. This loss in effi ciency translates to higher 

consumption of fuel for equivalent levels of electric generation; hence, more 

gaseous emissions are produced. Also, as fouling of the boiler increases and the 

rate of heat transfer decreases, peak temperatures increase, which increases NOx

emissions. Due to the composition of coal, PM is also a by-product of coal combustion. Modern utility boilers usually are fi tted with electrostatic precipitators 

(ESP) to aid in the collection of PM. Although extremely effi cient, these devices 

are sensitive to rapid changes in inlet mass concentration as well as total mass 

loading. Without extreme care and due diligence, excessive soot can overload 

an ESP, resulting in high levels of released PM. Utility boilers use sootblowers 

to dislodge and clean heat transfer surfaces through application of steam, water, 

or air using established rules or operator judgment. As noted above, NOx

 and 

PM emissions and boiler performance are directly affected by the sootblowing 

practices on a unit. NN-ISB technology optimizes sootblowing by controlling ash 

and slag buildup based on real-time events and conditions in the boiler, through 

neural-networks that use programmed logic to act on the information before 

certain performance thresholds are crossed.

Status/Accomplishments

The project was selected for award on September 26, 2001. On July 9, 2002, a 

cooperative agreement was awarded. The National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) requirements were met with a Categorical Exclusion (CX) on June 21, 

2002.

Design, procurement, and installation of subsystems were completed in December 

2002. Project operations were initiated in January 2003 when baseline testing of 

individual system components commenced. Checkout of each subsystem was 

conducted to verify the manufacturer’s specifi cations.

In May 2003, parametric testing was initiated for training of the neural network, 

and preliminary fi rst stage NN-ISB was installed at TECO Big Bend in September 2003.

Preliminary closed-loop (automatic mode) testing was initiated in December 

2003, with verifi cation and validation of automatic-mode operation using realtime operating data in April 2004.

Contacts

Participant

Mark Rhode

(813) 228-1652

marhode@tecoenergy.com

TECO Energy

P.O.Box 111

Tampa, FL 33601

Selection 9/01

Award 7/02

Construction 11/02

Operation 1/03

NETL

John Rockey

(412) 386-4711

john.rockey@netl.doe.gov

Headquarters

Joseph Giove

(301) 903-4130

joseph.giove@hq.doe.gov

NEPA Completed 

(CX) 6/02

Operation

Completed 12/04

Final Report

Issued 9/05

S

T

A

T

U

S

R

e

p

o

r

t

O

p

e

r

a

t

i

o

n

C

o

n

s

t

r

u

c

t

i

o

n

D

e

s

i

g

n

P

r

e

A

w

a

r

d

Draft Report

Issued 2/05
3-18

In August 2004, acceptance testing of 

the NN-ISB system in the automatic 

mode was completed. In late December 

2004, testing of the system was completed, ending the “benefi ts demonstration” phase of the project.

The draft fi nal report was issued in 

February 2005, and the fi nal report was 

accepted by DOE in September 2005.

Results Summary

There are innumerable soot blowing 

control systems with varying levels of 

sophistication in use throughout the industry. The NN-ISB system is believed 

to be a superior control system largely 

because of the innovative software it 

employs. Indeed, the improvements 

demonstrated by this project are evident in NOx

 emission reduction, effi -

ciency, and opacity control, albeit the 

overall success of the technology was 

somewhat compromised by problems 

with water cannons and some other 

components originally intended for the 

project. The benefi ts achieved go well 

beyond ordinary manual sequencing 

protocol, and include higher integration 

of soot blowing systems. To accurately 

measure operating results, it was determined that open loop, closed loop, and 

extended modes of operation should 

be examined. These modes were performed in 15-minute intervals during 

the months of September and October 

2004. Two types of coal blends were 

used during the open loop, closed loop, 

and extended modes, one producing 

relatively higher NOx than the other. 

Specifi c conclusions from the demonstration follow.

1. A neural network soot-blowing 

system, i.e., the NN-ISB system, 

was installed on the test unit along 

with the instrumentation to permit 

measurement of NOx

 and opacity 

reduction, as well as improved 

effi ciency. This instrumentation 

provided the measurements as 

planned.

2. Unit effi ciency contribution was 

calculated by means of the total 

Performance Efficiency Index, 

revealing an improvement of 10 

Btu/kWhr at high load to 50 Btu/

kWhr at low load, when comparing the open loop to closed loop 

NN-ISB tests. 

3. When the closed loop NN-ISB 

was compared to the 2002 baseline year, improvements of 20 

Btu/kWhr at high load points to 

as much as 420 Btu/kWhr at low 

load were observed. The project 

participant acknowledges, however, that several other operational 

conditions may have contributed 

to these values. 

4. NOx

 reductions recorded by the 

NN-ISB ranged from no measurable difference to 8.5 percent NOx

reduction, compared to baseline 

conditions using a variety of coal 

and unit operating conditions.

5. Opacity measurements during the 

same period of NOx data acquisition indicated no measurable difference, while examination of the 

opacity trends during open loop 

and closed loop indicated an improvement ranging from 1 percent 

to 1.5 percent during soot blowing 

activities.

Tampa Electric Big Bend Station.
3-19

Project Summary

The neural network process is dependent upon a component, known as the 

Executive Pegasus, for coordinating the 

tasks associated with the NN-ISB and 

an optimizer. The Executive Pegasus 

determines the optimum heat distribution relative to the target objectives 

of the project. The process adjusts the 

factors needed under the list of target 

objectives for use by the optimizer. A 

model is used to project the timing of 

soot buildup. The system also includes 

a process for generating and maintaining certain system constraints.

An Application Programing Interface 

(API) was used for several key components and sensors, and a Human 

Machine Interface (HMI) for the operators was programmed into the unit’s 

existing Distributed Control System 

(DCS). In order to activate intelligent 

soot blowing, a set of standard displays 

was developed and coded for this component of the project. A set of overview 

displays also was created to track essential information.

Because there was an existing base 

of relevant knowledge gained from 

pre-existing soot-blowing practices, 

information was codified through a 

combination of parametric tests, and 

then was incorporated as part of the 

NN-ISB constraints. Information relevant to new factors also was gathered 

during the parametric tests, and similarly incorporated into the system.

While accumulation of data pertinent to 

the objectives of the project is necessary, the heart of the project remains the 

neural networks that provide the ability 

to build non-linear empirical models. 

This technology has the advantage of 

the capability to self re-tune the system 

while on-line. It is this feature that takes 

into account changing fuel conditions, 

equipment performance, and environmental conditions.

The project was full scale and established significant results for emissions reduction and unit performance 

improvements. The unit is rated at a 

nominal 455 MW, and in this respect 

was well suited to demonstrate applicability of the technology to other utility 

boilers. The unit also experienced a 

variety of typical unit circumstances 

during the demonstration period, and 

therefore was representative of units 

across the United States.

Economics

It is diffi cult to perform an economic 

analysis because the cost of installing a 

NN-ISB system will vary widely from 

plant to plant, depending on many factors including boiler type and size, fuel 

being burned, and the instrumentation 

and control system already in place. 

The following analysis is based on a 

new installation in a unit similar to 

Big Bend No. 2. Although the benefi ts 

assumed in this analysis were not fully 

achieved by this project, it is likely that 

they are achievable in a new installation 

that incorporates the lessons learned.

There are two major potential savings 

from installation of a NN-ISB system. 

The fi rst is a reduction in coal usage as 

a result of an effi ciency gain. The coal 

burned in Unit No. 2 is estimated at 

one million tons per year, at a cost of 

$40/ton. If an effi ciency improvement 

of 1 percent can be achieved, this would 

decrease coal consumption by 10,000 

tons/yr for a savings of $400,000/yr. 

Furthermore, this effi ciency improvement would result in a reduction of SO2

and CO2

 emissions in direct proportion 

to the reduction in fuel consumption.

The other potential savings is in the 

area of NOx reduction, which can be 

quantifi ed by using the value of a NOx 

allowance on the trading market. At an 

assumed heat rate of 10,000 Btu/kWh 

and a capacity factor of 60 percent, the 

NOx emitted from Big Bend Unit No. 

2 is estimated to be 7,000 tons/yr (0.6 

lb/106

 Btu). A 5 percent reduction in 

NOx emissions would eliminate 350 

tons/yr of NOx. Assuming that the NOx

cap and trade program is available at the 

plant installing the NN-ISB system, and 

that the value of one NOx allowance is 

$2,000, this would amount to an annual 

revenue of $700,000.

The cost of this project was about 

$3,400,000, which included not only 

testing the NN-ISB system, but also 

testing water cannons and various novel 

instruments, as discussed above. The 

cost of the NN-ISB system alone was 

about $600,000. Because this was a 

fi rst-of-a-kind project with special challenges, Pegasus Technologies estimates 

that costs for a new project to install 

NN-ISB incorporating lessons learned 

would be in the range of $300,000 to 

$500,000, provided that no new equipment or instrumentation were required 

at the plant. If only benefi ts from effi ciency gains and NOx

 reduction are 

considered, the project would pay off 

in fi ve to nine months. Any additional 

benefi ts from improved performance or 

reduced maintenance would decrease 

this payout period, while any additional costs would increase the payout 

period.
3-20

Demonstration of a 

Full-Scale Retrofi t of 

the Advanced Hybrid 

Particulate Collector 

(Advanced HybridTM) 

Technology

Demonstration 

Operations Complete

PPII

Emissions Control

Mercury G NOx G

SO2 G PM2.5 O

Objectives

To demonstrate up to 99.99 percent overall particulate matter (PM) capture for 

all particle sizes greater than 0.01 microns, to demonstrate the ability of the 

Advanced Hybrid Particulate Collector (AHPC) to achieve low pressure drop 

(below 10 inches of water column) at an air-to-cloth ratio of 12 feet per minute, 

and to attain economic viability relative to competing technologies.

Technology/Project Description

The project demonstrates Advanced HybridTM technology in controlling PM 

from a 450-MW cyclone boiler burning Powder River Basin (PRB) coal. The 

Advanced HybridTM system combines electrostatic precipitator (ESP) and fabric 

fi lter dust collection (FFDC) technologies in a synergistic manner that leverages 

the best features of both. ESPs effi ciently capture large volumes of PM in size 

ranges down to 10 microns. FFDCs effi ciently capture fi ne particulates down to 

0.1 micron, but at an economic penalty under large volumes. Leveraging these 

characteristics, the Advanced HybridTM uses an ESP to capture approximately 

90 percent of the PM from incoming dirty fl ue gas, and uses an FFDC to capture 

only the balance of the PM. Perforated ESP plates surround the fabric fi lter bags 

and capture PM that is charged by electrodes placed between the plates. Remaining PM, which is predominately fi nes, passes to fabric fi lter bags made of highly 

effi cient membrane material for removal. When the fabric fi lter bags are cleaned 

by pulsing jets of air from within, the re-entrained PM, not falling to a collection 

bin, is captured by the ESP. 

Benefi ts

Revised National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for fi ne PM will 

require power plants to remove a high percentage of 2.5 microns or less (PM2.5) 

in the 2007 to 2008 timeframe. FFDCs are the current state-of-the-art technology 

for PM2.5 control. The Advanced HybridTM integrates an FFDC with an ESP in a 

synergistic manner that allows the systems to operate at far higher throughputs 

(2.5 to 4 times) than a stand-alone conventional FFDC. Advanced HybridTM fabric 

fi lter bag materials offer higher capture effi ciency than conventional bags that 

must sustain full PM loading from incoming dirty fl ue gas. Stand-alone FFDCs 

Participant

 Otter Tail Power Company

Additional Team Members

Montana-Dakota Utilities —

co-host

NorthWestern Public Service —

co-host

W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. —

licensee and fi lter bag provider

Energy and Environmental 

Research Center (University of 

North Dakota) — concept 

developer

Location

Big Stone City, Grant County, 

SD (Montana-Dakota Utilities 

and NorthWestern Public Service’s Big Stone Power Plant)

Technology

Advanced HybridTM (formerly 

known as Advanced Hybrid 

Particulate Collector)

Plant Capacity/

Production

450 MW

Coal

Powder River Basin 

subbituminous

Project Funding

Total $13,353,288 100%

DOE 6,490,585 49

Participant 6,862,703 51
3-21

S

T

A

T

U

S

R

e

p

o

r

t

O

p

e

r

a

t

i

o

n

C

o

n

s

t

r

u

c

t

i

o

n

D

e

s

i

g

n

P

r

e

A

w

a

r

d

Project Duration

43 Months

Period of Operation

39 Months

Operation 10/02

Construction 7/02

Award 7/02

NEPA Completed 

(EA and FONSI) 6/02

Selection 9/01

Contacts

Participant

Bill Swanson

(605) 862-6300

wswanson@otpco.com

Otter Tail Power Company

48450 144th Street

Big Stone City, SD 57216

NETL

John M. Rockey

(304) 285-4711

john.rockey@netl.doe.gov

Headquarters

Joseph Giove

(301) 903-4130

joseph.giove@hq.doe.gov

also suffer from re-entrainment of PM when the bags are cleaned, a problem 

nearly eliminated in the Advanced HybridTM. Testing the Advanced HybridTM 

with PRB coal affords an excellent test of the system since these coals offer high 

resistivity, which reduces the effi ciency of ESPs.

Status/Accomplishments

The cooperative agreement was awarded July 2, 2002. 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 June 

11, 2002. Construction commenced in July 2002 and was completed in October 

2002.

The fi rst 6 months of operation showed very good particulate removal effi ciency, 

but at a higher than anticipated pressure drop. Performance testing has shown 

that the outlet dust loading is almost two orders of magnitude lower than the 

guarantee limit of 0.002 grains per actual cubic foot.

While the technology provided high removal effi ciency, problem areas included 

high pressure drop, shorter than expected bag life, and frequent cleaning cycles. 

In December 2003, operators replaced 3 out of 20 rows of bags in one compartment with the baffl es, in an effort to improve fl ow and pressure drop. Also, onethird of the fi lter bags were replaced with bags made of a different material to 

evaluate performance.

