DOE/FE-0514

Clean Coal Technology Programs: 

Program Update 2007

Includes Clean Coal Technology Demonstration 

Program (CCTDP), Power Plant Improvement 

Initiative (PPII), and Clean Coal Power Initiative 

(CCPI) Projects

As of September 2007

U.S. Department of Energy

Assistant Secretary for Fossil Energy

Washington, DC 20585 January 2008

TECHNOLOGY
DOE/FE-0514

Clean Coal Technology Programs: 

Program Update 2007

Includes Clean Coal Technology Demonstration 

Program (CCTDP), Power Plant Improvement 

Initiative (PPII), and Clean Coal Power Initiative 

(CCPI) Projects

As of September 2007

U.S. Department of Energy

Assistant Secretary for Fossil Energy

Washington, DC 20585 January 2008

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

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

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

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

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

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

National Energy Technology Laboratory’s Clean Coal Technology Compendium, 

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

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

please contact:

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

Program Update 

c/o Gene H. Kight

Sr. Financial & Procurement Director

FE-20/Germantown Building

U.S. Department of Energy

1000 Independence Ave. S.W.

Washington DC 20585-1290

(301) 903-2624

(301) 903-9301 (fax)

gene.kight@hq.doe.gov

 Printed with soy ink on recycled paper

Dr. Sam Biondo

Director

Offi ce of Clean Energy Systems

FE-22/Germantown Building

U.S. Department of Energy

1000 Independence Ave. S.W.

Washington DC 20585-1290

(301) 903-2700

samuel.biondo@hq.doe.gov
Program Update 2007 Evaluation

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

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

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

next edition of this document.

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

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

Tear Here

Not 

Used

Not

Effective

Very

Effective

Comments?

Executive Summary 0 1 2 3 4 5

Chapter 1. Role of Clean Coal Technology 

Demonstrations

0 12345

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

Chapter 3. Projects 0 1 2 3 4 5

Appendix A. Historical Perspective, Legislative History, and Public Laws0 12345

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

Appendix C. NEPA Actions and Status for 

Active Projects

0 12345

Appendix D. Acronyms, Abbreviations, 

and Symbols

0 12345

What do you fi nd is the best and most 

effective part of the Program Update?

What do you fi nd is the least effective part 

of the Program Update?

Do you have any other suggestions on 

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

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

Fold Here

Fold Here

First

Class

Postage

Required

Program Update Evaluation

c/o 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 Projects ..............................ES-3

Chapter 1. Role of Clean Coal Technology 

Demonstrations

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

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

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

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

Chapter 2. Funding and Costs

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

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

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

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

General Provisions and Project Administration ......... 2-4

Chapter 3. Projects

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

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

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

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

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

Advanced Power Systems ........................................ 3-25

Clean Coal Fuels ...................................................... 3-31

Industrial Applications ............................................. 3-37

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, PPII Project Costs and Financial

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

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

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

Exhibit 2-4, 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, Advanced HybridTM Stack Test Results 3-14

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 

2007 is to provide an updated status of 

the U.S. Department of Energy (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 2007 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 September 30, 2007.

Role of Clean 

Coal Technology 

Demonstrations

Coal accounts for over 94 percent of 

the proven fossil energy reserves in 

the United States, and supplies about 

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 

recently 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, and 

Hydrogen Fuel Initiative. The program 

further addresses the requirements of 

the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency’s (EPA) Clean Air Interstate 

Rule (CAIR) and the Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR).
ES-2

Clean Coal Technology 

Demonstrations

Beginning in 1985, DOE has shared in 

the funding of commercial-scale demonstration projects through the CCTDP, 

PPII, and CCPI. While the specific 

technologies and focus of the programs 

continued to evolve over time, all three 

programs shared similar general provisions and administrative principals.

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 the environmental objectives for America embodied in the 

President’s 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 carbon sequestration, advanced turbines, gas separation 

membranes, fuel cells, new gasifi cation 

processes, 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 funding is provided 

under the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act.

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

projects under the CCTDP. Project 

sponsors have contributed 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 September 30, 2007, one project was ongoing 

and three 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 
ES-3

PPII projects total over $30 million, 

with participants contributing nearly 

$41 million or 57 percent of the total 

project costs.

The solicitation for Round 1 of CCPI 

(CCPI-1) was completed in January 

2003 with the selection of eight projects. As of September 30, 2007, four 

projects were under way with two 

projects in the operation phase. One 

project remained in the negotiation 

phase, two projects did not progress 

beyond the negotiation phase, and one 

project withdrew prior to completion. 

DOE’s funding commitments represent 

less than 30 percent ($255 million) of 

the total estimated costs ($932 million) 

for the projects, while participant commitments are $677 million.

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

of four projects. As of September 30, 

2007, three projects were under way 

and one project ended during the negotiation phase. The three active projects 

are valued at $3 billion with DOE commitments of nearly $336 million.

On October 4, 2007, DOE released the 

draft Funding Opportunity Announcement for CCPI Round 3 (CCPI-3). 

CCPI-3 specifi cally focuses on technologies that capture and sequester 

CO2

 emissions or put them to benefi cial 

reuse. Demonstration goals include 

technologies that capture and sequester 

at least 50 percent of CO2 emissions 

with potential towards 90 percent carbon capture while increasing the cost 

of electricity by less than 10 percent. 

Project selections for CCPI-3 are expected in November 2008.

Clean Coal Technology 

Projects

Program Update 2007 provides project 

fact sheets for 12 ongoing or recently 

completed 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 ES1 groups the projects by market sector 

and indicates the demonstration program, participant, and status for each 

project. 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) EPA’s 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); and (4) EPA’s Clean Air 

Mercury Rule (CAMR).

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

Oxygen-enhanced combustion that 

displaces a portion of the air with 

oxygen in low-NOx

 burners.

Mercury Controls. Mercury controls 

address EPA’s CAIR/CAMR regulations 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 fi lter dust collectors (FFDC);

Oxidizing agents in conjunction 

with wet fl ue gas desulfurization 

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

•

•

•

•

•
ES-4

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 particulate matter (fly 

ash) less than 2.5 microns in diameter 

(PM2.5) 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:

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 and Hydrogen Fuel Initiatives 

by enhancing power generation effi -

ciency, producing near-zero pollutant 

emissions, and providing for hydrogen 

separation and carbon dioxide (CO2) 

capture and sequestration. Advanced 

power system technologies include:

Integrated gasifi cation combinedcycle (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 by-products;

Circulating fluidized-bed (CFB) 

combustion systems that utilize 

low-grade fuels and waste materials 

to generate power at high effi ciency 

and very low emissions, without 

the parasitic power drain of add-on 

environmental controls;

•

•

•

Hybrids that effectively integrate 

IGCC and CFB technologies; and

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 the Global 

Climate Change Initiative. Technologies include coal drying and ash removal methods to signifi cantly increase 

coal energy density.

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.

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, pos-

•

•
ES-5

Exhibit ES-1

Projects by Market Sector

Project Program Participant Statusa Page

Emissions Control

Demonstration of a Full-Scale Retrofi t of the Advanced 

Hybrid Particulate Collector (Advanced HybridTM) 

Technology

PPII Otter Tail Power Company Completed 3-12

Demonstration of Integrated Optimization Software at the 

Baldwin Energy Complex

CCPI-1 NeuCo, Inc. Operation 3-16

 Greenidge Multi-Pollutant Control Project PPII CONSOL Energy, Inc. Operation 3-18

Mercury Specie and Multi-Pollutant Control CCPI-2 Pegasus Technologies Design 3-20

 TOXECON Retrofi t for Mercury and Multi-Pollutant 

Control on Three 90-MW Coal-Fired Boilers

CCPI-1 Wisconsin Electric Power Company Operation 3-22

Advanced Power Systems

Demonstration of a 285-MWe Coal-Based Transport Gasifi er CCPI-2 Southern Company Services, Inc. Construction 3-26

 Mesaba Energy Project – Unit 1 CCPI-2 MEP-I LLC Design 3-28

Clean Coal Fuels

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

Project

CCPI-1 WMPI PTY., LLC Negotiation 3-32

Increasing Power Plant Effi ciency – Lignite Fuel 

Enhancement

CCPI-1 Great River Energy Construction 3-34

Industrial Applications

 Advanced Multi-Product Coal Utilization By-Product 

Processing Plant

CCPI-1 University of Kentucky Research 

Foundation

Withdrawn 3-38

Commercial Demonstration of the Manufactured Aggregate 

Processing Technology Utilizing Spray Dryer Ash

PPII Universal Aggregates, LLC Completed 3-40

 Western Greenbrier Co-Production Demonstration Project CCPI-1 Western Greenbrier Co-Generation, 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.

ing 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-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 about 50 percent of the 

electricity vital to the nation’s economy 

and global competitiveness. To support 

continued domestic economic growth, 

demand for electricity is projected to 

increase by approximately 40 percent 

by 2030. In the Energy Information 

Agency’s Annual Energy Outlook 2007

reference case, coal is projected to account for at least 50 percent of the new 

generating capacity additions through 

2030. 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 

1. Role of Clean Coal Technology 

Demonstrations

risks at the demonstration stage, the 

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) 

initiated the Clean Coal Technology 

Demonstration Program (CCTDP) in 

1985. The CCTDP forged cost-sharing 

partnerships between DOE, non-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 recently concluded, with 

33 successfully completed demonstration projects. The fi nal active project 

withdrew in March 2006 prior to completion, and submitted a Final Report 

in March 2007 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

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; and

FutureGen Initiative: to establish 

the capability and feasibility of coproducing electricity and hydrogen 

from coal with essentially zero 

emissions, including the low-cost 

capture and storage of carbon dioxide (CO2

).