In a June 2004 outage, baffl es were installed in three compartments and approximately 40 percent of the bags were replaced. Unfortunately, bag life issues persisted and opacity limits were exceeded on several occasions due to bag failures. 

Additional bags were replaced in an October 2004 outage.

During 2005, pressure drop issues persisted and the ESP components developed 

problems. Repairs made in July 2005 to the ESP components were not effective 

and the plant was forced to lower production output on multiple occasions. Following modifi cations made in December 2005, problems with the particulate 

collector continued. Changes are needed to enable full load operations. Otter 

Tail is considering options to achieve acceptable performance.

The period of performance for the project ended on January 31, 2006, and fi nal 

contract deliverables were received in June 2006. A four-page completed project 

fact sheet will be provided in the next Program Update.

Status/Schedule

*Estimated date

Final Report

Issued 8/06

Operation

Completed 1/06

Draft Report

Issued 5/06
3-22

Demonstration 

of Integrated 

Optimization Software 

at the Baldwin Energy 

Complex

CCPI-1

Emissions Control

Mercury O NOx O

SO2 O PM2.5 O 

Objectives

To design and apply individual on-line optimization modules at the Baldwin 

Energy Complex for combustion, sootblowing, selective catalytic reduction 

(SCR) operations, overall unit thermal performance, and plant-wide economic 

optimization; to link individual optimization modules through NeuCo’s ProcessLinkTM platform; and to reduce the Baldwin Energy Complex nitrogen oxide 

(NOx

) emissions by 5 percent, and increase effi ciency by 1.5 percentage points 

and improve reliability and availability, increasing net annual electrical power 

production by 1.5 percentage points. 

Technology/Project Description

This project demonstrates an integrated on-line optimization control system at the 

Baldwin Energy Complex, 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 modules shall be developed and operated in a non-manual, 

neural control (closed loop) mode for control of combustion, sootblowing, SCR 

operations, overall unit thermal performance, and plant-wide economic operation. Modules include software and additional sensors and actuators, as required. 

These optimization modules are to be integrated through NeuCo’s ProcessLinkTM 

architectural platform that includes neural networks, genetic algorithms, and 

“fuzzy logic” techniques. ProcessLinkTM capabilities enable the various optimization techniques at the Baldwin Energy Complex to be linked to each other, 

leveraging the existing control network. Each module is to be designed, installed, 

and tested individually to verify effectiveness, before being integrated with the 

other modules. The system allows collection of data and computations from other 

networked computers or resources rather than requiring that all data and logic 

be resident on a single computer. Ultimately, after the optimization modules and 

associated sensors/controls/actuators are integrated and optimized, the following 

benefi ts should result: substantial improvement in enhanced SCR performance 

for lower NOx

 emissions; increased thermal effi ciency and reliability for reduced 

overall emissions per unit of energy reduction; increased power output; and lower 

costs to consumers. 

Benefi ts

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

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

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 

ProcessLinkTM technology

Project Capacity/

Production

1,768 MW

Coal

Powder River Basin 

subbituminous

Project Funding

Total $19,094,733 100%

DOE 8,592,630 45

Participant 10,502,103 55
3-23

Project Duration

48 Months

Period of Operation

24 Months

Status/Schedule

*Estimated date

Operation 2/06

Construction 5/04

Selection 1/03

Award 2/04

Contacts

Participant

John McDermott, Vice President, Product Management

(617) 425-3684

mcdermott@neuco.net

NeuCo, Inc.

200 Clarendon Street, Hancock 

Tower, T-31

Boston, MA 02116

NETL

George W. Pukanic

(412) 386-6085

george.pukanic@netl.doe.gov

Headquarters

Joseph Giove

(301) 903-4130

joseph.giove@hq.doe.gov

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. In this 

application, upon linkage of fi ve separate optimization modules, improved SCR 

performance is expected to reduce NOx

 emissions by 5 percent while extending 

SCR catalyst life one year and reducing ammonia consumption by 15 percent. In 

parallel, Baldwin Energy Complex’s thermal effi ciency is expected to increase 

by 1.5 percentage points; and the plant’s reliability and availability is expected 

to improve, increasing net annual electrical power production by 1.5 percentage 

points, which lowers the cost of electricity. Emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), 

mercury (Hg), sulfur dioxide (SO2

), and particulate matter (PM) are reduced in 

proportion to the effi ciency gain per unit of energy produced.

Status/Accomplishments

The project was selected for award on January 8, 2003. On February 18, 2004, 

a cooperative agreement was awarded. The National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) requirements were met with a Categorical Exclusion (CX) at the time 

of award.

NeuCo designed and installed combustion optimization (CombustionOpt) modules on the two cyclone-fi red boilers (Units 1 and 2) and the tangentially fi red 

boiler (Unit 3). NeuCo installed and tested an online ammonia analyzer to monitor 

ammonia slip in support of the SCR control optimization (as opposed to indirect 

optimization through combustion controls). Two software packages in support of 

the sootblowing optimization module (Soot-Opt) were installed on the tangentially 

fi red boiler (Unit 3). Version 2 of ProcessLinkTM was installed on Unit 3. NeuCo 

developed and operated a steam cycle model for the performance optimization 

module (PerformanceOpt). An integrated version of the real-time PerformanceOpt 

Complex Boiler Model and the Steam Cycle Model was installed on Units 1 and 

2. Work continues on fi ne tuning the models to improve consistency. NeuCo 

has submitted its fi rst repayment after the sale of two PerformanceOpt systems.

NEPA Completed 

(CX) 2/04

S

T

A

T

U

S

R

e

p

o

r

t

O

p

e

r

a

t

i

o

n

C

o

n

s

t

r

u

c

t

i

o

n

D

e

s

i

g

n

P

r

e

A

w

a

r

d

Final Report

Issued 8/08*

Operation

Completed 2/08*

Draft Report

Issued 5/08*
3-24

Objectives

To demonstrate that a hybrid nitrogen oxide (NOx) control system integrating and 

optimizing fuel-lean gas reburn/selective non-catalytic reduction (FLGR/SNCR), 

SNCR, and compact selective catalytic reduction (SCR) can reduce NOx emissions 

to 0.15 lb/106 Btu at lower costs than a single, full-scale conventional SCR unit; 

and to demonstrate the fl exibility of the hybrid to respond to an array of dispatch 

requirements through selected engagement of hybrid components.

Technology/Project Description

In this process, the individual components (FLGR/SNCR, SNCR, and compact 

SCR) are arranged in such a manner as to be complementary/synergistic. FLGR/

SNCR is itself a proven synergistic integration that affords better NOx control 

in combination than the individual components alone. FLGR/SNCR is installed 

above the existing low NOx burners (LNBs), and complements the LNBs by 

providing boiler-level combustion staging that allows the LNBs to operate with 

less oxygen, which reduces NOx

 formation. SNCR follows with urea injection 

at a location in the boiler providing optimum SNCR process temperatures to act 

upon residual NOx

 from FLGR/SNCR processing, and to provide urea for the 

downstream SCR module. The compact SCR is sized to control only the residual 

NOx

 from the FLGR/SNCR and SNCR. The hybrid components can be operated individually or in selected combination to provide the operator fl exibility in 

dispatching the unit in accordance with allowed emissions that may change with 

the season and other factors.

Development of 

Hybrid FLGR/SNCR/

SCR Advanced NOx

Control

Project Withdrawn

PPII

Emissions Control

Mercury G NOx O 

SO2 G PM2.5 G

Participant

 TIAX, LLC (acquired the 

research contracts of Arthur D. 

Little, Inc. [ADL])

Additional Team 

Members

Fuel Tech — selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR) technology supplier

Babcock Power — technology 

partner

Location

Multiple locations were 

attempted

Technology

A hybrid NOx control system incorporating fuel-lean gas reburn/

selective non-catalytic reduction 

(FLGR/SNCR), SNCR, and selective catalytic reduction (SCR)

Plant Capacity/

Production

N/A

Coal

Eastern bituminous

Project Funding (Proposed)

Total $28,300,000 100%

DOE 13,900,000 49

Participant 14,400,000 51
3-25

Project Duration

Project Withdrawn

Period of Operation

Project Withdrawn

Operation N/A

Construction N/A

Award N/A

Selection 9/01

Benefi ts

Coal-fi red power boiler operators are facing a dual challenge of remaining 

competitive while adapting to deregulation and impending stringent NOx

controls. The NOx

 control technologies available are not optimized for costeffective NOx

 reduction over a wide operational range. This range is needed to 

allow each boiler and the integrated system to respond competitively to market 

conditions. Current reliance on SCR, with the associated high capital cost, will not 

typically give a utility suffi cient dispatch fl exibility to maximize competitiveness. 

Projections indicate that 30 percent of coal-fi red boilers will be retrofi tted with 

SCR. Power generators are looking for a lower cost, more fl exible means to design 

the balance of units for competitive dispatch required in the current market. This 

demonstration was intended to confi rm that the hybrid is a lower cost alternative 

to conventional SCR while achieving 0.15 lb/106

 Btu NOx emission levels. 

The FLGR/SNCR and SNCR components of the hybrid system have demonstrated signifi cant NOx

 reduction and lower costs relative to SCR, but have 

fallen short of the 0.15 lb/106 Btu NOx emissions level requisite to meeting the 

most stringent dispatch requirement under new regulations. While SCR alone 

can meet the NOx emissions requirement, the technology is expensive to install 

and operate. The hybrid system offers the synergy to achieve 0.15 lb/106

 Btu 

NOx emission levels at lower costs than conventional SCR alone, and provides 

needed dispatch fl exibility. 

Status/Accomplishments

The project was selected for award on September 26, 2001. Originally, ADL was 

the project sponsor and Orion Power’s Avon Lake Unit No. 9 near Cleveland, 

Ohio, was to be the host site. However, Reliant Energy bought Orion Power and 

decided not to pursue the project. TIAX, LLC acquired the research contracts 

of ADL and proceeded to fi nd another host site. Following several unsuccessful 

attempts to secure a new host site, TIAX withdrew the proposed project in May 

2006.

Contacts

Participant

Howard B. Mason

(408) 517-1570

mason.howard@tiaxllc.com

TIAX, LLC

20 Acorn Park

Cambridge, MA 02140

NETL

Wolfe Huber

(412) 386-5747

wolfe.huber@netl.doe.gov

Headquarters

Joseph Giove

(301) 903-4130

joseph.giove@hq.doe.gov

Status/Schedule

*Estimated date

S

T

A

T

U

S

R

e

p

o

r

t

O

p

e

r

a

t

i

o

n

C

o

n

s

t

r

u

c

t

i

o

n

D

e

s

i

g

n

P

r

e

A

w

a

r

d

Final Report

Issued N/A

Operation

Completed N/A

Project Withdrawn 5/06

Draft Report

Issued N/A
3-26

Objectives

To demonstrate cost-effective multi-pollutant control for relatively small power 

plants using a selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR)/in-duct selective catalytic 

reduction (SCR); in combination with low-NOx burners and a circulating fl uidized-bed dry scrubber (CFBDS) system with recycled baghouse ash and activated 

carbon injection; to control nitrogen oxide (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; and to evaluate the impact of biomass co-fi ring 

up to 10 percent heat input on the performance of the SNCR/SCR hybrid and 

CFBDS system. 

Technology/Project Description

This project will demonstrate an in-duct SNCR/SCR hybrid in combination with 

low-NOx

 burners and a CFBDS system using recycled baghouse ash 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 104-MW plant. The project also will evaluate the effect of biomass cofi ring on the multi-pollutant control system. To complement existing low-NOx

burners, an SNCR is strategically located upstream of a single-bed in-duct SCR. 

Urea injection required for the SNCR also generates the ammonia required for 

the SCR. Having the SCR downstream of the SNCR allows the SNCR to operate at lower temperatures than normal (normally avoided to protect against ammonia slip), which enhances performance. The CFBDS 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 absorbs mercury, and the lime 

reacts with the sulfur dioxide (SO2) and sulfur trioxide (SO3), hydrochloric acid 

(HCl), and hydrofl uoric acid (HF) gases to form benign solids, all of which are 

captured in the baghouse. Lime and activated carbon sorbents captured in the 

baghouse are recycled to the CFBDS to enhance utilization. Performance testing 

of the SNCR/SCR hybrid and CFBDS will include an assessment of the impact 

Greenidge MultiPollutant Control 

Project

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. — (EPC Contractor)

Location

Dresden, NY 

(AES Greenidge Unit No. 4)

Technology

Hybrid selective non-catalytic 

reduction (SNCR)/in-duct 

selective catalytic reduction 

(SCR) in combination with lowNOx

 burners to control NOx and 

a circulating fl uidized-bed dry 

scrubber (CFBDS) to control 

SO2, mercury, and acid gases

Plant Capacity/

Production

104 MW (Unit No. 4)

Coal

Bituminous coal (>2% sulfur) 

co-fi red with up to 10% biomass

Project Funding 

Total $33,127,188 100%

DOE 14,509,708 43.8

Participant 18,617,480 56.2
3-27

Project Duration

29 Months

Period of Operation

20 Months

Operation 2/07*

Construction Ongoing

 at award

Award 5/06

Selection 9/01

of biomass co-fi ring with the coal at heat inputs up to 10 percent to measure 

performance impact.

Benefi ts

The power industry is seeking lower cost and more compatible multi-pollutant 

control alternatives to SCR and wet scrubbers for the 473 domestic coal-fi red 

generating units with capacities ranging from 50–300 MW. Economics of scale 

that make SCR and wet scrubbers viable for large plants do not apply to these 

relatively small units, and small units typically are space constrained, making 

it diffi cult, if not impossible, to install conventional SCR and wet scrubbers. 

Greenidge Unit No. 4 is representative of the small coal-fi red electricity generating 

units that together represent almost one-quarter of the U.S. coal-fi red generating 

capacity. The NOx control technology to be demonstrated at Greenidge is estimated 

to require about 65 percent of the capital costs and 75 percent of the operating 

costs of a conventional SCR unit. The CFBDS is projected to use at least 2.5 

times less activated carbon for a given level of mercury control because the carbon 

has a greater average contact time in the CFBDS reactor than in a fl ue gas duct. 