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 appropriation of the 

government’s share of the costs;

Multiple solicitations spread over 

a number of years enabling clean 

coal technologies to address a broad 

range of national needs with a portfolio of evolving technologies;

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

potential;

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 pollutants 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 •••••
1-3

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, fluidized-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 30–95 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 known as the PPII. By the 

deadline of April 19, 2001, some 24 

candidate projects had been submitted 

for government cost-shared fi nancial 

assistance.

On September 28, 2001, DOE selected 

eight projects. Subsequently, three of 

the eight projects were withdrawn by 

their industrial sponsors, and a fourth 

project withdrew prior to successful 

completion. Of the four remaining 

projects, three have completed and one 

is in operation.

CCPI 

In the 21st century, additional environmental concerns have emerged: the potential health impacts of trace emissions 

of mercury, the effects of microscopic 

particles on people with respiratory 

problems, and the global climate-altering impact of 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-financing for new coal 

technologies that can help utilities 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.

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-fuel-based 

energy complexes in the 21st century. 

The Clean Coal Technology Roadmap, 

developed cooperatively with the coal 

and power industry, addresses short- 
1-4

and long-term coal technology needs. 

When integrated with these and 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 nearzero 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 gas emissions to 

economic output) by 18 percent by 

the year 2012. 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 fi ve ongoing CCPI-1 projects, 

two are expected to contribute to the 

Global Climate Change Initiative to 

reduce greenhouse gases by boosting 

the fuel use effi ciency of power plants. 

A third 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. 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 

Implementing a Comprehensive 

Energy Strategy: Energy Policy 

Act of 2005 (EPAct)

Expanding the availability of 

power from clean coal technologies

EPAct authorizes funding for the 

Clean Coal Power Initiative (CCPI), 

focused on accelerated coal research, 

development and demonstration. New 

technologies will help us use coal — 

our nation’s most abundant fossil fuel 

— in an environmentally sensitive 

way for generations to come. EPAct 

authorizes $200 million of annual 

funding to help develop cutting-edge 

research. The goal is to dramatically 

reduce emissions of pollutants such 

as sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides 

and mercury, and improve the coalto-product effi ciency for all types of 

coal by 2020. 

While CCPI is focused on demonstrations of new and improved technologies, EPAct also authorizes investment tax incentives that provide $1.6 

billion in investment tax credits for 

the deployment of early commercial 

coal gasifi cation and other advanced 

coal technologies. Taken together, the 

CCPI and investment tax incentives 

provide a clear path for advanced coal 

technologies to progress from R&D 

through demonstration to affordable 

commercial deployment. 

Samuel W. Bodman

Secretary

U.S. Department of Energy
1-5

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. Subsequently, one project withdrew during 

negotiations while the remaining three 

are ongoing. The three active projects 

are valued at over $3 billion, with DOE 

commitments of over $335 million.

The choice of the CCPI-2 solicitation 

categories refl ected DOE’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.

On October 4, 2007, DOE released 

the draft Funding Opportunity Announcement for the third solicitation 

(CCPI-3). CCPI-3 specifi cally focuses 

on technologies that capture and sequester CO2

 emissions or put them to 

benefi cial reuse. DOE has established 

the following goals for demonstration 

at commercial-scale in a commercial 

setting: 

Technologies that capture and sequester at least 50 percent of CO2

emissions from the proposed facility, or put them to benefi cial reuse;

Technologies that show signifi cant 

progress toward 90 percent carbon 

capture; and

Technologies that show signifi cant 

progress toward CO2

 capture and 

sequestration with less than 10 percent increase in electricity costs. 

•

•

•
1-6

CCPI-3 is also structured to allow 

demonstration projects under CCPI to 

integrate with ongoing sequestration 

fi eld tests, which might already be fully 

operational when new projects become 

available.

The remaining competitions are also 

likely to emphasize advanced technologies for reducing greenhouse gas 

(GHG) emissions through dramatic 

improvements in fuel use and power 

generating effi ciencies and by GHG 

capture and sequestration. 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 

environmental effectiveness at the lowest possible cost. 
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 2007 2008 Total c

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 58,154 TBD 105,787

Program Support 948 1,500 1,490 1,701 493 495 604 7,231

SBIR & STTRa 3,935 3,909 4,709 1,367 1,372 1,675 16,967

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

Total 95,000 150,000 150,000 172,000 50,000 50,000 60,433 TBD 727,433

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.

c

 As of September 30, 2007, appropriations for FY2008 had not been signed into law.

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 funding is 

provided under the Energy and Water 

Development Appropriations Act.

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. The CCTDP 

has concluded with 33 successfully 

completed projects. The fi nal active 

project submitted the Final Report in 

March 2007.

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 September 30, 2007, one project was ongoing 

and three 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 $600 million 

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

programs. The amount of appropriated 

funds available for project awards is 

reduced by Program Support, the Small 

Business Innovation Research (SBIR) 

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

other adjustments. Program Support 

provides for a share of the DOE administrative expenses of the programs. 

The SBIR program implements the 

Small Business Innovation Development Act of 1982, and provides funding 

for small, innovative fi rms in selected 

research and development 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 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 

September 30, 2007, seven CCPI projects were under way with one project 

remaining in the negotiation phase. 

Three projects did not progress beyond 

the negotiation phase and one project 

withdrew after award.
2-2

CCTDP

Congress has appropriated a net amount 

of $2.1 billion for CCTDP project 

awards and program administration 

expenses. These funds were committed to demonstration projects selected 

through fi ve competitive solicitations. 

The CCTDP has concluded with 33 

successfully completed projects. The 

fi nal active project withdrew prior to 

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

2007. The successfully completed 

projects resulted in a combined investment by the federal government and 

the private sector of $3.25 billion. DOE 

contributed $1.3 billion toward these 

projects, representing approximately 

40 percent of the total project costs. 

Project participants contributed the 

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

completed projects. 

Appendix B provides a fi nancial history 

of the CCTDP. 

PPII

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

291) through a transfer of $95 million 

in funding previously appropriated for 

the CCTDP. Funds were committed to 

demonstration projects from a single 

solicitation issued in February 2001. 

From 24 applications, eight projects 

were selected for negotiation in September 2001.

As of September 30, 2007, three 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. One project is 

ongoing. No additional solicitations are 

planned, and unused funds are intended 

for use under CCPI.

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 2-2 summarizes 

the project costs and fi nancial status 

of the PPII projects as of September 

30, 2007. The fi nancial status for the 

individual projects is provided under 

the “DOE Obligated” and “DOE Cost” 

columns in Exhibit 2-2. The amount 

shown under DOE obligated indicates 

the amount DOE has funded toward 

the total DOE share of the project. The 

costs indicate the amount invoiced to 

DOE for payment. 
2-3

Exhibit 2-2

PPII Project Costs and Financial Status 

(Dollars)

Total 

Project Costs DOE Share DOE Obligated DOE Cost 

Achieving NSPS Emission Standards Through Integration of Low-NOx

 Burners with an Optimization Plan for 

Boiler Combustion (project 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

(project complete)

19,581,734 7,224,000 7,224,000 7,222,409

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 32,742,976 14,341,423 14,341,423 13,405,177

Total PPII 71,064,781 30,348,551 30,348,551 29,410,714

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). Activities are under way for 

a third solicitation (CCPI-3).

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, four are ongoing, one remains 

in negotiation, and one withdrew after 

award. As of September 30, 2007, the 

total cost of the projects was estimated 

at about $932 million, with the DOE 

share being approximately $255 million.

DOE funding commitments for the six 

awarded CCPI-1 projects represent less 

than 30 percent of the total estimated 

cost, while participant commitments 

National

Energy

Policy

Report of the

National Energy Policy Development Group

May 2001
2-4

exceed $675 million. The largest project in terms of total cost has proposed 

over 80 percent participant funding, 

showing the strong commitment by 

participants to demonstrate clean coal 

technologies. Exhibit 2-3 summarizes 

the project cost and fi nancial status of 

the CCPI-1 projects as of September 

30, 2007.

Funding for CCPI-2 was provided by 

an appropriation of $172 million for 

Exhibit 2-3

CCPI-1 Project Costs and Financial Status 

(Dollars)

Total 

Project Costs DOE Share DOE Obligated DOE Cost 

Advanced Multi-Product Coal Utilization By-Product 

Processing Plant (withdrawn) 1,245,305 621,407 621,407 621,407

Demonstration of Integrated Optimization Software 

at the Baldwin Energy Complex 19,904,733 8,592,630 8,592,630 8,423,659

 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 13,518,737 6,945,960

 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 7,878,470 7,733,348

Total CCPI-1 932,294,126 255,084,231 55,470,822 48,583,952

FY04 and an appropriation of $50 

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

appropriations. In February 2004, DOE 

issued the CCPI-2 solicitation offering 

approximately $280 million in federal 

funds. In October 2004, four projects 

were selected, 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 nearly $294 million of 

an $844 million total project cost.

Exhibit 2-4 summarizes the project 

costs and fi nancial status of the CCPI-2 

projects as of September 30, 2007.

On October 4, 2007, DOE released the 

draft Funding Opportunity Announcement for CCPI-3. Funds appropriated 

for FY06 and FY07 were intended for 

use towards CCPI-3; however, some of 

these funds were committed to ongoing 

projects that have experienced cost 

growth. Funds appropriated for FY08 

will be used toward CCPI-3.

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 
2-5

cost-sharing approach was introduced 

in Public Law 99-190, An Act Making 

Appropriations for the Department of 

the Interior and Related Agencies for 

the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 

1986, and for Other Purposes. General 

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

demonstration projects, include the 

following elements:

The federal government may not 

fi nance more than 50 percent of the 

total costs of a project;

Cost-sharing by the project participant is required throughout 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 

•

•

•

•

•

Exhibit 2-4

CCPI-2 Project Costs and Financial Status 

(Dollars)

Total 

Project Costs DOE Share DOE Obligated DOE Cost 

Demonstration of a 285-MWe Coal-Based Transport 

Gasifi er 844,267,321 293,750,000 243,386,111 12,675,945

Mercury Specie and Multi-Pollutant Control 15,560,811 6,079,479 3,577,451 2,090,559

 Mesaba Energy Project – Unit 1 2,155,680,783 36,000,000 22,245,505 13,376,666

Total CCPI-2 3,015,508,915 335,829,480 269,209,067 28,143,170

government to recoup up to the full 

amount of the federal government’s 

contribution. This approach enables 

taxpayers to benefi t from commercially 

successful projects. This is in addition to the benefi ts derived from the 

demonstration and commercial deployment of technologies, 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 
2-6

project prior to contract award. At 

the beginning of each budget period, 

DOE makes available the incremental 

amount of federal funds necessary to 

cover the government’s cost-share for 

that period. This procedure limits the 

government’s fi nancial exposure and 

assures that DOE fully participates 

in the decision to proceed with each 

major phase of project implementation. 

Through these activities, the federal 

government ensures the effi cient use 

of public funds in the achievement of 

individual project and overall program 

objectives.

Wabash River Generating Station IGCC.
3-1

3. Projects

Introduction

This chapter provides fact sheets on 

clean coal technology demonstration 

projects encompassing the 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 Clean Coal Technology Programs: 

Program Update 2006.

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 

10 of the 12 projects covered in the 

report that are ongoing and have not 

completed fi nal documentation. The 

two-page fact sheets provide information on project participants, location, 

and funding; present project objectives; 

describe the project and technology; 

delineate benefits derived from the 

project; characterize project status and 

accomplishments; and defi ne planned 

schedules. 

Four-page fact sheets are provided for 

two projects (Demonstration of a FullScale Retrofi t of the Advanced Hybrid 

Particulate Collector and Commercial 

 Demonstration of the Manufactured 

Aggregate Processing Technology 

Utilizing Spray Dryer Ash) that have 

completed fi nal documentation of project activities. These fact sheets include 

key findings and sufficient project 

discussion to establish a context for 

the fi ndings, and identify sources for 

additional information. Both projects 

completed operations in 2006.

Technology Overview

Following is an overview of some of 

the major technology areas, underlying drivers, and associated challenges 

that are the current focus of clean coal 

technologies.

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); and (4) EPA’s Clean Air 

Mercury Rule (CAMR).

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

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) can be used with neural network 

•

•

•

Advanced optimization software for enhanced emissions control is being demonstrated 

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

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.

By the end of 2010, the challenge is 

to reduce NOx emissions to 0.15 lb/106 

Btu or less with technologies costing 

75 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 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 fl y ash in 

electrostatic precipitators (ESP) or 

fabric fi lter dust collectors (FFDCs), 

also referred to as “baghouses;”

Oxidizing agents in conjunction 

with wet fl ue gas desulfurization 

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

Real-time measurement of mercury 

species and total mercury, for process control and validation.

Solid sorbents adsorb the mercury and 

then are removed in either an ESP or 

FFDC. Oxidizing agents or mechanisms convert vapor-state elemental 

mercury to a solid-state mercury oxide 

that can be captured in ESPs, FFDCs, 

or wet FGDs. For plants equipped 

with wet FGDs, the oxidizing agent 

can be incorporated with the scrubber 

slurry used for sulfur capture. 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.

By the end of 2010, the challenge 

is to achieve 90 percent removal of 

mercury at 50–75 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. 

•

•

•

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

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. 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 uoric acids. 

SO3 analyzers measure input and output 

levels for control and validation.

By the end of 2010, the challenge is to 

reduce PM2.5 by 99.99 percent for less 

than $50 to $70 per kilowatt (kW), 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 for 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 

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 and Hydrogen Fuel Initiatives 

by enhancing power generation effi -

ciency, producing near-zero pollutant 

emissions, and providing for hydrogen 

separation and carbon dioxide (CO2

) 

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

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 fluidized-bed (CFB) 

combustion systems that utilize 

low-grade fuels and waste materials 

to generate power at high effi ciency 

and very low emissions, without 

the parasitic power drain of add-on 

environmental controls; and

Advanced combustion techniques 

that use oxygen in lieu of air or 

chemical means, such as chemical 

looping, to effect the equivalent of 

combustion.

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

components by applying heat under 

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

with pure oxygen, provides the heat. 

Together the heat and pressure break the 

bonds between feedstock constituents 

and precipitate chemical reactions, producing syngas — primarily hydrogen 

and carbon monoxide. Minerals in the 

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

from the gasifi er primarily as hydrogen 

sulfi de, which is easily converted to 

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

combustion, effectively mix feedstocks 

with SO2

 absorbents, and entrain the 

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

solids from the fl ue gas. Hot separated 

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

heat exchanger to produce steam that 

drives a steam turbine. The mixing and 

recycling action of the CFB allows high 

•

•

•

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

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. 

By the end of 2010, the challenge is 

to move today’s coal-based advanced 

power systems from roughly 40 percent effi ciency to between 45 and 50 

percent.

Clean Coal Fuels

Upgrading. Upgrading coal quality 

enhances power plant effi ciency and 

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

CAMR, and Global Climate Change 

Initiatives. Upgrading technologies 

include coal drying and ash removal 

methods to signifi cantly increase coal 

energy density.

The challenge in coal drying and ash 

removal is to realize a net energy ben- efi 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.

By the end of 2010, the challenge resides in reducing process costs so that 

products are competitive with transportation fuels in the world market and 

reduce the GHG impact to a level equal 

to or less than petroleum refi ning.

Industrial Applications

Direct Coal Use. Efforts under this 

area address substitution of coal for 

premium fuels in industrial applications 

such as coal for coke in steel making 

operations, and coal for oil or natural 

gas in energy production.

By-product Use. Efforts under this area 

address utilization of the vast amount of 

solid residue that is the by-product of 

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.

By the end of 2010, 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 over 60 percent. 

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 (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. ••
3-6

General project information is provided 

in sidebars 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 lled-in box (appears as a black 

box). At the top of the second page of 

each fact sheet, the project duration 

and period of operation are indicated in 

months. The project duration is the time 

from project award to the operation 

completed date. 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/

index.html. The latest versions of the 

individual project fact sheets can be 

viewed by following the appropriate 

CCT program link (CCPI or PPII) 

from the web address above, selecting 

a particular project, and clicking on the 

“Project Brief” link.

The Clean Coal Today newsletter offers 

readers a quarterly look at clean coal 

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

status, and listing the latest publications 

and upcoming events. Current and 

past editions of the Clean Coal Today

newsletter can be found at http://www.

netl.doe.gov/technologies/coalpower/

cctc/newsletter/newsletter.html.