Reducing the carbon feed rate results in substantial mercury control cost savings. 

Also, the CFBDS is estimated to be about half the capital cost of a conventional 

wet scrubber. The acid gas control afforded by the CFBDS is important because 

this removes the precursors to acid aerosols, which can form PM2.5 once emitted. 

Acid gases must be reported to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

as part of the Toxic Release Inventory. 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

The project was selected for award on September 26, 2001. An Environmental 

Assessment (EA) has been completed and a Finding of No Signifi cant Impact 

(FONSI) was issued on December 3, 2004. Negotiation activities were protracted 

due to contract issues. The project was awarded on May 19, 2006 with design 

and construction activities already underway.

Contacts

Participant

Steven Winberg, General Manager, 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

NEPA Completed

(EA and 

FONSI) 12/04

Status/Schedule

*Estimated date

S

T

A

T

U

S

R

e

p

o

r

t

O

p

e

r

a

t

i

o

n

C

o

n

s

t

r

u

c

t

i

o

n

D

e

s

i

g

n

P

r

e

A

w

a

r

d

Final Report

Issued 4/09*

Operation 

Completed 10/08*

Draft Report

Issued 1/09*
3-28

CCPI-2

Emissions Control

Mercury O NOx G

SO2

 G PM2.5 G

Mercury Specie 

and Multi-Pollutant 

Control

Objectives

To demonstrate that state-of-the-art sensors and neural network-based optimization and controls can measure and effect mercury species, 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 Powder River Basin subbituminous coal, 

which are known to emit relatively high levels of elemental mercury under routine combustion conditions. Pegasus Technologies will apply sensors to evaluate 

the mercury species (elemental and oxidized mercury) 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.

Participant

 Pegasus Technologies (a division 

of NeuCo, Inc.)

Additional Team Members

NRG Texas, LLC —

collaborator and host

Location

Jewett, Leon 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 subbituminous

Project Funding

Total $15,560,811 100%

DOE 6,079,479 39

Participant 9,481,332 61
3-29

Project Duration

49 Months

Period of Operation

19 Months

Selection 10/04

Award 4/06

Construction 6/07*

Operation 10/08*

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 (CA) was signed in April 2006. Installation of key 

process components is under way.

Contacts

Participant

David Wroblewski

Senior VP Development

(440) 285-7794

dwroblewski@pegasustec.com

Pegasus Technologies

100 Seventh Avenue, Suite 210

Chardon, OH 44024

NETL

Michael H. McMillian

(304) 285-4669

michael.mcmillian@netl.doe.gov

Headquarters

Joseph Giove

(301) 903-4130

joseph.giove@hq.doe.gov

Final Report

Issued 11/10*

Operation

Completed 5/10*

NEPA Completed 3/05

(CX)

Status/Schedule

*Estimated date

S

T

A

T

U

S

R

e

p

o

r

t

O

p

e

r

a

t

i

o

n

C

o

n

s

t

r

u

c

t

i

o

n

D

e

s

i

g

n

P

r

e

A

w

a

r

d

Draft Report

Issued 8/10*
3-30

CCPI-1

Emissions Control

Mercury O NOx O

SO2 O PM2.5 O

TOXECON Retrofi t 

for Mercury and MultiPollutant Control on 

Three 90-MW 

Coal-Fired Boilers

Participant

 Wisconsin Electric Power 

Company (We Energies)

Additional Team 

Members

ADA-ES — Management 

Support/Design Input

Cummins & Barnard — 

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

TOXECON 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 [PM2.5]); to reduce already low sulfur dioxide (SO2

) and 

nitrogen oxide (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 TOXECON sorbent injection process for multipollutant control of a combined fl ue gas stream from three units totaling 270 MW. 

TOXECON, 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 TOXECON 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, in-fl 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.
3-31

Project Duration

60 Months

Period of Operation

39 Months

Status/Schedule

*Estimated date

Selection 1/03

Award 4/04

Construction 11/04

Operation 1/06

NEPA Completed 

(EA and FONSI) 9/03

Benefi ts

The TOXECON 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 

TOXECON 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, which, 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 TOXECON process has application to an estimated 

167 gigawatts of existing coal-fi red capacity. The TOXECON project alone is 

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

, 1,470 

tons of NOx

, and 32 tons of fi ne PM.

Status/Accomplishments

The project was selected January 8, 2003 under the fi rst round of Clean Coal 

Power Initiative (CCPI), and was awarded a cooperative agreement April 21, 2004. 

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requirements were met with an 

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

Impact (FONSI) in September 2003. 

Construction activities were initiated in November 2004 and were completed in 

December 2005, at which time fl ue gas from Unit 7 at the Presque Isle Power 

Plant was directed to the TOXECON baghouse. Units 8 and 9 were brought on 

line in January 2006, and activated carbon was fi rst injected into the system later 

the same month. Initial results are promising, demonstrating mercury emission 

reductions. Results will be quantifi ed and optimized through parametric testing 

during 2006.

Contacts

Participant

Steve Derenne

(414) 221-4443

steven.derenne@wepowerllc.com

We Energies

333 W. Everett St., MCP-145

Milwaukee, WI 53203

NETL

Ted McMahon

(304) 285-4865

ted.mcmahon@netl.doe.gov

Headquarters

Joseph Giove

(301) 903-4130

joseph.giove@hq.doe.gov

S

T

A

T

U

S

R

e

p

o

r

t

O

p

e

r

a

t

i

o

n

C

o

n

s

t

r

u

c

t

i

o

n

D

e

s

i

g

n

P

r

e

A

w

a

r

d

Final Report 

Issued 10/09*

Operation

Completed 4/09*

Draft Report 

Issued 7/09*
3-32
3-33

Advanced Power Systems
3-34

Clean Coal Diesel 

Demonstration Project

Project Withdrawn

CCTDP

Advanced Power Systems

IGCC G CFB G

Hybrid G Adv Comb O

Participant

TIAX, LLC (acquired the 

research contracts of Arthur D. 

Little, Inc.)

Additional Team 

Members

University of Alaska at Fairbanks (UAF) — host and cofunder

Fairbanks Morse Engine (FME) 

— host and diesel engine technology vendor

CQ, Inc. — coal-water fuel 

(CWF) formulation and 

production

Location

Fairbanks, AK 

(UAF facility) 

Beloit, WI (FME facility) 

Technology

Fairbanks Morse coal/waterfueled diesel engine 

Plant Capacity/

Production

18-cylinder engine at UAF (6.4 

MW) and 2-cylinder engine at 

FME

Coal

Kentucky bituminous and 

Alaskan subbituminous

Project Funding

Total $41,611,958 100%

DOE 20,805,979 50

Participant 20,805,979 50

Objectives

To demonstrate that large-bore, heavy duty diesel engines can operate on relatively 

low-cost coal-water fuel (CWF) at acceptable performance levels and maintenance 

intervals with emissions at or below New Source Performance Standards.

Technology/Project Description

CWF testing is being conducted on a 2-cylinder engine in Beloit, Wisconsin, 

identical to the 6.4-MW equivalent 18-cylinder engine installed at the University 

of Alaska at Fairbanks (UAF) in terms of per cylinder horsepower, emissions, 

fuel rate, wear rate, and exhaust fl ow. The test plan for the 2-cylinder engine fi ring CWF specifi es initial runs without the installation of hardened parts, such as 

special injectors and piston rings, to establish engine operating parameters (air 

pre-heat, number and size of injector tip holes, and timing and amount of diesel 

fuel for startup). Initial tests will be followed by the installation of hardened parts 

and four 250-hour tests (12 hours per day), between which Fairbanks Morse Engine inspects engine parts. Simultaneously, UAF is to integrate the 18-cylinder 

engine with balance of plant systems to enable commercial operation, including 

a generator, waste heat boiler, a selective catalytic reduction (SCR) system, and 

baghouse; and conduct baseline testing on diesel fuel. Subsequent to 2-cylinder 

testing, UAF is to incorporate hardened engine parts and provide performance 

data on CWF operation. CWFs to be tested include those derived from Alaskan 

subbituminous coals and from Kentucky bituminous coals.

Benefi ts

Diesel engines offer an attractive distributed generation option in the 5- to 20-

MW range from the standpoint of effi ciency, reliability, and established support 

infrastructure, but are hampered by high fuel costs in a world competing for 

oil. The U.S. market for diesels in the 5- to 20-MW range is projected to exceed 

60,000 MW through 2020, and the worldwide market is estimated at 70 times 

the U.S. market. CWF-fueled diesel engines have particular overseas application 

in coal-rich developing Asia, where the bulk of energy expansion is occurring. 

Converging advancements in the fi elds of materials science and coal preparation 

make possible the use of coal to power diesel engines at acceptable performance 

and emission levels. Grinding coal to micron size allows release of most of the 
3-35

S

T

A

T

U

S

R

e

p

o

r

t

O

p

e

r

a

t

i

o

n

C

o

n

s

t

r

u

c

t

i

o

n

D

e

s

i

g

n

P

r

e

A

w

a

r

d

Project Duration

142 Months

Period of Operation

Project Withdrawn

Status/Schedule

*Estimated date

Final Report 

Issued 11/06*

Operation 

Completed NA

Operation on 

Diesel 9/99

Construction 6/98

NEPA Completed 6/97

Project 

Restructured 8/96

Selection 5/93

ash and sulfur, and when mixed with water in high solids concentration slurries, 

provides a high-energy-density fuel. Abrasion-resistant materials emerging from 

materials research can be placed at high wear sites in diesel engines to sustain 

effective operation at the reduced lubricity levels associated with CWFs. Diesel 

engines emit far less nitrogen oxides (NOx

) when operated on CWF in lieu of 

diesel fuel, reducing the degree of control required. Effi ciencies up to 48 percent 

are expected, with a projected heat rate of 6,830 Btu/kWh. Sulfur dioxide (SO2) 

and particulate matter (PM) control requirements are minimal because most of 

the ash and sulfur are removed during CWF production.

Status/Accomplishments

The 18-cylinder engine at UAF began operation on diesel fuel in September 1999, 

started generating power in October 1999, demonstrated 90 percent NOx

 reduction with the SCR in August 2000, and supplied all the UAF power requirements 

until a forced outage in August of 2004. Because the original planned source 

of CWF in Alaska was not viable, the unit continued to operate on diesel fuel. 

Eventually, CWF sources were located and a revision was made to the cooperative agreement to meet project objectives at reduced cost. In August 2003, DOE 

modifi ed the cooperative agreement to execute the CWF test plan on a 2-cylinder 

engine at Fairbank Morse Engine facilities in Beloit, Wisconsin instead of the 

18-cylinder engine installed at UAF.

In April 2004, the 2-cylinder engine was operated on Usibelli coal-derived CWF 

with a heating value of approximately 4,000 Btu/lb. The CWF-fi red engine produced 270 horsepower and emitted 150 parts per million (ppm) of NOx

, which 

compared well with the 1,100 ppm NOx emissions on diesel fuel. Preparations 

were under way for operation on bituminous coal-derived CWF, however, these 

tests were suspended due to test facility modifi cations and contractual matters.

The project has not been able to move forward due to legal proceedings on 

payment claims made by UAF for work performed on the project while Arthur 

D. Little, Inc. was the participant. TIAX requested termination of the project 

because they have been unable to continue work while waiting for the lawsuit 

to be settled. DOE concurred on the termination request in April 2006. TIAX 

is in the process of preparing a fi nal report of project activities.

Scope Modifi ed 8/03

Operation on CWF 4/04

Award 7/94

Contacts

Participant

Robert P. Wilson

Vice President

(617) 498-5806

wilson.r@tiaxllc.com

TIAX, LLC

Building 15, Room 259

25 Acorn Park

Cambridge, MA 02140

NETL

Diane Revay Madden

(412) 386-5931

diane.madden@netl.doe.gov

Headquarters

Joseph Giove

(301) 903-4130

joseph.giove@hq.doe.gov

Draft Report 

Issued 9/06*

Project

Withdrawn 4/06
3-36

CCPI-2

Advanced Power Systems

IGCC O CFB G

Hybrid G Adv Comb G

Objectives

To assess the operational, environmental, and economic performance of the airblown transport gasifi er-based 285-MW (net) integrated gasifi cation combinedcycle (IGCC) system; and to achieve a heat rate of 8,400 Btu per kilowatt-hour, 

which equates to 40.6 percent effi ciency on a higher heating value (HHV) 

basis. 

Technology/Project Description

The project will demonstrate a 285-MW (net) IGCC unit applying the Kellogg 

Brown and Root (KBR) transport gasifi er in an air blown mode. KBR’s transport 

gasifi er consists of two sections: a short, larger-diameter mixing zone and a longer, 

smaller-diameter riser. Air and steam are 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). In 

addition, some of the sulfur released from the coal is captured as calcium sulfi de 

by the calcium in the coal and added calcium-based sorbent. The majority of the 

unreacted char and sorbent-derived material 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 synthesis gas 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, stateof-the-art emission controls will be used.

Demonstration of a 

285-MWe Coal-Based 

Transport Gasifi er

Participant

Southern Company Services, Inc.

Additional Team 

Members

Southern Power Company 

— host utility co-owner

Orlando Utilities Commission 

— host utility co-owner

Kellogg Brown and Root (KBR) 

— technology supplier

Location

Orlando, Orange County, FL 

(Stanton Energy Center)

Technology

KBR air-blown transport gasifi er 

fueled by low-rank coal in an 

integrated gasifi cation combinedcycle (IGCC) application

Capacity

285 MW (net); 3,300 tons of 

coal/day input

Coal

Powder River Basin 

subbituminous

Project Funding

Total $568,768,646 100%

DOE Share 235,000,000 41

Participant 333,768,646 59
3-37

S

T

A

T

U

S

R

e

p

o

r

t

O

p

e

r

a

t

i

o

n

C

o

n

s

t

r

u

c

t

i

o

n

D

e

s

i

g

n

P

r

e

A

w

a

r

d

Project Duration

106 Months

Period of Operation

53 Months

Status/Schedule

*Estimated date

Benefi ts

The KBR transport gasifi er offers a simple, robust, and effi cient means of processing, which 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, conditions more conducive to long refractory 

life, and higher mass and heat transfer rates. The recycling of solids increases 

the effective residence time, increases carbon conversion, and improves sorbent 

utilization. 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 

synthesis gas 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 and adapt 

to carbon management requirements. 