As projects unfold, NETL publishes 

Topical Report documents at critical 

junctures, highlighting particular technological advantages, project plans, 

and expected outcomes. Upon project 

completion, Project Performance 

Summary documents are published, 

providing synopses of the projects and 

highlighting operational, environmental, and economic performance. NETL 

also publishes a DOE assessment of 

each completed project.
3-7

Exhibit 3-1

Project Fact Sheets by Market Sector

Project Program Participant Status Page

Emissions Control

Demonstration of a Full-Scale Retrofi t of the Advanced 

Hybrid Particulate Collector (Advanced HybridTM) 

Technology

PPII Otter Tail Power Company Completed 3-12

Demonstration of Integrated Optimization Software at 

the Baldwin Energy Complex

CCPI-1 NeuCo, Inc. Operation 3-16

 Greenidge Multi-Pollutant Control Project PPII CONSOL Energy, Inc. Operation 3-18

 Mercury Specie and Multi-Pollutant Control CCPI-2 Pegasus Technologies Design 3-20

 TOXECON Retrofi t for Mercury and Multi-Pollutant 

Control on Three 90-MW Coal-Fired Boilers

CCPI-1 Wisconsin Electric Power Company Operation 3-22

Advanced Power Systems

Demonstration of a 285-MWe Coal-Based Transport 

Gasifi er

CCPI-2 Southern Company Services, Inc. Construction 3-26

 Mesaba Energy Project – Unit 1 CCPI-2 MEP-I LLC Design 3-28

Clean Coal Fuels

 Gilberton Coal-to-Clean Fuels and Power CoProduction ProjectCCPI-1 WMPI PTY., LLC Negotiation 3-32

Increasing Power Plant Effi ciency – Lignite Fuel 

Enhancement

CCPI-1 Great River Energy Construction 3-34

Industrial Applications

Advanced Multi-Product Coal Utilization By-Product 

Processing Plant

CCPI-1 University of Kentucky Research 

Foundation

Withdrawna 3-38

 Commercial Demonstration of the Manufactured 

Aggregate Processing Technology Utilizing Spray 

Dryer Ash

PPII Universal Aggregates, LLC Completed 3-40

 Western Greenbrier Co-Production Demonstration 

Project

CCPI-1 Western Greenbrier Co-Generation, 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.
3-8

Exhibit 3-2

Project Fact Sheets by Program

Project Participant Status Page

PPII

 Commercial Demonstration of the Manufactured Aggregate Processing 

Technology Utilizing Spray Dryer Ash

 Universal Aggregates, LLC Completed 3-40

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

Particulate Collector (Advanced HybridTM) Technology

 Otter Tail Power Company Completed 3-12

 Greenidge Multi-Pollutant Control Project CONSOL Energy, Inc. Operation 3-18

CCPI-1

Advanced Multi-Product Coal Utilization By-Product Processing Plant University of Kentucky Research Foundation Withdrawna 3-38

Demonstration of Integrated Optimization Software at the Baldwin 

Energy Complex

 NeuCo, Inc. Operation 3-16

 Gilberton Coal-to-Clean Fuels and Power Co-Production Project WMPI PTY., LLC Negotiation 3-32

Increasing Power Plant Effi ciency – Lignite Fuel Enhancement Great River Energy Construction 3-34

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

90-MW Coal-Fired Boilers

 Wisconsin Electric Power Company Operation 3-22

 Western Greenbrier Co-Production Demonstration Project Western Greenbrier Co-Generation, LLC Design 3-44

CCPI-2

Demonstration of a 285-MWe Coal-Based Transport Gasifi er Southern Company Services, Inc. Construction 3-26

 Mercury Specie and Multi-Pollutant Control Pegasus Technologies Design 3-20

 Mesaba Energy Project – Unit 1 MEP-I LLC Design 3-28

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

NeuCo, Inc.

Baldwin, IL

(CCPI-1)

Great River Energy

Underwood, ND

(CCPI-1)

Otter Tail Power Company

Big Stone City, SD

(PPII)

Wisconsin

Electric Power Company

Marquette, MI

(CCPI-1)

Western Greenbrier

Co-Generation, LLC

Rainelle, WV

(CCPI-1)

University of Kentucky

Research Foundation 

Ghent, KY

(CCPI-1)

WMPI PTY, LLC

Gilberton, PA

(CCPI-1)

CONSOL Energy, Inc.

Dresden, NY

(PPII)

Universal Aggregates, LLC

King George County, VA

(PPII)

Pegasus Technologies

Jewett, TX

(CCPI-2)

Southern Company

Services, Inc.

Orlando, FL

(CCPI-2)

MEP-I, LLC

Taconite, MN or

Hoyt Lakes, MN

(CCPI-2)
3-10

2001 2005 2009 2002 2006 2010 2003 2007 2012 2004 2008 2011

Calendar Year

Preaward Design and Construction Operation and Reporting

Emissions Control

Demonstration of a Full-Scale Retrofit of the 

Advanced Hybrid Particulate Collector 

(Advanced HybridTM) Technology

Demonstration of Integrated Optimization 

Software at the Baldwin Energy Complex

Greenidge Multi-Pollutant Control Project

Mercury Specie and Multi-Pollutant Control

TOXECON Retrofit for Mercury and 

Multi-Pollutant Control on Three 90-MW 

Coal-Fired Boilers

Advanced Power Systems

Demonstration of a 285-MW Coal-Based 

Transport Gasifier

Mesaba Energy Project – Unit 1

Clean Coal Fuels

Gilberton Coal-to-Clean Fuels and Power 

Co-Production Project

Increasing Power Plant Efficiency – Lignite 

Fuel Enhancement

Industrial Applications

Advanced Multi-Product Coal Utilization 

By-Product Processing Plant

Commercial Demonstration of the 

Manufactured Aggregate Processing 

Technology Utilizing Spray Dryer Ash

Western Greenbrier Co-Production 

Demonstration Project

Project in negotiation

Demonstration Operations Complete

Demonstration Operations Complete

Withdrawn

Exhibit 3-4

Project Schedules by Market Sector
3-11

Emissions Control
3-12

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 HybridTM, formerly 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 collector (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 for 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 are 

expected to require power plants to remove a high percentage of particulates 

2.5 microns or less (PM2.5). 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 

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
3-13

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

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

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 

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 provided 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 period of performance for the project ended on January 31, 2006.

The fi rst six 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 baffl es in an effort to improve fl ow and pressure drop. Also, one-third 

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. Due to the continuing problems, Otter Tail Power Company 

decided to replace the Advanced HybridTM with a proven particulate control 

technology.

Status/Schedule

*Estimated date

Final Report

Issued 8/06

Operation

Completed 1/06

Draft Report

Issued 5/06
3-14

Results Summary

Operational

The commercial demonstration 

represented a signifi cant scale up 

from the pilot scale unit (approx. 

2.5 MW or 9,000 actual cubic feet 

per minute (ACFM)). The AHPC 

was retrofi tted successfully into the 

existing ESP.

During the fi rst six months of operation, the AHPC achieved the 

anticipated particulate removal 

effi ciency. However, the pressure 

drop was higher than targeted.

The high pressure drop led to increased bag cleaning, which contributed to premature bag failures, high 

power requirements for the pulse air 

compressor and induced draft (ID) 

fan, and ultimately to derates of the 

unit as high as 55 MW.

The ESP portion of the Advanced 

HybridTM was not achieving the 

particulate removal levels anticipated due to a portion of the incoming 

fl ue gas bypassing the ESP components. Various membrane bag types 

and baffl es were installed to address 

these issues and were not entirely 

successful. 

•

•

•

•

In an effort to improve the ESP 

performance, Advanced HybridTM 

components were installed in the 

previously unused fi rst fi eld of the 

ESP casing. Unfortunately, there 

were problems with plate alignment in the new fi eld that actually 

resulted in less particulate precollection, and high pressure drops 

continued to be observed.

Environmental

After initial installation and startup 

in October 2002, stack tests were 

conducted in November 2002. 

These tests confirmed that the 

Advanced HybridTM is highly effective in capturing total particulate 

matter with an average collection 

effi ciency being greater than 99.995 

percent. The results are provided in 

Exhibit 3-5.

The testing performed also showed 

the Advanced HybridTM is highly 

effi cient at removal of a number 

of trace elements in the fl ue gas 

(Antimony, Arsenic, Beryllium, 

Cadmium, Chromium, Lead, and 

Nickel). The Advanced HybridTM 

is relatively ineffective in removing 

mercury, since much of the mercury 

is in the vapor state.

•

•

•

Although the Advanced HybridTM 

showed impressive results in capturing particulate matter and removal of many trace elements, 

the pressure drop problems led to 

premature bag failures and unacceptable opacity excursions on 

several occasions.

Economic

The Advanced HybridTM demonstrated extremely high particulate 

removal for all size ranges of particulate, as long as the fi lter bags 

remained intact. The high pressure 

drop operating issues necessitated 

replacement of the original fi lter 

bag materials with lower fl ow resistance but less durable materials. 

If the pressure drop and related bag 

failure issues can be overcome, then 

this technology may have a huge 

market potential.

The capital cost for this unit refl ected a fi rst-of-a-kind installation that 

is typically more expensive than 

subsequent installations. Further, 

the installation was done in two 

phases and during limited length 

shutdowns, both factors that increased costs. The installation cost 

for both phases were approximately 

$42/kW; however, the cost for the 

•

•

•

Exhibit 3-5

Advanced HybridTM Stack Test Results

Date

Sample

Method

Advanced 

HybridTM Inlet 

Dust Loading,

grains/scf

Advanced 

HybridTM Inlet 

Dust Loading,

lb/106 Btu

Stack Dust 

Loading,

grains/scf

Stack Dust 

Loading,

lb/106 Btu

Particulate 

Collection 

Effi ciency,

%

11/18/2002 EPA Method 17 0.00002 0.00003 99.998

11/19/2002 EPA Method 29

Multicyclones

1.02092

0.64099

1.38378

0.86882

11/20/2002 EPA Method 17

EPA Method 29

EPA Method 29

0.85856

0.92151

1.16372

1.24904

0.00006 0.00008 99.994

11/21/2002 EPA Method 17

Multicyclones

Multicyclones

0.66113

0.70044

0.89611

0.94940

0.00003 0.00004 99.997
3-15

‘nth’ installation is estimated at 

$30/kW.