Status/Accomplishments

The project was selected in October 2004 and the Cooperative Agreement was 

awarded on January 30, 2006. Preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement 

is under way based on the Public Scoping Meeting held on August 30, 2005. 

Engineering design activities are ongoing. The Florida Department of Environmental Protection is reviewing the Site Certifi cation Application (SCA).

Contacts

Participant

Randall Rush

(205) 670-5842

rerush@southernco.com

Director, Power Systems 

Development Facility

Southern Company Services, Inc.

P.O. Box 1069

Wilsonville, AL 35168 Selection 10/04

Award 1/06

Construction 4/07*

Operation 6/10*

Final Report

Issued 5/15*

Operation 

Completed 11/14*

NETL

Diane Revay Madden

(412) 386-5931

diane.madden@netl.doe.gov

Headquarters

Joseph Giove

(301) 903-4130

joseph.giove@hq.doe.gov

Draft Report

Issued 2/15*
3-38

JEA Large-Scale 

CFB Combustion 

Demonstration 

Project

Demonstration Operations 

Complete

CCTDP

Advanced Power Systems

IGCC G CFB O

Hybrid G Adv Comb G

Objectives

To demonstrate scale-up of atmospheric circulating fl uidized-bed combustion 

(ACFB) to 297.5 MWe (gross); to verify ACFB technology cost and performance 

expectations; to provide potential users with data requisite to assessing ACFB as 

an option for large-scale commercial capacity additions or retrofi ts; to achieve 

greater than 90 percent sulfur dioxide (SO2) removal; and to reduce nitrogen oxide 

(NOx

) emissions below New Source Performance Standards (NSPS).

Technology/Project Description

The project demonstrates replacement of an inoperable oil/natural gas-fi red Unit 

2 boiler rated at 275 MWe with a 297.5-MWe (gross) ACFB. In the ACFB system, coal or coal fuel blends are crushed to minus 1/4 inch, mixed with crushed 

limestone (sand size), and pneumatically injected into the base of the ACFB. 

The mixing action of the ACFB enables effi cient combustion at temperatures 

below 1,600 oF (well below thermal NOx formation temperatures), and provides 

greater than 90 percent sulfur capture through good sorbent contact with SO2

released during combustion. Secondary air assists mixing and combustion and 

helps move the lighter combusted materials out of the combustor. Aqueous ammonia is injected prior to the entrained materials entering a cyclone separator. 

The cyclone separator mixes the ammonia, which reduces NOx

 to nitrogen and 

water; separated solids pass over an INTREXTM steam superheater; and the solids 

return to the combustor. A portion of the solids leave the combustor as ash and 

calcium sulfate. Gas from the cyclone heats steam in reheater/superheater tube 

bundles located in a relatively soot-free chamber; further heat is recovered in 

an economizer that heats feed water and in a combustion air preheater. Highpressure steam from the INTREXTM (2.0 x 106

 lb/hr, 2,500 psig, 1,000 oF) and 

low-pressure steam from the reheater (1.78 x 106 lb/hr, 548 psig, 1,000 oF) drive 

a steam turbine-generator unit. Flue gas from the air preheater passes through a 

polishing spray dryer absorber (SDA) using a lime slurry to further reduce SO2

emissions, and through a baghouse to remove particulates.

Participant

JEA (formerly Jacksonville 

Electric Authority)

Additional Team 

Members

Foster Wheeler Energy 

Corporation — technology 

supplier

Location

Jacksonville, Duval County, FL 

(JEA’s Northside Station, 

Unit No. 2)

Technology

Foster Wheeler’s atmospheric 

circulating fl uidized-bed (ACFB) 

combustor

Plant Capacity/

Production

297.5 MWe (gross), 265 MWe 

(net) 

Coal

Eastern bituminous and 

Petroleum coke (petcoke)

Project Funding

Total $321,392,624 100%

DOE 74,723,785 23

Participant 246,668,839 77
3-39

S

T

A

T

U

S

R

e

p

o

r

t

O

p

e

r

a

t

i

o

n

C

o

n

s

t

r

u

c

t

i

o

n

D

e

s

i

g

n

P

r

e

A

w

a

r

d

Project Duration

169 Months

Period of Operation

24 Months

Final Report

Issued 6/05

Operation

Completed 12/04

Operation 1/03

Construction 12/00

NEPA Completed 

(EIS) 12/00

Award 11/90

Selection 6/89

Benefi ts

ACFB offers superior cost and performance compared to conventional pulverized 

coal-fi red (PC) plants in highly competitive power markets requiring superior 

environmental performance to ensure plant acceptance. In either greenfi eld or 

repowering applications, ACFBs outperform PC plants by meeting stringent environmental requirements without having to install expensive and energy-robbing 

post-combustion controls, such as selective catalytic reduction and large wet fl ue 

gas desulfurization units. This capability affords an effi ciency gain and reduces 

the signifi cant capital costs associated with large post-combustion controls. Also, 

ACFBs provide a high degree of fuel fl exibility that extends beyond all types of 

coal to renewables and wastes, such as petroleum coke (petcoke). Petcoke is a 

refi nery waste in plentiful supply that represents a solid waste management problem to refi neries, but a low-cost, high-energy fuel to ACFBs. This fuel fl exibility 

equates to low operating costs relative to PC plants. This project moves ACFB 

technology into the large utility boiler arena, an important market sector. 

Status/Accomplishments 

The Final Technical Report was issued in June 2005, completing this project.

Results Summary

Operational

• Over a 24-month operating period, the demonstration unit was on-line for 

12,293 hours producing 3,031,408 MWh (net) of electricity.

• During 2003 and 2004, the unit operated at an average heat rate of 9,516 

Btu/kWh (35.9 percent effi ciency).

• The performance test results confi rm that the full load boiler effi ciencies for 

three of the four fuels exceeded 90 percent (the boiler effi ciency on Illinois 

6 was 88 percent).

• The design basis for SO2

 removal effi ciency was 85 percent (typical) in the 

boiler and 12.1 percent (typical) in the polishing scrubber. The as-tested 

effi ciencies ranged between 95 percent and 98 percent in the boiler and 

between 1 percent and 4 percent in the scrubber. 

Contacts

Participant

Joey Duncan

(904) 714-4831

(904) 714-4895 (fax)

JEA

4377 Heckscher Drive, NSRPCO

Jacksonville, FL 32226

NETL

Nelson Rekos

(304) 285-4066

nelson.rekos@netl.doe.gov

Headquarters

Joseph Giove

(301) 903-4130

joseph.giove@hq.doe.gov

Status/Schedule

*Estimated date
3-40

JEA’s Northside Station with Fuel yard in foreground and Foster Wheeler’s ACFB in 

background.

• The average Equivalent Availability Factor (EAF) for the demonstration project was approximately 

66 percent. For comparison purposes, the North American Electric 

Reliability Council (NERC) Generating Availability Data System 

indicates EAF to be approximately 

84 percent for similar sized units 

(mostly pulverized coal). 

Environmental

• As shown in Exhibit 3-5, stack 

emissions were well below permit 

limits. 

• During the 100 percent load test on 

80/20 (petcoke/Pitt 8 coal) blended 

fuel, the spray dryer absorber removed 98 percent of the incoming 

mercury.

• Ash in the By-Product Storage 

Area (BSA) sets up to form a low 

strength aggregate type material, 

with essentially the only water 

run-off being precipitation.

• The Florida Department of Environmental Protection has classifi ed Unit 2’s ACFB blended ash 

by-product (bed ash and fl y ash) 

as an “industrial by-product” allowing it to be used for benefi cial 

purposes.

Economic

• At project completion, the actual 

capital cost was $321,392,624 for 

Unit 2 and one-half of the shared 

facilities or $1,080/kW at the gross 

output rating of the unit.

Project Summary

JEA Northside Unit 2 has demonstrated 

the successful, commercial operation 

of a 300-MW class ACFB boiler. As 

tested, boiler effi ciencies on various 

fuels met or exceeded the design values 

and proved competitive with PC boilers 

of the same size.

During testing on each of four different fuels, the project operated steadily 

at each of four different loads (100 
3-41

Exhibit 3-5

Stack Emissions Data

Parameter CY 2003 CY 2004 Permit Limit

SO2

, lb/MMBtu, 24-hr avg. 0.14 0.17 0.20

NOx

, lb/MMBtu, 30-day avg. 0.07 0.08 0.09

CO, lb/hr, 24-hr avg. 84 100 350

PM, lb/MMBtu 0.005 0.005 N/A

percent, 80 percent, 60 percent, and 40 

percent) without any deviation in unit 

output, proving fuel fl exibility. The 40 

percent load test on the 80/20 blended 

fuel was not conducted due to Hurricane Charlie. Some blending of petcoke and coal was required, however, to 

prevent ash agglomeration experienced 

when fi ring 100 percent petcoke. 

As shown in Exhibit 3-5, Unit 2 reduced 

stack emissions well below permit 

limits. The overall SO2

 removal rate 

exceeded 98 percent. Design flexibility allowed JEA to operate Unit 2 

at a much higher boiler SO2

 removal 

rate than originally specifi ed to offset 

problems experienced with the polishing scrubber limestone feed system. 

Modifi cations to the limestone system 

were planned following the demonstration period to allow a change back to 

the original design basis.

During the 2-year demonstration period, 

the EAF was signifi cantly lower than 

industry average values. The project 

successfully identified a number of 

recommended changes to improve unit 

reliability and availability for future 

commercial service. These include 

modifi cations to the following systems/

equipment:

• INTREX system,

• Expansion joints,

• Stripper cooler, and

• Limestone system.

FW has concluded that the INTREX 

design is not viable, and is no longer 

offering this design feature on new 

ACFB boilers.

The project has received Power magazine’s 2002 Power Plant Award, and 

was nominated for Power Engineering

magazine’s 2003 Power Plant of the 

Year Award. JEA’s project manager was 

awarded the Florida Engineering Society’s Technical Achievement Award 

2002 for his work on the project.
3-42

Kentucky Pioneer 

Energy IGCC 

Demonstration 

Project

Project Withdrawn

CCTDP

Advanced Power Systems

IGCC O CFB G

Hybrid G Adv Comb G

Objectives

To assess the operational, environmental, and economic performance of oxygenblown, fi xed-bed, slagging gasifi ers fueled by high-sulfur coal and refuse-derived 

fuel (RDF) blends; and to assess the operational and environmental characteristics 

of a molten carbonate fuel cell (MCFC) fueled by coal-derived synthesis gas.

Technology/Project Description

Four BG/L gasifi ers fueled with coal and pelletized RDF will produce synthesis 

gas to fi re two gas turbines in an integrated gasifi cation combined-cycle (IGCC) 

mode. In the gasifi ers, a motorized distributor/mixer stirs and evenly distributes 

the incoming coal/RDF blend and limestone fl ux at the top of the gasifi er, sustaining a bed of this mixture as the coal/RDF is consumed. Oxygen (from an on-site 

oxygen plant) and steam are injected into the gasifi er through sidewall-mounted 

tuyeres (lances) at the base of the gasifi er, where combustion and slag formation 

occur. The combustion provides process heat by consuming carbon remaining 

after gasifi cation of descending fuel, produces a liquifi ed slag with the aid of 

the limestone fl ux, and causes the bed of coal/RDF/limestone to descend with 

the aid of a moving grate. The upward moving heat and steam dry and release 

volatile material from the incoming coal/RDF, transform it into char, and gasify 

the char to produce a medium-Btu synthesis gas exiting the gasifi er at approximately 1,050 oF. The synthesis gas exits near the top of the gasifi er and passes 

into a water quench vessel (product gas cooler), which reduces the synthesis gas 

temperature to 300 oF and preheats boiler feed water. Water soluble materials, 

solids, and tars/oils separate from the synthesis gas; tars, oils, and particulates are 

further separated and recycled to the gasifi er. Sulfur is removed and recovered 

with conventional systems. Integration of a gasifi er and an MCFC is a part of 

the project, which is to be carried out at Global Energy’s Wabash River Energy 

Ltd. commercial gasifi cation facility in Terre Haute, Indiana. Tests employed a 

2-MW Fuel Cell Energy MCFC (a Direct FuelCell® 3000).

Participant

Kentucky Pioneer Energy, LLC

Additional Team 

Members

Fuel Cell Energy, Inc. (formerly 

Energy Research Corporation) 

— molten carbonate fuel cell designer and supplier, and cofunder

Location

Trapp, Clark County, KY (East 

Kentucky Power Cooperative’s 

Smith site)

Technology

Integrated gasifi cation combined-cycle (IGCC) using a 

BG/L (formerly British Gas/

Lurgi) slagging fi xed-bed gasifi -

cation system coupled with Fuel 

Cell Energy’s molten carbonate 

fuel cell (MCFC)

Plant Capacity/

Production

580 MW (gross); 540 MW (net) 

IGCC; 2.0 MW MCFC

Coal

High-sulfur Kentucky bituminous coal and pelletized 

refuse-derived fuel (RDF)

Project Funding

Total $53,306,321 100%

DOE 20,045,329 38

Participant 33,260,992 62
3-43

S

T

A

T

U

S

R

e

p

o

r

t

O

p

e

r

a

t

i

o

n

C

o

n

s

t

r

u

c

t

i

o

n

D

e

s

i

g

n

P

r

e

A

w

a

r

d

Project Duration

69 Months

Period of Operation

Project Withdrawn

Status/Schedule

*Estimated date

Final Report Issued 

(Fuel Cell only) 2/06

Operation

Completed N/A

Operation N/A

Construction N/A

NEPA Completed

IGCC (EIS) 1/03

MCFC (CX) 1/03

Selection 5/93

Benefi ts

BG/L gasifi ers offer proven performance at high reliability on a number of coals 

and represent a means to effectively dispose of wastes through use of RDF while 

far surpassing the effi ciency and environmental performance of pulverized coalfi red (PC) plants. BG/L gasifi er tolerance to RDF addresses a growing domestic 

solid waste management problem that PC plants have had limited effect upon 

because of basic design considerations. The heat rate of the IGCC demonstration facility is projected to be 8,560 Btu/kWh (40 percent effi ciency on a higher 

heating value [HHV] basis), and the commercial embodiment of the system has 

a projected heat rate of 8,035 Btu/kWh (42 percent effi ciency, HHV). These effi ciencies represent a greater than 20 percent reduction in emissions of CO2

 when 

compared to a conventional PC plant equipped to meet New Source Performance 

Standards (NSPS). The IGCC system is expected to surpass NSPS by reducing 

SO2

 emissions to 0.1 lb/106 Btu (99 percent reduction) and NOx emissions to less 

than 0.15 lb/106 Btu.

Status/Accomplishments

In November 1999, DOE signed the cooperative agreement that launched this 

project. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requirements for the 

IGCC portion of the project were met with an Environmental Impact Statement 

(EIS) and issuance of a Record of Decision on January 29, 2003. The NEPA 

process for the MCFC portion of the project was satisfi ed with a Categorical 

Exclusion (CX) on the same date.

Installation of the MCFC and associated support equipment at the Wabash River 

Generating Station was completed in August 2004, but operation was put on hold 

pending closure on a natural gas purchase agreement needed to support MCFC 

comparative testing on natural gas and synthesis gas.

In October 2004, the Kentucky Public Service Commission (PSC) withdrew its 

approval of an agreement by East Kentucky Power Cooperative, Inc. to purchase 

electric power from the proposed Kentucky Pioneer Energy generating plant.

Due to issues with proceeding at the proposed project site, and lack of progress 

in moving forward, DOE provided notice to the participant in August 2005 that 

project closeout activities had been initiated. A Final Report on the Fuel Cell 

Demonstration was issued in February 2006.

Award 11/99

Contacts

Participant

H.H. Graves, President

(513) 621-0077

hhg@globalenergyinc.com

Kentucky Pioneer Energy, LLC

312 Walnut Street, Suite 2600

Cincinnati, OH 45202

NETL

Nelson Rekos 

(304) 285-4066

nelson.rekos@netl.doe.gov

Headquarters

Joseph Giove

(301) 903-4130

joseph.giove@hq.doe.gov

Project

Withdrawn 8/05

Draft Report 

Issued N/A
3-44

CCPI-2

Advanced Power Systems

IGCC O CFB G

Hybrid G Adv Comb G

Objectives

Demonstrate: double the generating capacity of the Wabash River Coal Gasifi -

cation Repowering Project; advanced full-slurry quench (FSQ) multiple-train 

gasifi er system having 90 percent or better operational availability; fi rst-of-a-kind 

(U.S.) integrated air separations unit; greater feedstock fl exibility; emission levels 

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

rates for utility-scale, coal-based generation fueled by similar feedstocks; carbon 

dioxide emissions 15 to 20 percent lower than the current average for U.S. coalbased power plants fueled by similar feedstocks; design heat rate of about 8,600 

Btu/kilowatt-hour when using bituminous coal; and a standard replicable design 

confi guration with a sound basis for providing fi rm installed cost information 

for future commercialization.

Technology/Project Description

The project will demonstrate the next-generation ConocoPhillips E-GasTM 

technology in up to a 600-MWe integrated gasifi cation combined-cycle (IGCC) 

application. The IGCC design will incorporate fi ndings from a comprehensive 

Value Improving Practices (VIP) process applied by an industry forum to improve 

cost and performance based on the predecessor Wabash River Coal Gasifi cation 

Repowering Project. The ConocoPhillips E-GasTM gasifi er features an oxygenblown, 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 

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 synthesis gas heating value and improving effi ciency. The 

synthesis gas leaving the gasifi er will be cooled and the heat will be used to genMesaba Energy 

Project – Unit 1

Participant

MEP-I LLC

( Excelsior Energy, Inc.)

Additional Team 

Members

ConocoPhillips — technology 

holder

Fluor Enterprises — EPC

Location

Taconite, Itasca County, MN or 

Hoyt Lakes, St. Louis County, 

MN

Technology

Next generation 

ConocoPhillips E-GasTM gasifi er 

applied in an integrated gasifi -

cation combined-cycle (IGCC) 

mode

Capacity

Up to 600 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
3-45

S

T

A

T

U

S

R

e

p

o

r

t

O

p

e

r

a

t

i

o

n

C

o

n

s

t

r

u

c

t

i

o

n

D

e

s

i

g

n

P

r

e

A

w

a

r

d

Project Duration

81 Months

Period of Operation

12 Months

Status/Schedule

*Estimated date

erate steam. Particulate matter will be removed from the cooled gas (probably in 

a two-stage dry process) and processed through state-of-the-art sulfur removal 

and recovery systems 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.

Benefi ts

ConocoPhillips E-GasTM technology established its potential for providing clean 

energy at competitive costs in the successful demonstration at Global Energy’s 

Wabash River Generating Station. The Mesaba project is designed to validate 

that potential and move the technology into commercialization by demonstrating 

a commercial E-GasTM IGCC design confi guration emerging from a comprehensive analysis of the Wabash plant. Following the Wabash Demonstration, a VIP 

process (a formal industry process applying nine separate practices) was applied 

to examine lessons learned from the Wabash demonstration, identify options 

to improve cost and performance, and optimize design for a commercial plant 

confi guration. The process engaged operating and maintenance personnel at the 

Wabash plant, E-GasTM gasifi er experts, and a top architectural and engineering 

fi rm. Nearly 300 value engineering ideas were considered. The Mesaba project 

will implement the commercial design confi guration coming out of the VIP 

process and subsequent research and development.

Status/Accomplishments

The project was one of four projects selected under the second round of the 

Clean Coal Power Initiative (CCPI), which received 13 applications for fi nancial 

assistance.

Two Public Scoping Meetings for preparation of an Environmental Impact 

Statement (EIS) were conducted on October 25–26, 2005. The Public Scoping 

Meetings were conducted near the two potential sites. One meeting was held at 

the Tacomite Community Center, Tacomite, Minnesota, and the other meeting 

was held at the Hoyt Lakes Arena, Hoyt Lakes, Minnesota.

The project was awarded on May 19, 2006. Final project development and initial 

design activities are under way.

Selection 10/04

Award 5/06

Construction 5/08*

Operation 3/12*

Operation 

Completed 2/13*

Final Report

Issued 8/13*

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

Draft Report

Issued 5/13*
3-46
3-47

Clean Coal Fuels
3-48

Advanced Coal 

Conversion 

Process 

Demonstration

Demonstration Operations 

Complete

CCTDP

Clean Coal Fuels

Upgrading O

Conversion G

Objectives

To demonstrate Western SynCoal LLC’s Advanced Coal Conversion Process 

(ACCP) to produce SynCoal®, a stable coal product having a moisture content 

as low as 1 percent, sulfur content as low as 0.3 percent, and heating value up 

to 12,000 Btu/lb.

Technology/Project Description

The ACCP demonstrated in this project consists of thermal processing coupled 

with physical cleaning to upgrade high-moisture, low-rank coals to a SynCoal®

product having high heating values and low sulfur contents. In the ACCP, the 

raw coal is screened and fed to a vibratory fl uidized-bed reactor where surface 

moisture is removed by heating with hot combustion gas. Coal exits this reactor 

at a temperature slightly higher than that required to evaporate water, and fl ows 

to a second vibratory reactor where the coal is heated to nearly 600 °F. This temperature is suffi cient to remove chemically bound water, carboxyl groups, and 

volatile sulfur compounds. In addition, a small amount of tar is released, partially 

sealing the dried product. Particle shrinkage causes fracturing, destroys moisture 

reaction sites, and liberates the ash-forming mineral matter.

The coal then is cooled to less than 150 °F by contact with an inert gas in a vibrating fl uidized-bed cooler. The cooled coal is sized and fed to deep-bed stratifi ers, 

where air pressure and vibration separate mineral matter including much of the 

pyrite from the coal, thereby reducing the sulfur content of the product. The lowspecifi c-gravity fractions are sent to a product conveyor, while heavier fractions go 

to fl uidized-bed separators for additional ash removal. The fi nes handling system 

consolidates the coal fi nes that are produced throughout the ACCP facility. The 

fi nes are gathered by screw conveyors and transported by drag conveyors to a 

bulk cooling system.

Participant 

Western SynCoal LLC 

(formerly Rosebud SynCoal 

Partnership; a subsidiary of 

Montana Power Company’s 

Energy Supply Division)

Additional Team 

Members

None

Location

Colstrip, Rosebud County, MT 

(adjacent to Western Energy 

Company’s Rosebud Mine)

Technology

Western SynCoal LLC’s 

Advanced Coal Conversion 

Process for upgrading low-rank 

subbituminous and lignite coals

Plant Capacity/

Production

45 tons/hr of SynCoal® product

Coal

Powder River Basin 

subbituminous 

(Rosebud Mine), 0.5–1.5% 

sulfur, plus tests of other 

subbituminous coals and lignites

Project Funding

Total $105,700,000 100%

DOE 43,125,000 41

Participant 62,575,000 59
3-49

S

T

A

T

U

S

R

e

p

o

r

t

O

p

e

r

a

t

i

o

n

C

o

n

s

t

r

u

c

t

i

o

n

D

e

s

i

g

n

P

r

e

A

w

a

r

d

Project Duration

129 Months

Period of Operation

108 Months

Final Report

Issued 9/04

Operation

Completed 6/01

Operation 6/92

Construction 8/91

NEPA Completed 

(EA and FONSI) 3/91

Award 9/90

Selection 12/88

Benefi ts

ACCP technology offers a means of converting vast low-rank western 

subbituminous and lignite coal reserves to high-energy-density, low-sulfur, lowash fuels capable of enhancing boiler effi ciency and reducing sulfur emissions. 

Increasing energy density of western coals also has the potential to signifi cantly 

reduce transportation costs, assuming stability of the processed coals can be 

achieved, i.e., control spontaneous combustion. Western coals typically cost less 

to mine than eastern coals because they reside in thick seams amenable to surface 

mining, whereas eastern bituminous coals are typically mined by underground 

methods. Thus, western coals start with a cost advantage that may be retained 

in distant markets if ACCP objectives were met. The consistent quality and high 

carbon and volatile content make the SynCoal® product: (1) an excellent fuel 

supplement to resolve fl ame stability and slagging/fouling problems experienced 

by boilers using raw low-rank coals, and to reduce sulfur emissions from plants 

using relatively high sulfur content coals; (2) a superior fuel for direct-fi red applications, offering good ignition and a stable fl ame in cement and asphalt production, particularly when blended with petroleum coke; and (3) a good reducing 

agent for some metallurgical processing applications.

Status/Accomplishments

Project operations ceased in June 2001, with the purchase of Montana Power 

(including Western SynCoal LLC) by Westmoreland Mining LLC. The fi -

nal report has been issued and can be found on the Clean Coal Technology 

Compendium Web site at www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/coalpower/cctc/

cctc_main.htm.

Results Summary

Operational

• During the life of the project, over 2.9 million tons of coal were processed 

to produce over 1.9 million tons of SynCoal® product shipped to a variety 

of customers.

• The SynCoal® product was very close to the design basis product chemically, 

but fell short of physical performance specifi cations with regard to resistance 

to spontaneous combustion and dust emissions upon handling.

Contacts

Participant

Harry Bonner, General Manager

(406) 494-5119

Western Syncoal LLC

120 North Parkmont

Butte, MT 59701

NETL

Joseph B. Renk III

(412) 386-6406

joseph.renk@netl.doe.gov

Headquarters

Joseph Giove

(301) 903-4130

joseph.giove@hq.doe.gov

Status/Schedule

*Estimated date
3-50

Western SynCoal’s® Advanced Coal 

Conversion Process.

• The SynCoal® product quality 

remained essentially constant for 

the life of the project.

• A water-based anionic polymer 

dust stabilization enhancement 

(DSE) product was applied to suppress dust emissions in SynCoal®

handling and shipment, and to 

provide a heat sink to temporarily 

suppress spontaneous combustion. 

More extensive stability processes 

were investigated showing that 

stability could be achieved, but the 

required re-hydration and oxidation were costly and degraded the 

product.

• Test burns of 50 percent DSEconditioned SynCoal®/raw Rosebud Mine coal blends at the 160-

MW J.E. Corette power plant 

in Billings, Montana reduced 

SO2 emissions 12 percent, and 

increased boiler effi ciency 1 percent; a similar 79 percent/21 

percent SynCoal®/raw coal blend 

reduced SO2

 emissions 23 percent, increased boiler effi ciency 

1.5 percent, and de-slagged the 

boiler, resulting in a 3-MW boost 

in power output.

• ACCP upgraded 6,800 Btu/lb 

North Dakota lignite (having 36 

percent moisture and sulfur equivalent to 3.0 lbs of SO2

/106 Btu) to 

a 10,500–10,700 Btu/lb SynCoal®

product (with 47–48 percent less 

sulfur and 7–27 percent less ash).

• Burning of the North Dakota 

lignite-derived SynCoal® product 

in the 250-MW Milton R. Young 

Power Station Unit 1 cyclonefi red boiler near Center, Montana 

resulted in release of slag buildup, 

a 13 percent reduction in boiler air 

fl ow requirement, an increase in 

boiler effi ciency from 82 percent 

to 86 percent, and a 123 Btu/kWh 

increase in heat rate.

• SynCoal® heat inputs of 15–16.6 

percent to Colstrip Energy Limited Partners Unit No. 2 boiler 

increased power output by an average 3.7 percent, increased heat 

rate 85 Btu/kWh, reduced SO2

emissions 8 percent, and reduced 

NOx

 emissions 19 percent.