Operating and maintenance costs 

for the Advanced HybridTM were 

signifi cantly higher than the original ESP. Most of these increased 

costs were related to the pressure 

drop issues. If further development 

resolved the pressure drop issues, 

it is expected that the operating 

and maintenance costs would be 

reduced substantially.

Project Summary

This project demonstrated the Advanced HybridTM technology originally 

developed and tested by Energy and 

Environmental Research Center (University of North Dakota) on a 2.5 MWe 

slipstream at Otter Tail’s Big Stone 

Plant near Milbank, South Dakota. 

The research was initially supported 

by the Innovations for Existing Plants 

•

component of the DOE Fossil Energy 

Coal R&D Program. 

The full-scale demonstration of the 

Advanced HybridTM was performed 

at the 450 MW Big Stone Plant from 

October 2002 through December 2005. 

The technology consists of fabric fi lter 

bags interspersed with perforated electrostatic precipitator (ESP) plates and 

electrodes in the same housing. The 

fi lter bags can achieve greater collection of very fi ne particles than can the 

ESP plates, while the ESP plates can 

capture dust that is re-entrained due to 

back-pulsing of the fabric fi lter bags.

The Advanced HybridTM demonstrated 

extremely high particulate removal for 

all size ranges of particulate as long as 

the fi lter bags remained intact. To address pressure drop issues, the original 

filter bags were replaced with bags 

having lower fl ow resistance but less 

durable materials. Further problems 

were encountered with the effectiveness of the ESP portion of the device. 

These issues led to frequent bag cleaning cycles and limited bag life. Several 

bag failures resulted in unacceptable 

opacity excursions.

The technology has signifi cant market 

potential; however, the fl ow dynamics and the synergy of the membrane 

filter bags with the ESP need to be 

perfected and optimized. Unfortunately, 

the project was not able to overcome 

these issues in the first, full-scale 

demonstration. If the problems encountered during this demonstration 

can be resolved, as seems probable, the 

Advanced HybridTM technology can be 

a viable option if more stringent emission standards are placed on respirable 

particulate matter.

Full-scale Advanced HybridTM retrofi t at Big Stone
3-16

Demonstration 

of Integrated 

Optimization Software 

at the Baldwin Energy 

Complex

CCPI-1

Emissions Control

Mercury O NOx O

SO2 O PM2.5 O

Objectives

The project objectives are 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 integrate individual optimization modules 

through NeuCo’s ProcessLink® platform; and to reduce the Baldwin Energy 

Complex nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions by 5 percent, increase effi ciency by 1.5 

percent, and improve reliability and availability, thereby increasing net annual 

electrical power production by 1.5 percent.

Technology/Project Description

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, and 

SCR operations. Optimization modules shall be developed for overall unit thermal 

performance, and plant-wide maintenance optimization (modules include software and additional sensors and actuators, as required). These fi ve optimization 

modules will be integrated through NeuCo’s ProcessLink architectural platform 

that includes neural networks, genetic algorithms, and “fuzzy logic” techniques. 

ProcessLink capabilities enable the various optimization techniques at the Baldwin Energy Complex to be linked to each other, leveraging the existing control 

network. Each module will be designed, installed, and individually tested 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, thus giving the user a single interface for insight and decision making 

support. 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 for consumers.

Benefi ts

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

Participant

 NeuCo, Inc.

Additional Team 

Members

Dynegy Midwest Generation 

— host

Location

Baldwin, Randolph County, IL 

(Dynegy Midwest Generation’s 

Baldwin Energy Complex)

Technology

Advanced optimization software, 

building on NeuCo’s 

ProcessLink® technology

Project Capacity/

Production

1,768 MW

Coal

Powder River Basin 

subbituminous

Project Funding

Total $19,094,733 100%

DOE 8,592,630 45

Participant 10,502,103 55
3-17

Project Duration

45 Months

Period of Operation

12 Months

Status/Schedule

*Estimated date

Operation 11/06

Construction 5/04

Selection 1/03

Award 2/04

Contacts

Participant

John McDermott, Vice President, Product Management

(617) 587-3198

mcdermott@neuco.net

NeuCo, Inc.

800 Boylston Street

Prudential Tower, Floor 30

Boston, MA 02199

NETL

George W. Pukanic

(412) 386-6085

george.pukanic@netl.doe.gov

Headquarters

Joseph Giove

(301) 903-4130

joseph.giove@hq.doe.gov

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

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

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

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

introduction of new technologies, and plant modifi cations, this integrated process optimization approach can be an important tool for plant operators. 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 percent; and the plant’s reliability and availability is expected to improve, 

increasing net annual electrical power production by 1.5 percent, thus lowering 

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.

During the project, NeuCo designed, developed, and installed the ProcessLink®

platform on all three units. In addition, NeuCo designed and installed combustion optimization (CombustionOpt) modules on the two cyclone-fi red boilers 

(Units 1 and 2), and 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). Several software packages supporting the sootblowing optimization module (SootOpt) have been installed on 

the tangentially fi red boiler (Unit 3). NeuCo further designed, developed, and 

installed the performance optimization module (PerformanceOpt) on all three 

units at Baldwin. NeuCo also installed and revised the maintenance optimization 

module (MaintenanceOpt) on Units 1, 2 and 3. Work is ongoing to fi ne tune all the 

Optimizers to further improve achieved benefi ts. NeuCo submitted repayments 

after the commercial sales of CombustionOpt for cyclone boilers, SootOpt, and 

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 5/08*

Operation

Completed 11/07*

Draft Report

Issued 2/08*
3-18

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 will include 

biomass co-fi ring at heat inputs up to 10 percent.

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 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 4)

Coal

Bituminous coal (>2% sulfur) 

co-fi red with up to 10% biomass

Project Funding 

Total $32,742,976 100%

DOE 14,341,423 43.8

Participant 18,401,553 56.2
3-19

Project Duration

29 Months

Period of Operation

20 Months

Operation 3/07

Construction Ongoing

 at award

Award 5/06

Selection 9/01

Benefi ts

The U.S. power industry is seeking lower cost and more compatible multi-pollutant control alternatives to SCR and wet scrubbers for the 473 domestic coal-fi red 

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

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

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

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

Greenidge Unit 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 one-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 as 

part of the Toxics 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

An Environmental Assessment (EA) was completed and a Finding of No Signifi cant Impact (FONSI) was issued on December 3, 2004. Following protracted 

negotiations, the project was awarded on May 19, 2006, with design and construction activities already underway.

Construction was substantially completed in December 2006 and startup and 

commissioning began. The project moved to the operations and testing phase in 

March 2007. At the end of June 2007, the project met the performance guarantee 

levels for NOx

, SO2, SO3, HCl, mercury, and ammonia slip. Testing and tuning to 

establish operational parameters and optimization for various levels of generation 

output are ongoing.

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*
3-20

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, Limestone County, TX 

(NRG Texas Limestone Plant)

Technology

Pegasus Technologies’ sensors 

and neural network-based optimization and control system for 

enhanced mercury and multipollutant control

Project Capacity/

Production

890 MW (gross); 14,500 tons 

of coal/day input

Coal

Texas lignite and Powder River 

Basin subbituminous

Project Funding

Total $15,560,811 100%

DOE 6,079,479 39

Participant 9,481,332 61
3-21

Project Duration

49 Months

Period of Operation

19 Months

Selection 10/04

Award 4/06

Construction 12/07*

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 was signed in April 2006. 

Following several instrumentation problems and limited outage opportunities at 

the host site, the installation of all critical sensor components was completed in 

July 2007. Baseline testing is planned for November 2007 followed by parametric 

testing that will enable development of neural network optimization algorithms to 

minimize emissions of mercury and other regulated pollutants and to maximize 

plant effi ciency. The fi nal phase of the project will involve a long-term operational 

demonstration of plant-wide optimization.

Contacts

Participant

John McDermott, Vice President, Product Management

(617) 587-3198

mcdermott@neuco.net

NeuCo, Inc.

800 Boylston Street

Prudential Tower, Floor 30

Boston, MA 02199

NETL

Michael H. McMillian

(304) 285-4669

michael.mcmillian@netl.doe.gov

Headquarters

Joseph Giove

(301) 903-4130

joseph.giove@hq.doe.gov

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*
3-22

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); 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 hotside 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.
3-23

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

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

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

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

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

, and 32 

tons of fi ne PM.

Status/Accomplishments

Construction activities were completed in December 2005, and activated carbon 

was fi rst injected the following month.

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

powdered activated carbon (PAC) injection system, achieving an average of 90 

percent mercury removal. Ash handling and dust control process issues still need 

to be resolved before continuous long term system reliability can be achieved. 