• In direct-fi red cement and lime kiln 

applications, SynCoal® enhanced 

fl ame stability, improved product, 

and increased process effi ciency.

• As a green sand binder additive in 

metal casting, SynCoal® served as 

a reducing agent and improved the 

“peel” quality of the casting. 

Environmental 

• The ACCP SynCoal® plant experienced no problems in meeting 

Federal, State, and local permitted 

emission limits.

• The SynCoal® product proved to 

be an effective fuel in enhancing 

efficiencies of both boilers and 

direct-fi red industrial applications, 

and in reducing sulfur emissions 

in applications using baseline 

fuels with relatively high sulfur 

contents.

Economic

• Capital costs of $39 million were 

estimated for a 100 ton/hour reference plant design that integrates 

ACCP into a power plant, relies 

upon the plant for process energy 

requirements, and neither cleans nor 

stabilizes the SynCoal® product.

Project Summary

Exhibit 3-6 provides an operational 

performance summary of the ACCP 

plant. Availability suffered in the early 

stages from stability problems experienced with the SynCoal® product. 

Spontaneous combustion problems 

limited storage and forced plant shutdowns when limits were reached. Also, 

SynCoal® produced during startup and 
3-51

Exhibit 3-6

ACCP Annual Production Rates

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Total

Raw Coal Processed 

(tons)

28,686 157,421 370,789 479,621 370,389 395,450 163,272 419,296 441,380 112,931 2,939,240

Availability (%) 18 53 65 78 65 66 28 70 73 54 58

Forced Outage 

Rate (%)

70 40 26 13 21 26 8 15 14 35 23

Avg. Feed Rate 

(ton/hr)

21.1 34 64.7 70.1 64.4 68.0 66.0 68.4 69.0 73.1 63.3

SynCoal® Shipped 

(tons)

5,566 57,528 205,447 315,688 238,766 413,175 97,574 268,650 291,604 86,281 1,980,279

Coal feed system to ACCP to produce SynCoal®.

shutdown did not meet specifi cations 

and was rejected, which caused early 

production to fall short of the 2/3 of 

a ton of SynCoal® per ton of raw coal 

objective. After fi nding the means to 

extend storage, and fi nding clients for 

the SynCoal®, availability approached 

design targets of 75 percent and production goals were met. The SynCoal®

product quality remained essentially 

constant for the life of the project.

In addition to stability problems, the 

SynCoal® product suffered from fugitive dust emissions when handled, as 

dust particles released upon impact 

had no receptive surfaces on which 

to adhere. After extensive research, a 

water-based anionic polymer dust stabilization enhancement (DSE) product 

was identified that suppressed dust 

emissions in SynCoal® handling and 

shipment, and provided a heat sink 

to temporarily suppress spontaneous 

combustion.

The DSE approach expanded test 

burn and special use possibilities, the 

results of which are summarized in 

the preceding Results Summary. In 

utility applications, effi ciency was the 

primary benefi t, which in turn reduced 

emissions, with direct sulfur reduction 

occurring in plants using relatively high 

sulfur baseline coals. In direct-fi red 

applications, fl ame stability resulting 

from the product content and consistent 

quality was the primary benefi t, which 

impacted product quality and process 

effi ciency. In metal casting, SynCoal®

proved to be an effective additive for 

molds.

More extensive stability processes were 

investigated, which included re-hydration and oxidation. While stability is 

achievable, the cost to build and operate 

such a process is not insignifi cant and 

the product is degraded.

Permitting an ACCP SynCoal® plant 

does not appear to be a problem, and 

the most likely application seems to be 

integrated with a power plant to take 

advantage of available heat and ash 

handling and to avoid expensive stability processing and added product ash 

removal. The estimated capital cost of 

a 100 ton/hour ACCP plant integrated 

into a power station is $39 million.
3-52

CCPI-1

Clean Coal Fuels

Upgrading G

Conversion O

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 will 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 1.0 million 

tons/year of coal waste will be removed that would otherwise contribute to contamination of watersheds through leaching of minerals and acid water formation. 

In the conversion process, coal waste is fed to a Shell oxygen-blown, entrainedbed 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 (H2

S). This raw synthesis gas is cleaned in a 

patented RectisolTM process, which removes nearly all of the COS and H2S. Clean 

synthesis gas (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, cleanburning reformulated gasoline or used as sulfur-free on-board reforming feed for 

fuel cell-powered vehicles. 

Gilberton Coal-toClean Fuels and 

Power Co-Production 

Project

Participant

WMPI PTY., LLC

Additional Team Members

Nexant, Inc. — engineering 

support

Shell Global Solutions B.V., U.S. 

— technology partner

Unde GmbH. — gasifi cation 

technology supplier

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

Total $612,480,000 100%

DOE 100,000,000 16

Participant 512,480,000 84
3-53

S

T

A

T

U

S

R

e

p

o

r

t

O

p

e

r

a

t

i

o

n

C

o

n

s

t

r

u

c

t

i

o

n

D

e

s

i

g

n

P

r

e

A

w

a

r

d

Project Duration

TBD

Period of Operation

TBD

Status/Schedule

*Estimated date

Benefi ts

This project addresses a long-standing environmental issue associated with vast 

abandoned coal waste piles while providing a sorely needed alternative source 

of high-grade, ultra-clean transportation fuels. Well over a billion tons of coal 

waste resides in Pennsylvania, Illinois, West Virginia, and Ohio. With successful 

demonstration of project technologies, coal waste that has threatened major watersheds may become low-cost feedstock to help fuel our nation’s transportation 

fl eet and contribute to energy independence. This project will process about 1.0 

million tons per year of coal waste materials from the Gilberton site. If successful, this technology could be applied in many regions of the country where coal 

wastes currently are stockpiled, and signifi cantly reduce waste disposal activities 

from operating coal mines. The FT transportation fuels produced 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, 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. If successful, this project is of suffi cient scale to reduce technical, 

business, and fi nancial risks, clearing the way for subsequent applications.

Status/Accomplishments

This project was selected for award on January 8, 2003. Negotiations are proceeding toward award of a cooperative agreement. A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was signed with SASOL to commence negotiations for the use 

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

Governor Rendell announced that the State of Pennsylvania is entering 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, PA and on January 10, 2006, in Pottsville, 

PA. 

WMPI is holding discussions with team members to resolve issues that are delaying the award of the project. 

Contacts

Participant

John W. Rich Jr., President

(570) 874-1602

jwrich@ultracleanfuels.com

WMPI PTY., LLC

10 Gilberton Road

Gilberton, PA 17934

Selection 1/03

Award TBD

Construction TBD

Operation TBD

Final Report

Issued TBD

Operation

Completed TBD

NETL

Diane Revay Madden

(412) 386-5931

diane.madden@netl.doe.gov

Headquarters

Joseph Giove

(301) 903-4130

joseph.giove@hq.doe.gov

Draft Report

Issued TBD
3-54

Objectives

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

moisture 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 lowrank 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 full-scale 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 is to replicate 

the fi rst dryer to provide suffi cient dryer capacity to fully fuel the 546-MW unit, 

and to optimize plant operation on dried lignite and evaluate performance. The 

full boiler dryer system uses plant cooling water 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 and to a fl uidized-bed coal dryer 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 the 120 °F water from the condenser. In practice, a twostage 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 

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

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 and Couteau 

Properties — 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
3-55

S

T

A

T

U

S

R

e

p

o

r

t

O

p

e

r

a

t

i

o

n

C

o

n

s

t

r

u

c

t

i

o

n

D

e

s

i

g

n

P

r

e

A

w

a

r

d

Project Duration

54 Months

Period of Operation

8 Months

Final Report

Issued 6/09*

Operation

Completed 12/08*

Operation 4/08*

Construction 4/07*

Award 7/04

Selection 1/03

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.

Major components of the prototype dryer for phase 1 of the project were delivered 

to the plant site in July 2005, and a ribbon cutting event for the project was held 

on August 9, 2005. Integration of the prototype dryer components, installations 

of conveyors, and fi nal electrical and mechanical connections were completed. 

After completing startup and commissioning, around-the-clock operations of the 

prototype dryer and data collection began in March 2006. Initial data show that 

with just one pulverizer using dried coal, boiler effi ciency increased 0.3 percentage points; sulfur oxide emissions fell 2.0 percent; nitrogen oxide emissions 

decreased 8.5 percent; and carbon dioxide emissions decreased 0.34 percent. 

GRE has conducted capacity tests with throughputs ranging up to 105 tons per 

hour, about 93 percent of the dryer capacity. Following successful operation of 

the fi rst dryer, phase 2 of the project will provide completion of design, construction, and operation of dryer capacity for the full plant. GRE has initiated phase 

2 activities in September 2006.

NEPA Completed

(EA and FONSI) 1/04

Contacts

Participant

Charles Bullinger

(701) 442-7001

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

Status/Schedule

*Estimated date (phase 2)

Draft Report

Issued 3/09*
3-56
3-57

Industrial Applications
3-58

CCPI-1

Industrial Applications

Direct Coal Use G

By-Product Use O

Advanced MultiProduct Coal 

Utilization By-Product 

Processing Plant

Participant

University of Kentucky Research 

Foundation Center for Applied 

Energy Research (CAER)

Additional Team Members

Kentucky Utilities (a subsidiary 

of LG&E Corporation) — host

CEMEX USA — commercialization partner

Location

Ghent, Carroll County, KY 

(Kentucky Utilities’ Ghent Power 

Station)

Technology

CAER’s hydraulic classifi cation 

and froth fl otation benefi ciation 

process (Fast FloatTM)

Project Capacity/

Production

197,500 tons/yr of high quality 

marketable products from coal 

ash

Coal

Pittsburgh bituminous 

Project Funding

Total $8,979,544 100%

DOE 4,480,793 50

Participant 4,498,751 50

Objective

To demonstrate that the coal utilization by-product (CUB) benefi ciation process 

developed by the University of Kentucky Research Foundation’s Center for Applied Energy Research (CAER) can convert nearly the entire CUB produced by 

the Ghent Power Station into a variety of useful products, including:

156,000 tons/yr of high quality, cementious pozzolan;

16,000 tons/yr of high grade, lightweight aggregate;

16,000 tons/yr of graded fi ll sand;

1,500 tons/yr of high quality polymeric fi ll; and

8,000 tons/yr of recycled carbon fuel.

Technology/Project Description

The project will utilize the CAER benefi ciation process technology that is based 

on hydraulic classifi cation and froth fl otation (Fast FloatTM). Raw coal ash feed 

will be reclaimed from the Ghent Power Station’s ash storage ponds. The feed 

enters a hydraulic classifi er where material is separated into two basic sizes 

— a -200 mesh fi ne size and a +200 mesh coarse size. Coarse materials enter 

spiral concentrators that classify (separate by size and weight) and concentrate 

the incoming material into a lightweight aggregate suitable for masonry block, 

graded fi ll sand, and a coarse carbon fuel. The -200 mesh fi ne material is treated 

with a patented reagent before entering froth fl otation cells where fi ne carbon is 

separated, leaving a stream of pozzolan material. The bulk of the pozzolan stream 

is subsequently concentrated and dried to produce a high-quality substitute for 

Portland cement. A fraction of the pozzolan stream is further processed hydraulically to produce a 9- to 4-micron size material for use as a polymer additive or 

other fi ller applications. 
3-59

S

T

A

T

U

S

R

e

p

o

r

t

O

p

e

r

a

t

i

o

n

C

o

n

s

t

r

u

c

t

i

o

n

D

e

s

i

g

n

P

r

e

A

w

a

r

d

Project Duration

56 Months

Period of Operation

12 Months

Status/Schedule

*Estimated date

Selection 1/03

Award 11/04

NEPA Completed 

(EA and 

FONSI) 11/04

Construction 7/07*

Operation 7/08*

Operation 

Completed 6/09*

 Final Report

Issued 12/09* 

Contacts

Participant

Dr. Thomas L. Robl

(859) 257-0272

robl@caer.uky.edu

University of Kentucky Center 

for Applied Energy Research

2540 Research Park Drive

Lexington, KY 40511

NETL

Dr. Sai Gollakota

(304) 285-4151

sai.gollakota@netl.doe.gov

Headquarters

Joseph Giove

(301) 903-4130

joseph.giove@hq.doe.gov

Benefi ts

Each year the U.S. electric utility industry generates about 100 million tons of 

CUB, including fl yash, scrubber sludge, and bottom ash. Currently, less than 

one-third of these waste products are used. The remainder is disposed of in impoundments or in landfi lls. Greater reuse of CUB can offset future land use and 

minimize the production of greenhouse gases. Portland cement manufacturing 

releases approximately 1 ton of CO2 per ton of cement produced, equating to an 

annual emission rate of approximately 47 million tons. The CAER benefi cation 

process produces a high-quality pozzolan that can be used at higher cement 

substitution levels in concrete (i.e., 30 percent versus 20 percent). The demonstration project alone is targeted to produce 156,000 tons/yr of high-quality 

pozzolan. This increased utilization rate represents a signifi cant greenhouse gas 

avoidance potential. 

Status/Accomplishments

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

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

(FONSI) in November 2004. The project was awarded a cooperative agreement 

in November 2004.

Ash pond core sampling, analysis, and mapping have been completed. Results 

indicate the pond volume exceeds 200 million cubic feet and contains more 

than 7 million tons of ash. In May 2005, it was decided that the demonstration 

project will be fed entirely from the ash pond as opposed to directly from the 

power station.

A mobile fi eld system is being operated at Ghent to evaluate unit processing 

confi gurations and to process about 140 tons of material for product evaluation. 

CAER has conducted parametric tests on the primary and secondary classifi ers, 

and has evaluated a series of retention times and dispersant dosages on the secondary classifi er to produce an ultra-fi ne ash product. Composite bulk quantities 

of processed ash have been generated from each of the process confi gurations 

evaluated. The composite products have been characterized in terms of their 

grade, chemistry, and processing cost, and are being assessed for their use as a 

cement replacement in mortar and concrete mix designs.