Preliminary long-term testing indicates that frequent pulse cleaning of the baghouse keeps fresh, effective carbon on the bags and enhances mercury capture. 

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

bicarbonate carbonate) indicated 70 percent SO2

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

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

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

the sodium-based sorbent. The project is continuing to investigate cost improvements while maintaining greater than 90 percent mercury removal as well as 

improvements for control of PM, NOx and SO2 emissions. Also, PM loading in 

the baghouse is being optimized for mercury removal effi ciency. 

Contacts

Participant

Steve Derenne

(414) 221-4443

steven.derenne@wepowerllc.com

We Energies

333 W. Everett St., MCP-145

Milwaukee, WI 53203

NETL

Michael H. McMillian

(304) 285-4669

michael.mcmillian@netl.doe.gov

Headquarters

Joseph Giove

(301) 903-4130

joseph.giove@hq.doe.gov

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*
3-24
3-25

Advanced Power Systems
3-26

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 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 syngas and fi ne char that are not 

captured in the cyclone are cooled in a heat exchanger before entering a metallic 

candle-fi lter particulate collection device (PCD), which removes any remaining 

particulate matter from the gas. Beyond the candle-fi lter PCD, state-of-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, LLC 

(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 $844,267,321 100%

DOE Share 293,750,000 34.8

Participant 550,517,321 65.2
3-27

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

54 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 

syngas from low-rank, high moisture, and high ash coals, whereas most other 

gasifi cation technologies cannot. Such coals make up half the proven reserves in 

both the United States and the world. The transport gasifi er can also be operated 

on oxygen, which affords the option to produce chemicals 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. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 

requirements were met with an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and issuance of a Record of Decision (ROD) in April 2007. Detailed design and equipment 

procurement are progressing as scheduled. 

Due to the world market conditions for material availability, services, and lead 

times required for equipment fabrication and construction, the cost of the project 

has increased signifi cantly from $569 million to $844 million. 

The groundbreaking ceremony was held on September 10, 2007, at the Stanton 

Energy Center in Orlando, Florida.

Contacts

Participant

Randall Rush

(205) 992-6319

rerush@southernco.com

Southern Company Services, Inc.

42 Inverness Center Parkway

Bin B228

Birmingham, AL 35242

Selection 10/04

Award 1/06

Construction 9/07

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*

NEPA Completed 4/07

(EIS)
3-28

CCPI-2

Advanced Power Systems

IGCC O CFB G

Hybrid G Adv Comb G

Objectives

To demonstrate: a generating capacity that is double that 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 15–20 percent lower than the current average 

for U.S. coal-based 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 606-MWe (net) 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 generate steam. Particulate 

Mesaba Energy 

Project – Unit 1

Participant

MEP-I LLC

( Excelsior Energy, Inc.)

Additional Team 

Members

ConocoPhillips — technology 

holder

EPC — to be determined

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 606 MWe (net); 4,731 tons 

of coal/day input

Coal

PRB subbituminous (preferred)

Illinois Basin #6 bituminous

Project Funding

Total $2,155,680,783 100%

DOE 36,000,000 1.7

Participant 2,119,680,783 98.3
3-29

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

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 Mesaba project will implement the commercial design confi guration coming 

out of the VIP process and subsequent research and development.

Status/Accomplishments

The environmental site permitting process is ongoing, with the Minnesota Public 

Utilities Commission (PUC) assessing Excelsior Energy’s submittals for a Large 

Electric Generating Plant Site Permit, High Voltage Transmission Line Route 

Permit, Natural Gas Pipeline Routing Permit, and other environmental-related 

permits.

The PUC continues to review Excelsior Energy’s request for a Power Purchase 

Agreement (PPA). In August 2007, the PUC qualifi ed the proposed Mesaba IGCC 

plant for regulatory advantages as an Innovative Energy Project under Minnesota 

statute, but also found the PPA lacked suffi cient protections for ratepayers. While 

neither approving nor denying the request, the PUC urged the parties to negotiate with other Minnesota utilities having a baseload need and re-draft the PPA. 

A synopsis of the PUC fi ndings can be found on its Web site at: http://www.puc.

state.mn.us/news_events/mesabapetition.pdf.

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*
3-30
3-31

Clean Coal Fuels
3-32

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 one 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, 

clean-burning 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
3-33

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 one 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, 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 was signed with SASOL to commence negotiations for the use of SASOL’s 

FT technology in the proposed project. On September 29, 2005, Pennsylvania 

Governor Ed Rendell announced that the state entered into an agreement to buy 

the fuel products from the project.

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

on January 9, 2006, in Shenandoah, PA and on January 10, 2006, in Pottsville, 

PA. 

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
3-34

Objectives

To demonstrate a 25 percent reduction in lignite moisture content (e.g., 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 prototype dryer module 

capable of producing one-fourth of the dry lignite requirement for the plant. In 

phase 2, which follows successful operation of the fi rst dryer, GRE will build 

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

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

full boiler dryer system uses plant cooling water and fl ue gas as the major heating medium. Water drawn from the cooling tower captures heat from the steam 

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

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

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

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

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

Benefi ts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Increasing Power 

Plant Effi ciency – 

Lignite Fuel 

Enhancement

CCPI-1

Clean Coal Fuels

Upgrading O

Conversion G

Participant

Great River Energy (GRE)

Additional Team 

Members

Electric Power Research 

Institute — collaborator

Lehigh University —

collaborator

Barr Engineering — lignite 

handling

Falkirk Mining Company 

— lignite coal supplier

Location

Underwood, McLean County, 

ND (GRE’s Coal Creek Station)

Technology

GRE’s waste-heat dryer for 

low-rank coals

Project Capacity/

Production

546 MW 

Coal

Lignite

Project Funding

Total $31,512,215 100%

DOE 13,518,737 43

Participant 17,993,478 57
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

54 Months

Period of Operation

8 Months

Final Report

Issued 6/09*

Operation

Completed 12/08*

Operation 4/08*

Construction 6/07

Award 7/04

Selection 1/03

and thereby reduces emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2

), mercury, nitrogen oxides (NOx

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

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

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

Status/Accomplishments

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

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

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

July 9, 2004. 

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

dryer and data collection began in March 2006. The moisture of the processed lignite coal was reduced from about 38.5 percent to 29.5 percent. The prototype dryer 

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

, NOx, and 

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

of lignite fallout in the fi rst stage of the dryer, some material that is concentrated 

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

oxidation and facilitates additional capture in the fl ue gas desulfurization unit. 

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

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

drop, moisture reduction, and coal throughput. The fabrication of the fi rst two 

full-scale dryers is scheduled for completion in fall 2007. A total of four full-scale 

dryers are planned for the demonstration.

Outside the scope of the DOE CCPI project, GRE is planning to install coal dryers 

on another 546-MW unit at the Coal Creek Station with its own funds.

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

Draft Report

Issued 3/09*
3-36
3-37

Industrial Applications
3-38

CCPI-1

Industrial Applications

Direct Coal Use G

By-Product Use O

Advanced MultiProduct Coal 

Utilization By-Product 

Processing Plant

Project Withdrawn

Participant

University of Kentucky Research 

Foundation Center for Applied 

Energy Research (CAER)

Additional Team Members

Kentucky Utilities (a subsidiary 

of LG&E Corporation) — host

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 $1,245,305 100%

DOE 621,407 50

Participant 623,898 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. 

•

•

•

•

•
3-39

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

29 Months

Period of Operation

Project Withdrawn

Status/Schedule

*Estimated date

Selection 1/03

Award 11/04

NEPA Completed 

(EA and 

FONSI) 11/04

Construction N/A

Operation N/A

Operation 

Completed N/A

 Final Report

Issued 4/07

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 one ton of carbon dioxide per ton of cement produced, 

equating to an annual emission rate of approximately 47 million tons. The CAER 

benefi ciation 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 

seven 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 was operated at Ghent to evaluate unit processing confi gurations and to process about 140 tons of material for product evaluation. CAER 

conducted parametric tests on the primary and secondary classifi ers, and evaluated 

a series of retention times and dispersant dosages on the secondary classifi er to 

produce an ultra-fi ne ash product.

In November 2006, a fi nancial and commercialization partner decided not to 

continue participation in the project. CAER sought other potential partners; 

however, none was willing to commit to the funding necessary for the project to 

proceed. CAER withdrew from the project in March 2007.

Draft Report

Issued N/A

Withdrawn 3/07
3-40

Objectives

To demonstrate conversion of 115,000 tons/year of spray dryer ash (SDA) into 

167,000 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.

Technology/Project Description

The project demonstrates conversion of SDA 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 with water in a mixer (pug mill) 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, forming wet 

“green” pellets. The green pellets are tumbled with additional dry SDA 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 the goal of consistent operation is 

achieved, the Universal Aggregates manufacturing process at the Birchwood 

Power Facility will produce 167,000 tons of aggregate a year.