Draft Report

Issued 9/09*
3-60

Objectives

To demonstrate conversion of 115,000 tons/year of spray dryer solid residue 

into 150,000 tons/year of lightweight aggregate meeting or exceeding American 

Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) specifi cations for commercial construction-grade products, such as masonry blocks or lightweight concrete, including 

compressive strength.

Technology/Project Description

The project demonstrates conversion of spray dryer solid residue and other solid 

wastes from the 250-MW Birchwood Power Facility into construction-grade 

lightweight aggregate applicable to masonry block, lightweight concrete, or 

asphalt paving material. In the process, residue from the spray dryer and other 

solid wastes from the power plant are blended in a mixer (pug mill) with water 

to produce a uniform granular material. The loose, moist material then is fed to 

an extruder that intensifi es mixing by shearing the material as it is forced through 

holes in a metal die to form wet “green” pellets. The green pellets are tumbled 

with additional dry spray dryer residue, embedding the residue into the pellets. 

The pellets are dried and hardened in a curing vessel specially designed to allow 

the solids to fl ow continuously, avoiding choke points and impediments that could 

hang up the material. After curing, the hardened pellets are crushed and screened 

to specifi cation, then stockpiled for sale as manufactured aggregates. Once consistent operation is achieved, the Universal Aggregates manufacturing process at 

the Birchwood Power Facility will produce 150,000 tons of aggregate a year.

Benefi ts

As new environmental standards take effect, power companies are expected to 

install more scrubbers, including spray dryer technology like that applied at the 

Commercial 

Demonstration of 

the Manufactured 

Aggregate Processing 

Technology Utilizing 

Spray Dryer Ash

PPII

Participant

Universal Aggregates, LLC

Additional Team 

Members

P.J. Dick, Inc. — project 

management and construction

SynAggs, LLC — marketing

Location

King George County, VA 

(Birchwood Power Facility)

Technology

Universal Aggregate’s manufacturing process for conversion of 

spray dryer solid residue into 

construction-grade aggregate

Plant Capacity/

Production

150,000 tons/year of lightweight 

aggregate 

Coal

Bituminous, 0.9% sulfur

Project Funding

Total $19,581,734 100%

DOE 7,224,000 37

Participant 12,357,734 63

Industrial Applications

Direct Coal Use G

By-Product Use O
3-61

S

T

A

T

U

S

R

e

p

o

r

t

O

p

e

r

a

t

i

o

n

C

o

n

s

t

r

u

c

t

i

o

n

D

e

s

i

g

n

P

r

e

A

w

a

r

d

Project Duration

50 Months

Period of Operation

31 Months

Status/Schedule

*Estimated date

Final Report

Issued 6/07*

Operation

Completed 12/06*

Operation 6/04

Construction 3/03

Award 11/02

Selection 9/01

Birchwood Power Facility. While air quality will improve, scrubber waste tonnage inevitably will increase, placing greater burdens on landfi lls and increasing 

waste disposal costs. Of the 28 million tons of scrubber residue produced annually today by coal-fi red plants, only about 30 percent is reused and most of that 

is from wet scrubbers. Providing the means to convert dry scrubber residue to 

salable by-products is deemed crucial by many in the power industry who believe 

that, as additional scrubbing is required, dry scrubbers will be the technology 

of choice. There currently are 21 spray dryer facilities operating in the United 

States that produce an adequate amount of spray dryer residue to economically 

justify the installation of a lightweight aggregate manufacturing facility. The 

construction aggregate market in the United States is estimated to be about 2 

billion tons annually.

Status/Accomplishments

On November 14, 2002, a cooperative agreement was awarded. The National 

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

Assessment (EA) and a Finding of No Signifi cant Impact (FONSI) on October 

2, 2002.

Universal Aggregates is working through control of process parameters, refi nements to chemical compositions, and equipment modifi cations in an effort to 

achieve steady-state operation. Retention times and water sprays in the pug mill 

had to be adjusted. Variations in calcium hydroxide levels in spray dryer residue 

have required installation of a secondary lime slaker. Universal Aggregates is 

performing various parametric tests to determine a suitable admixture capable of 

stiffening the extruded material. The tests include various combinations of sand, 

bottom ash, and recycled embedding material.

While improvements have been realized with the extruder, problems continue 

with components of the curing vessel, dust collection, and the ash transfer system. 

The plant has not been able to consistently operate in a fully integrated mode. 

Modifi cations to improve operation continue. Some of the modifi cations to improve operation include: changes to the curing vessel rotary feed and delivery 

chute arrangement; fabrication and installation of a dust collection system at 

the base of the curing vessel; changes to the ash feed system; installation of a 

recirculating system for the curing vessel; and a new centralized baghouse that 

replaced two smaller units.

NEPA Completed

(EA and 

FONSI) 10/02

Contacts

Participant

Gary Cairns

(412) 370-7812

garycairns@universal

aggregates.com

Universal Aggregates, LLC

1020 Lebanon Road

West Miffl in, PA 15122-1036

NETL

Wolfe Huber

(412) 386-5747

wolfe.huber@netl.doe.gov

Headquarters

Joseph Giove

(301) 903-4130

joseph.giove@hq.doe.gov

Draft Report

Issued 3/07*
3-62

Western Greenbrier 

Co-Production 

Demonstration 

Project

CCPI-1

Industrial Applications

Direct Coal Use G

By-Product Use O

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 applies 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 can be generated. Initially, about 10 percent of the ash generated 

will be used to produce a salable by-product, and about 800 tons/day will be 

used for remediation of acid water formation. The CFB power plant will be an 

anchor tenant in a planned, environmentally balanced industrial park (Eco-Park). 

The advanced CFB incorporates 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. 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 (NOx

), sulfur dioxide (SO2), particulate matter (PM), 

and mercury. Steam from the CFB boiler drives a nominal 100-MW (net) steam 

turbine. 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 

Participant

Western Greenbrier 

Co-Generation (WGC), LLC

Additional Team Members

Alstom Power, Inc. — technology 

supplier

Hazen Research, Inc. —

technology supplier

Midway Environmental 

Associates — technology supplier

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 $214,983,758 100%

DOE 107,491,879 50

Participant 107,491,879 50
3-63

S

T

A

T

U

S

R

e

p

o

r

t

O

p

e

r

a

t

i

o

n

C

o

n

s

t

r

u

c

t

i

o

n

D

e

s

i

g

n

P

r

e

A

w

a

r

d

Project Duration

80 Months

Period of Operation

12 Months

Status/Schedule

*Estimated date

Final Report

Issued 10/11*

Operation

Completed 12/10*

Operation 12/09*

Construction 5/07*

Selection 1/03

Award 4/04 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

nrekos@netl.doe.gov

Headquarters

Joseph Giove

(301) 903-4130

joseph.giove@hq.doe.gov

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 is a model of industrial ecology at its best, applying advanced technology to: (1) generate energy from wastes, alleviating an environmental problem; 

(2) maximize energy generated and associated effi ciency; (3) produce salable byproducts, 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 

contaminates streams and rivers. Successful integration of project technologies 

and approaches can serve as a model for regions around the world interested in 

remediation of similar refuse sites.

Status/Accomplishments

On April 29, 2004, the project was awarded a cooperative agreement. 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).

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. 

Western Greenbrier (WGC) is currently working to fi nalize the project agreements 

for product sales, fi nancing, construction, and plant operations. 

WGC has made a request to DOE to extend Phase I, project defi nition until April 

30, 2007. 

NEPA Launched 6/03

Draft Report

Issued 3/11*
3-64
A-1

Appendix A. Historical Perspective, 

Legislative History, and Public Laws

CCTDP Historical 

Perspective

There were a number of key events that 

prompted 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 a 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 was asked to examine incentives 

and disincentives for the commercial 

realization of new clean coal technologies. The task force also examined costeffective 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 

is the fuel of choice (if not necessity) 
A-2

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. The Secretary 

of Energy stated that the Department 

would ask 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. This 

request was made by the President on 

April 4, 1987.

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 

Electrifi cation 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 
A-3

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-4

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-5

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 the funds made available for obligation in prior years, 

$40,000,000 was deferred.

108-7 2/20/03 Of the funds made available for obligation in prior years, 

$87,000,000 was deferred.

108-108 11/10/03 Of the funds made available for obligation in prior years, 

$97,000,000 was deferred and $88,000,000 rescinded.

108-447 12/8/04 Of the 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.

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.

contained under this head in Public 

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

amended by this Act.” Approximately 

$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.

(continued)
A-6

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 as well as recisions. 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.

Recisions 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).

• $88 million was rescinded by Public Law 108-108.

In 1998, $40 million of the CCTDP 

funds were deferred by Public Law 105-

277. Funds were to be restored over a 

three year period beginning October 1, 

1999. Again in 1999, Congress deferred 

program funds. In Public Law 106-113, 

Congress deferred $156,000,000 until 

October 1, 2000. And in Public Law 

107-63, Congress deferred $40,000,000 

until October 1, 2002. In 2003, in 

Public Law 108-7, Congress deferred 

$87,000,000 until October 1, 2003. In 

Public Law 108-108, Congress deferred 

$97,000,000 until October 1, 2004 and 

in Public Law 108-447 Congress deferred $257,000,000 until October 1, 

2005. In Public Law 109-103, Congress 

deferred $257,000,000 and rescinded 

$20,000,000.

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.

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 

FY 2001 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 include 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 AgenExhibit 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-7

cies 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 forecasted to 

increase by 45 percent over the next 

20 years. The rising growth rate will 

require the construction of more than 

1,300 new power plants. Driven by 

the rise in the digital economy, higher 

quality electricity is in greater demand 

than ever before. New technologies 

coming from the computer revolution 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.

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 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. 

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-8

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 

coal-related research, development, and 

demonstration 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 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 to be offered 

at a later date.

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.

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 

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. 

109-103 11/19/05 Made an additional $50,000,000 available for CCPI. Comparable to prior years.

(continued)
A-9

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.

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 retrofi tting 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 
A-10

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% 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 requirements 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 non-Federal: 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 
A-11

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 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 fiscal 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 
A-12

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 

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 
A-13

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 

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-14

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.

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 

(CCTDP-III) 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 financing 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 employ-
A-15

ees 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.

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. 
A-16

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 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-17

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.

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.
A-18

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 

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.
A-19

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 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 
A-20

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.

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.
A-21

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 

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 
A-22

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, without 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 as-
A-23

sumptions 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 

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 
A-24

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.
B-1

Appendix B. CCTDP Financial History

This appendix provides predominately 

historical funding and cost information 

on the nearly completed CCTDP. As of 

June 30, 2006, there were 33 successfully completed projects. The fi nal active project withdrew prior to completion in March 2006 and is preparing a 

Final Report of activities performed 

prior to withdrawal. Exhibit B-1 sumExhibit 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 9 139,229 179,348 44 56

CCTDP-III 1,138,741 30 483,665 655,076 42 58

CCTDP-IV 950,429 25 439,063 511,366 46 54

CCTDP-V 0 0 0 0 0 0

Totala 3,252,110 100 1,301,597 1,950,513 40 60

Application Category

Advanced Electric Power 

Generation

1,978,492 61 814,099 1,164,393 41 59

Environmental Control Devices 620,110 19 252,866 367,244 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 1,301,597 1,950,513 40 60

a Totals may not add up to the total fi gure shown due to rounding.

b DOE share does not include $157,189,000 obligated for withdrawn projects and audit expenses.

marizes the costs associated with the 33 

successfully completed projects.

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 453,298 6,906 22,548 423,844

P.L. 101-121b CCTDP-IV 331,990 7,065 24,990 299,935

P.L. 101-121b CCTDP-V 429,934 5,427 25,000 399,507

Total 2,069,598 31,081 249,817 1,788,700

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, and 109-103.
B-2Exhibit B-3

Annual CCTDP Funding by Appropriations and Subprogram Budgets

(Dollars in Thousands)

Fiscal Year 1986–97 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Totald

Adjusted AppropriationsaP.L. 99-190 380,600 380,600P.L. 100-202 574,997 (101,000) (40,163) 9,962 14,980 15,000 473,776P.L. 100-446 574,998 (156,000) 156,000 (33,700) (185,000) 97,000 453,298P.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) 257,000 429,934

Total 2,407,529 (101,000) (40,163) (146,038) 8,980 8,290 (47,000) (98,000) (160,000) (20,000) 257,000 2,069,598

Subprogram BudgetsCCTDP-I Projects 318,231 (15,000) (14,900) (14,400) (14,000) (14,000) (15,000) 230,931CCTDP-II Projects 535,704 (101,000) (40,163) 9,962 14,980 15,000 434,483CCTDP-III Projects 545,544 (156,000) 156,000 (33,700) (185,000) 97,000 423,844CCTDP-IV Projects 394,935 (162,000) 27,000 40,000 299,935CCTDP-V Projects 419,507 (87,000) 87,000 (257,000) (20,000) 257,000 399,507Projects Subtotal 2,213,921 (116,000) (54,900) (160,438) (5,020) (5,700) (62,000) (98,000) (160,000) (20,000) 257,000 1,788,700Program Direction 162,527 15,000 14,900 14,400 14,000 13,990 15,000 249,817

Fossil Energy Subtotal 2,376,448 (101,000) (40,163) (146,038) 8,980 8,290 (47,000) (98,000) (160,000) (20,000) 257,000 2,038,517

SBIR & STTRc 31,081 31,081

Totald 2,407,529 (101,000) (40,163) (146,038) 8,980 8,290 (47,000) (98,000) (160,000) (20,000) 257,000 2,069,598

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, and 109-103.

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-5

Financial Status of the CCTDP as of June 30, 2006

(Dollars in Thousands)

Subprogram

Appropriations 

Allocated to 

Subprogramb

Apportioned

to Date

Committed

to Date

Obligated

to Date

Cost

to Date

CCTDP-I 230,931 230,931 257,047 257,047 257,047

CCTDP-II 434,483 434,483 165,369 165,369 165,369

CCTDP-III 423,844 423,844 506,012 506,012 506,012

CCTDP-IV 299,935 299,935 477,957 477,957 476,770

CCTDP-V 399,507 142,507 52,401 52,401 48,873

Projects Subtotal 1,788,700 1,531,700 1,458,786 1,458,786 1,454,071

SBIR & STTRa 31,081 31,081 31,081 31,081 31,081

Program Direction 249,817 249,817 249,817 249,817 249,342

Total 2,069,598 1,812,598 1,739,684 1,739,684 1,734,494

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

CCTDP Financial Activity by Fiscal Year

Exhibit B-4 presents the fi nancial activity of the CCTDP by fi scal year through 

June 30, 2006. SBIR and STTR funds 

are not included in Exhibit B-4 as these 

funds are tracked separately from the 

CCTDP. The negative Budget Authority values shown in Exhibit B-4 result 

from the rescission or deferral of funds 

as required by the annual appropriations bills. The negative obligations 

in FY03 resulted from the ending of 

two large projects. Unused funds that 

were committed to these projects were 

deobligated and made available for 

other purposes.

Exhibit B-5 shows the fi nancial status 

of the CCTDP through June 30, 2006, 

by subprogram. SBIR and STTR funds 

are included in this exhibit to account 

for all funding.
B-4

Exhibit B-6

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 257,000 2,069,598

Exhibit B-6 indicates the apportionment sequence as modifi ed by Public 

Law 109-103. These values represent 

the amount of budget authority available for the CCTDP.
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) and associated regulations 

promulgated by the Council for 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 possible documents that serve as 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 decisionmaker, 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

CCTDP

 Advanced Coal Conversion Process Demonstration EA FONSI issued 3/27/91

Clean Coal Diesel Demonstration Project EA FONSI issued 6/2/97

 JEA Large-Scale CFB Combustion Demonstration Project EIS ROD issued 12/7/00

 Kentucky Pioneer Energy IGCC Demonstration Project EIS (Base Project)

CX (Fuel Cell)

ROD issued 1/29/03

Completed 1/29/03

PPII

Achieving NSPS Emission Standards Through Integration of Low-NOx

Burners with an Optimization Plan for Boiler Combustion EA FONSI issued 3/11/03

 Big Bend Power Station Neural Network-Sootblower Optimization CX Completed 6/21/02

Commercial Demonstration of the Manufactured Aggregate Processing 

Technology Utilizing Spray Dryer Ash EA FONSI issued 10/2/02

Demonstration of a Full-Scale Retrofi t of the Advanced Hybrid Particulate 

Collector (Advanced HybridTM) Technology EA FONSI issued 6/11/02

Development of Hybrid FLGR/SNCR/SCR Advanced NOx

 Control N/A Project withdrawn

 Greenidge Multi-Pollutant Control Project EA FONSI issued 12/3/04

CCPI-1

Advanced Multi-Product Coal Utilization By-Product Processing Plant EA FONSI issued 10/12/04

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 In process

Increasing Power Plant Effi ciency – Lignite Fuel Enhancement EA FONSI issued 1/6/04

 TOXECON 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 In process

CCPI-2

 Airborne Process Commercial Scale Demonstration N/A Negotiations ended

Demonstration of a 285-MWe 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

ACCP advanced coal conversion 

process

ACFB atmospheric circulating 

fl uidized-bed

ADL Arthur D. Little, Inc.

A/E architect/engineering

AFBC atmospheric fl uidized-bed 

combustion

AHPC Advanced Hybrid 

Particulate Collector

AI artifi cial intelligence

API application programming 

interface

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

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

CCPI Clean Coal Power 

Initiative

CCPI-1 First CCPI solicitation

CCPI-2 Second CCPI solicitation

CD-ROM Compact disk-read only 

memory

CDS circulating dry scrubber

CEM continuous emissions 

monitor

CEQ Council on Environmental 

Quality

CFB circulating fl uidized-bed

CFBDS circulating fl uidized-bed 

dry scrubber

CFD Computational Fluid 

Dynamics

CFR Code of Federal 

Regulations 

CO carbon monoxide

CO2 carbon dioxide

COS carbonyl sulfi de

CSC convective syngas cooler

CSI Clear Skies Initiative

CUB coal utilization 

by-product(s)

CURC Coal Utilization Research 

Council

CWF coal-water fuel

CX Categorical Exclusion

DC/AC direct current/alternating 

current

DCS Distributed 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

EAF equivalent availability 

factor

EEC Environmental Elements 

Corporation

EIA U.S. Energy Information 

Administration

EIS Environmental Impact 

Statement

EIV Environmental 

Information Volume

EPA U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency

EPAct Energy Policy Act

EPRI Electric Power Research 

Institute

ESP electrostatic precipitator

FBC fl uidized-bed combustion

FD forced draft

FE Offi ce of Fossil Energy

FERC Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission

FFDC Fabric fi lter dust collector

FGD fl ue gas desulfurization

FLGR fl ue-lean gas reburn

FME Fairbanks Morse Engine

FONSI fi nding of no signifi cant 

impact

FSQ full-slurry quench

ft, ft2

, ft3 foot (feet), square feet, 

cubic feet

FT Fischer-Tropsch
D-2

FWEC Foster Wheeler Energy 

Corporation

FY fi scal year

gal gallon(s)

gal/ft3 gallons per cubic foot

GDP gross domestic product

GHG greenhouse gases

gob coal waste used as a fuel

gpm gallons per minute

gr grains

GR gas reburning

GRE Great River Energy

GW gigawatt(s)

GWe gigawatt(s)-electric

H2 molecular hydrogen

H2S hydrogen sulfi de

H2SO4 sulfuric acid

HAPs hazardous air pollutants

HCl hydrogen chloride

HF hydrofl uoric acid

Hg mercury

HHV higher heating value

HMI human-machine interface

HP high pressure

hr. hour(s)

HRSG heat recovery steam 

generator

ID induced draft

IGCC integrated gasifi cation 

combined-cycle

IGFC integrated gasifi cation fuel 

cell

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

LOI loss-on-ignition

LP low pressure

MACT maximum achievable 

control technology

MCFC molten carbonate fuel cell

MHz megahertz

mills/kWh mills per kilowatt-hour

min minute(s)

mo month(s)

MOU Memorandum of 

Understanding

MSW municipal solid waste

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

Na2CO3 sodium carbonate

Na2SO4 sodium sulfate

NEPA National Environmental 

Policy Act

NERC North American Electric 

Reliability Council

NETL National Energy 

Technology Laboratory

NH3 ammonia

NH4

HCO3 ammonium bicarbonate

NH4

NO3 ammonium nitrate

(NH4

)2SO4 ammonium sulfate

Nm3 normal cubic meter

NN-ISB neural network-intelligent 

sootblowing system

NO2 nitrogen dioxide

NOx nitrogen oxides

NSPS New Source Performance 

Standards

NSR New Source Review

O2 molecular oxygen

O3 ozone

O&M operation and maintenance

PC pulverized coal

PCD particulate collection 

device

PCF pulverized coal-fi red

PCFB pressurized circulating 

fl uidized-bed

Petcoke petroleum coke

PFBC pressurized fl uidized-bed 

combustion

PM particulate matter

PM10 particulate matter less than 

10 microns in diameter

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

RDF refuse-derived fuel

RFP request for proposals

ROD Record of Decision

ROM run-of-mine

rpm revolutions per minute

S sulfur

SAP sulfuric acid plant
D-3

SBIR Small Business Innovation 

Research

SCA site certifi cation 

application

scf standard cubic feet

scfm standard cubic feet per 

minute

SCR selective catalytic 

reduction

SCS Southern Company 

Services, Inc.

SDA spray dryer absorber

SIP State Implementation Plan

SNCR selective noncatalytic 

reduction

SO2 sulfur dioxide

SO3 sulfur trioxide

SOFA separated overfi re air

SOFC solid oxide fuel cell

SOW statement of work

STTR Small Business 

Technology Transfer 

Programs

syngas synthetic gas

TBD to be determined

TRI Toxics Release Inventory

TVA Tennessee Valley 

Authority

UAF University of Alaska, 

Fairbanks

U.K. United Kingdom

UKRF University of Kentucky 

Research Foundation

U.S. United States

VIP value improving practices

w.c. water column

w.g. water gage

WGC Western Greenbrier CoGenerating LLC

WMPI Waste Management 

Processors, Inc.

wt. weight

yr. year(s)

Other

Some companies have adopted an acronym as their corporate names. The 

following corporate names refl ect the 

former name of the company.

BG/L British Gas Lurgi

 JEA Jacksonville Electric Authority

KBR Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc.

KRW Kellogg Rust Westinghouse

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

Demonstration of Integrated Optimization 

Software at the Baldwin Energy 

Complex ES-5, 2-4, 3-7, 3-8, 3-10, 

3-22–3-23, C-2

Development of Hybrid FLGR/SNCR/

SCR Advanced NOx

 Control ES-5, 

3-7, 3-8, 3-10, 3-24–3-25, C-2

E

Excelsior Energy, Inc. 3-44–3-45

G

Gilberton Coal-to-Clean Fuels and Power 

Co-Production Project ES-5, 2-4, 

3-7, 3-8, 3-10, 3-52–3-53, C-2

Great River Energy ES-5, 3-7, 3-8, 3-9, 

3-54–3-55, D-2

Greenidge Multi-Pollutant Control 

Project ES-5, 2-3, 3-7, 3-8, 3-10, 

3-26–3-27, C-2

I

Increasing Power Plant Effi ciency 

– Lignite Fuel Enhancement ES-5, 

2-4, 3-7, 3-8, 3-10, 3-54–3-55, C-2

J

JEA ES-5, 3-7, 3-8, 3-9, 3-38–3-41, D-3

JEA Large-Scale CFB Combustion 

Demonstration Project ES-5, 3-7, 

3-8, 3-10, 3-38–3-41, C-2

K

Kentucky Pioneer Energy, LLC ES-5, 

3-7, 3-8, 3-9, 3-42–3-43

Kentucky Pioneer Energy IGCC 

Demonstration Project ES-5, 3-7, 

3-8, 3-10, 3-42–3-43, C-2

M

MEP-I LLC ES-5, 3-7, 3-8, 3-9, 3-44–

3-45

Mercury Specie and Multi-Pollutant 

Control ES-5, 2-5, 3-7, 3-8, 3-10, 

3-28–3-29, C-2

Mesaba Energy Project – Unit 1 ES-5, 

2-5, 3-7, 3-8, 3-10, 3-44–3-45, C-2

Mustang Clean Energy ES-5, 3-7, 3-8, 

3-9, 3-14–3-15

N

NeuCo, Inc. ES-5, 3-7, 3-8, 3-9, 3-22–

3-23, 3-28–3-29

O

Otter Tail Power Company ES-5, 3-7, 

3-8, 3-9, 3-20–3-21

P

Peabody Energy 3-14–3-15

Pegasus Technologies ES-5, 3-7, 3-8, 

3-9, 3-28–3-29

S

Southern Company Services, Inc. ES-5, 

3-7, 3-8, 3-9, 3-36–3-37, D-3

Sunfl ower Electric Power Corporation 

ES-5, 3-7, 3-8, 3-9, 3-12–3-13

T

Tampa Electric Company ES-5, 3-7, 3-8, 

3-9, 3-16–3-19

TIAX, LLC ES-5, 3-7, 3-8, 3-9, 3-24–

3-25, 3-34–3-35

TOXECON Retrofi t for Mercury and 

Multi-Pollutant Control on Three 90-

MW Coal-Fired Boilers ES-5, 2-4, 

3-7, 3-8, 3-10, 3-30–3-31, C-2

U

Universal Aggregates, LLC ES-5, 3-7, 

3-8, 3-9, 3-60–3-61

University of Kentucky Research 

Foundation ES-5, 3-7, 3-8, 3-9, 

3-58–3-59, D-3

W

Western Greenbrier Co-Generation, LLC 

ES-5, 3-7, 3-8, 3-9, 3-62–3-63, D-3

A

Achieving NSPS Emission Standards 

Through Integration of Low-NOx

Burners with an Optimization Plan 

for Boiler Combustion ES-5, 2-3, 

3-7, 3-8, 3-10, 3-12–3-13, C-2

Advanced Coal Conversion Process 

Demonstration ES-5, 3-7, 3-8, 3-10, 

3-48–3-51, C-2

Advanced Multi-Product Coal Utilization 

By-Product Processing Plant ES-5, 

2-4, 3-7, 3-8, 3-10, 3-58–3-59, C-2

Airborne Process Commercial Scale 

Demonstration ES-5, 3-7, 3-8, 3-10, 

3-14–3-15, C-2

Arthur D. Little, Inc. 3-24–3-25, 3-34–

3-35, D-1

B

Big Bend Power Station Neural NetworkSootblower Optimization ES-5, 2-3, 

3-7, 3-8, 3-10, 3-16–3-19, C-2

C

Clean Coal Diesel Demonstration Project 

ES-5, 2-2, 3-7, 3-8, 3-10, 3-34–3-35, 

C-2

Commercial Demonstration of the 

Manufactured Aggregate Processing 

Technology Utilizing Spray Dryer 

Ash ES-5, 2-3, 3-7, 3-8, 3-10, 

3-60–3-61, C-2

CONSOL Energy, Inc. ES-5, 3-7, 3-8, 

3-9, 3-26–3-27

D

Demonstration of a 285-MWe CoalBased Transport Gasifi er ES-5, 2-5, 

3-7, 3-8, 3-10, 3-36–3-37, C-2

Demonstration of a Full-Scale Retrofi t 

of the Advanced Hybrid Particulate 

Collector Technology ES-5, 2-3, 3-7, 

3-8, 3-10, 3-20–3-21, C-2
Index-2

Western Greenbrier Co-Production 

Demonstration Project ES-5, 2-4, 

3-7, 3-8, 3-10, 3-62–3-63, C-2

Western SynCoal LLC ES-5, 3-7, 3-8, 

3-9, 3-48–3-51

Wisconsin Electric Power Company 

ES-5, 3-7, 3-8, 3-9, 3-30–3-31

WMPI PTY., LLC ES-5, 3-7, 3-8, 3-9, 

3-52–3-53, D-3
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