Commercial 

Demonstration of 

the Manufactured 

Aggregate Processing 

Technology Utilizing 

Spray Dryer Ash

Demonstration Operations 

Complete

PPII

Participant

Universal Aggregates, LLC (UA)

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 ash (SDA) into 

construction-grade aggregate

Plant Capacity/

Production

167,000 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
3-41

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 9/07*

Operation

Completed 12/06

Operation 4/04

Construction 3/03

Award 11/02

Selection 9/01

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 

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 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 saleable byproducts 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 two billion tons 

annually.

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) on 

October 1, 2002. On November 14, 2002, a cooperative agreement was awarded. 

Construction began in March 2003, and the plant was completed in March 2004. 

Operation was completed in December 2006. The fi nal report was submitted in 

September 2007 and was accepted with minor changes.

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
3-42

Results Summary

Since startup operation began, Universal Aggregates demonstrated that the 

process successfully operates by producing over 1,000 tons of manufactured 

lightweight aggregates from December 

2004 to March 2005. The aggregates 

were produced with the design size 

gradation and bulk density. The aggregates were sold to Versalite Sales 

Inc. of Midlothian, Virginia, and used 

successfully by a Maryland masonry 

producer in production of concrete masonry units. The milestone of 24 hours 

continuous operation requested by the 

Department of Energy (DOE) was 

achieved on December 12 and 13, 2005. 

However, most of the production was at 

low capacity factors and for relatively 

short time periods in 2005.

The objective to achieve complete material balance for continuous aggregate 

production was not achieved during the 

project demonstration period, which 

ended in December 2006. A single-shaft 

pug mill was used in mixing during the 

project demonstration. A double-shaft 

pug mill was designed and installed 

for operation to enhance mixing in 

February 2007. Aggregate production 

increased to about 5,200 tons in March 

2007. Currently, the demonstration 

plant operates at 50–60 percent design 

capacity on a daily basis after installation of the double shaft pug mill 

and additional process and equipment 

enhancements. Additional equipment 

modifi cations and upgrades are continuing to improve operating capacity.

Operational

Startup of the facility was undertaken in April 2004, and continuous 

extrusion operation was obtained in 

July and then again in September 

2004. The curing vessel was initially charged with green extrudants 

in October 2004, and again in December 2004. 

The process demonstrated the 

large-scale integrated operation of 

mixing, extrusion, curing, crushing, 

and screening, and incorporates 

automatic programmable logic 

controls, process trending, and data 

recording to produce lightweight 

aggregate. 

The demonstration worked through 

many challenges during the startup 

period including, but not limited 

to: 

inexperienced staff; 

construction bugs;

process control problems;

material handling diffi culties; 

and

ash quality issues. 

Production rates were 

lower than design capacity, mainly due to free 

fl ow problem of the aerated SDA at relatively 

high throughput, resulting in extruder operation 

problems.

•

•

•

–

–

–

–

–

•

Environmental 

Environmental benefi ts from use of 

this technology include:

reduction of landfi lling of FGD 

waste products;

reduction in environmental impacts of mining clay/shale for 

lightweight aggregate; and

reduction in environmental 

impacts of creating voids in 

the expanded clay/shale by the 

fossil fuel-intensive process 

typically used in conventional 

lightweight aggregate production.

The facility applied for, received, 

and complied with all stormwater 

and wastewater permits.

The facility used best management 

practice, a “Fugitive Dust Action 

Plan,” and many design features 

to protect against potential fugitive 

dust emissions.

Economic

The manufactured aggregate process successfully demonstrated that 

aggregates can be commercially 

produced from SDA. 

The original, total project cost 

was estimated at $19,581,734.00, 

and was scheduled for a 30-month 

period, including startup. Three 

time extensions were provided 

to the project with no adjustment 

to the financial contribution of 

DOE. Universal Aggregates used 

the three time extensions for plant 

startup, equipment modifi cations, 

and plant operations. All additional 

costs were borne by Universal Aggregates to achieve commercial 

production.

The projected economic performance estimates indicate that the 

demonstration project must operate 

at, or very near, full production ca-

•

–

–

–

•

•

•

•

•
3-43

pacity to experience a positive, net 

cash fl ow. Future operating experience will be required to normalize 

operating and maintenance costs 

that were not normalized during the 

demonstration due to inconsistent, 

less-than-full-load operation.

Application of this technology may 

be extended to other coal combustion by-products including wet 

FGD and fl uidized-bed combustion 

(FBC) materials at utility power 

plants, if shown to be economically 

feasible.

Costs for any subsequent plants 

must be derived on a site-by-site 

basis. Although installed capital 

costs and operating costs could be 

factored from current experience 

for modeling purposes, fi rm prices 

for capital equipment, construction, materials, engineering, and 

permits would be required for any 

subsequent plant installation. Cost 

analyses also would require a good 

understanding of the regional product market and complete income 

structure.

Project Summary

Universal Aggregates’ proposal was 

selected by DOE through the Power 

Plant Improvement Initiative Program 

to design, construct, and operate a lightweight aggregate manufacturing plant 

at the Birchwood Power Facility in King 

George, Virginia in September 2001. A 

cooperative agreement was signed in 

November 2002. The installation and 

startup expenses for the Birchwood 

Aggregate Facility were $19.6 million. 

The DOE share was $7.2 million (37 

percent) and the Universal Aggregates 

share was $12.4 million (63 percent). 

The original project team consisted of 

Universal Aggregates, SynAggs, LLC, 

CONSOL Energy Inc., and P. J. Dick, 

Inc. The purpose of the project was to 

demonstrate conversion of 115,000 tons ••

per year of SDA, a dry 

FGD by-product from 

the power station, to 

produce 167,000 tons 

of manufactured lightweight aggregate to 

be used in production 

of concrete masonry 

units (CMU). Manufacturing aggregate from 

FGD by-products can 

provide an economical 

high-volume use and 

substantially expand 

market for FGD byproducts. Most of the FGD by-products 

currently are disposed of in landfi lls.

Construction of the Birchwood Aggregate Facility was completed in March 

2004. Operation startup began in April 

2004. Plant Integration was initiated in 

December 2004. Integration included 

mixing, extrusion, curing, crushing, and 

screening. Lightweight aggregates with 

proper size gradation and bulk density 

were produced from the manufacturing aggregate plant and loaded on a 

stockpile for shipment. The shipped 

aggregates were used in a commercial block plant for CMU production. 

However, most of the production was 

made at low capacity factors and for 

a relatively short time in 2005. Several areas were identifi ed as important 

factors to improve plant capacity and 

availability. Equipment and process 

control modifi cations and curing vessel cleanup were made to improve 

plant operation in the fi rst half of 2006. 

About 3,000 tons of crushed aggregate 

were produced in August 2006. Currently, the plant is operating at 50–60 

percent design capacity on a daily basis. 

Universal Aggregates is continuing to 

work to improve plant availability and 

throughput capacity, and to produce 

quality lightweight aggregate for use 

in commercial applications.
3-44

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, 

sulfur dioxide, particulate matter, 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 feedstock. The mildly alkaline nature of the ash asParticipant

Western Greenbrier 

Co-Generation (WGC), LLC

Additional Team Members

Alstom Power, Inc. — technology 

supplier

ENERFAB — A/E Services/

Construction

Marshall Miller — Owners/

Construction Management

Location

Rainelle, Greenbrier County, 

WV

Technology

Alstom Power fl uidized-bed 

combustion

Project Capacity/

Production

100 MW (net) electric power and 

steam for district heating, alkaline 

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

other marketable materials

Coal

4,000 tons/day of bituminous 

waste coal

Project Funding

Total $214,983,758 100%

DOE 107,491,879 50

Participant 107,491,879 50
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

80 Months

Period of Operation

11 Months

Status/Schedule

*Estimated date

Final Report

Issued 5/11*

Operation

Completed 12/10*

Operation 2/10*

Construction 11/07*

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

nelson.rekos@netl.doe.gov

Headquarters

Joseph Giove

(301) 903-4130

joseph.giove@hq.doe.gov

sists 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. On January 4, 2007, a public hearing was held in Crawley, 

West Virginia, to gather input on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). 

The Final EIS is expected to be released in October 2007. A Record of Decision 

is expected in late 2007.

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. Construction and 

equipment costs have increased substantially since the project was awarded.

NEPA Launched 6/03

Draft Report

Issued 3/11*
3-46
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 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 

Electrification Administration (now 

Rural Utilities Service) electric cooperatives from the Federal Financing 

Bank became eligible as cost-sharing 

in the CCTDP-III solicitation, except if 

provided by annual appropriations.

In the Department of the Interior and 

Related Agencies Appropriations Act 

of 1990 (Public Law 101-121, enacted 

October 23, 1989), Congress provided 

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

act, “shall demonstrate technologies 

capable of replacing, retrofi tting, or 

repowering existing facilities and shall 

be subject to all provisos contained 

under this head in Public Laws 99-

190, 100-202 and 100-446 as amended 

by this Act.” About $563 million was 

made available for federal cofunding 

of projects selected in CCTDP-IV, with 

the remainder for program direction and 

the SBIR and STTR programs.

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

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

act, “shall be subject to all provisos 
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 and $33,700,000 was transferred to 

Fossil Energy Research and Development.

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.

110-5 2/15/07 Of funds made available for obligation in prior years, 

$257,000,000 was deferred.

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 

(continued)
A-6

the CCTDP-V PON not later than July 

6, 1992, with selections to be made 

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

advance signifi cantly the effi ciency and 

environmental performance of coal-using technologies and be applicable to 

either new or existing facilities.

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

512, 103-138, and 103-332 adjusted 

the rate at which funds were to be made 

available to the program. 

The CCTDP funds have been further 

adjusted through sequestering requirements of the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings 

Defi cit Reduction Act, recisions, and 

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

$2,028 was sequestered from the 

$575 million appropriated by Public Law 100-446, as amended by 

Public Law 101-164.

$455 was sequestered from the $1.2 

billion appropriated by Public Law 

101-121, as amended by Public 

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

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

and 105-18.

Recisions and transfers have reduced 

CCTDP appropriations as follows:

$200 million was rescinded by 

Public Law 104-6.

$123 million was rescinded by 

Public Law 104-208.

•

•

•

•

$17 million was rescinded by Public 

Law 105-18.

$101 million was rescinded by 

Public Law 105-83.

$38,000 was rescinded by Public 

Law 106-113 (general reduction).

$95 million was transferred to the 

Power Plant Improvement Initiative 

by Public Law 106-291.

$33.7 million was transferred to 

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

$10,000 was rescinded by Public 

Law 107-206 (Admin and Travel 

Rescission).

$88 million was rescinded by Public 

Law 108-108.

$20 million was rescinded by Public 

Law 109-103.

In addition to rescisions and transfers, 

the annual appropriations bills have 

deferred the availability of various 

amounts of previously appropriated 

funds until the start of subsequent fi scal 

years. These deferrals only involved 

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

ongoing projects. Recently, Public 

Law 110-5, deferred the availability of 

$257 million of previously appropriated 

funds until October 1, 2007. 

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 imple-

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

mentation. 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 

FY2001 appropriations to DOE’s fossil energy research program. Funding 

was added for the program following 

increasing concerns over the adequacy 

of the nation’s power supplies. Several 

parts of the United States, including the 

West Coast and parts of the Northeast, 

had experienced rolling blackouts and 

brownouts in the previous two years 

caused in large part by sharp rises in 

demand for electricity and lagging 

construction of new power plants.

Eligible projects 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.

Exhibit A-2

PPII Legislative History

Public 

Law

Date 

Enacted

Program Funding Implementation Provisions

106-291 10/11/00 Made available $95,000,000 derived by transfer from funds 

appropriated in prior years from the CCTDP for a general request for 

proposals for the commercial-scale demonstration of technologies to 

assure the reliability of the Nation’s energy supply from existing and 

new electric generating facilities for which the Department of Energy 

upon review may provide fi nancial assistance awards.

107-63 11/5/01 Provided that funds excess to the needs of the Power Plant 

Improvement Initiative procurement provided for in Public Law 

106-291 shall be made available for the Clean Coal Power Initiative 

provided for in Public Law 107-63.
A-7

Private sector proposers must at least 

match the government funding. Proposed technologies must be mature 

enough to be commercialized within 

the next few years, and the cost-shared 

demonstrations must be large enough 

to show that the technology is viable 

for commercial use.

PPII Legislative History

The legislation authorizing PPII is 

found in Public Law 106-291, Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2001. Under 

the act, $95,000,000 was transferred 

from funds appropriated in prior years 

under the CCTDP and made available 

for a general request for proposals for 

the commercial-scale demonstration of 

technologies to assure the reliability of 

the nation’s energy supply from existing 

and new electric generating facilities. 

The funds provided were to be spent 

only in accordance with the provisions 

governing the use of funds contained 

in the CCTDP under which they were 

originally appropriated. Provisions for 

recoupment are identical to CCTDP-III 

except that repayments from the sale or 

licensing of technologies shall be from 

both domestic and foreign transactions, 

and the repayments are retained for 

future projects. Congress provided that 

any project approved under PPII shall 

be considered a Clean Coal Technology 

Demonstration Project, for the purposes 

of Chapters 51, 52, and 60 of title 40 of 

the Code of Federal Regulations.

In Public Law 107-63, Congress provided that funds in excess of the needs 

of the PPII procurement be made available for the Clean Coal Power Initiative 

(CCPI).

Exhibit A-2 lists all the key legislation relating to PPII and provides a 

summary of provisions relating to 

program funding as well as program 

implementation.

CCPI Historical 

Perspective

The CCPI was designed to respond 

to tighter air emission standards, the 

growth in electricity consumption, 

and emerging new technologies. With 

emerging air emission regulations 

dealing with ozone, particulate matter, and mercury, new technologies are 

needed to provide consistent, reliable, 

low-cost energy while meeting these 

standards. Electricity demand is is 

expected to grow at a signifi cant pace 

for the foreseeable future. Driven by 

the rise in the digital economy, higher 

quality electricity is in greater demand 

than ever before. Digital-based technologies are playing an ever-increasing 

role in the development of new power 

plant technologies. Neural networks 

and artifi cial intelligence can be used 

to fi ne-tune operations and increase 

effi ciency at coal-fi red power plants. 

New environmental control technologies could reduce fi ne particulates and 

mercury to previously unattainable 

levels. To meet the challenges of tighter 

air emission standards, the growth in 

electricity consumption, and emerging 

new technologies, Congress appropriated funds for CCPI.

By spreading out multiple solicitations 

over a 10-year period, CCPI will be 

able to emphasize the most pressing 

environmental issues of the day, such as 

climate change, and the latest technologies that are ready for commercial-scale 

demonstration. 

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

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. 

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 

Exhibit A-3

CCPI Legislative History

Public 

Law

Date 

Enacted

Program Funding Implementation Provisions

108-108 11/10/03 Made an additional $172,000,000 available for CCPI. Comparable to prior years.

108-447 12/8/04 Made an additional $50,000,000 available for CCPI. Comparable to prior years. 

109-58 8/8/05 (Contained no funding provisions). Section 401—Report to Congress – The Secretary shall 

submit to Congress the report required by this subsection 

not later than March 31, 2007. The report shall include, 

with respect to subsection (a), a plan containing (1) a 

detailed assessment of whether the aggregate funding levels 

provided under subsection (a) are the appropriate funding 

levels for that program; (2) a detailed description of how 

proposals will be solicited and evaluated, including a list of 

all activities expected to be undertaken; (3) a detailed list of 

technical milestones for each coal and related technology 

that will be pursued; and (4) a detailed description of 

how the program will avoid problems enumerated in 

Government Accountability Offi ce reports on the Clean Coal 

Technology Program, including problems that have resulted 

in unspent funds and projects that failed either fi nancially or 

scientifi cally.

Section 402—Project Criteria – Section provided detailed 

requirements to be eligible to receive assistance under CCPI, 

including specifi cs regarding effi ciency, environmental 

performance, cost competitiveness, and that at least 70 

percent of the funds are used only to fund projects on coalbased gasifi cation technologies.

Section 403—Report to Congress – Not later than 1 year 

after the date of enactment of this Act, and once every 2 years 

thereafter through 2014, the Secretary, in consultation with 

other appropriate Federal agencies, shall submit to Congress 

a report describing-- (1) the technical milestones set forth in 

section 402 and how those milestones ensure progress toward 

meeting the requirements of subsections (b)(1)(B) and (b)(2) 

of section 402; and (2) the status of projects funded under this 

subtitle.

109-103 11/19/05 Made an additional $50,000,000 available for CCPI. Comparable to prior years.

110-5 2/15/07 Made an additional $60,433,000 available for CCPI. Comparable to prior years.

(continued)
A-9

Public Law 109-103 for use in a third 

solicitation. In Public Law 110 -5, an 

additional $60.4 million was made 

available for the third solicitation.

Exhibit A-3 lists all key legislation 

relating to CCPI and provides a summary of provisions relating to program 

implementation. Following this section 

are funding provisions excerpted from 

appropriations.

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 fi nancial 

assistance, or proceeds from prospective sale of the assets of the project, or 

revenues or royalties from replication of 

technology in future projects or plants 

are not cost-sharing for the purposes 

of this appropriation: Provided further, 

That other appropriated Federal funds 

are not cost-sharing for the purposes 

of this appropriation: Provided further, 

That existing facilities, equipment, 

and supplies, or previously expended 

research or development funds are not 

cost-sharing for the purposes of this 

appropriation, except as amortized, 

depreciated, or expensed in normal 

business practice. 

Conference Report (H.R. Conf. 

Rep. No. 450, 99th Cong., 1st Sess. 

[1985])

Clean Coal Technology

The managers have agreed to a 

$400,000,000 Clean Coal Technology 

program as described under the Department of the Treasury, Energy Security Reserve. Bill language is included 

which provides for the selection of 

projects no later than August 1, 1986. 

Within that period, a general request for 

proposals must be issued within 60 days 

and proposals must be submitted to the 

Department within 60 days after issuance of the general request for proposals. Language is also included allowing 

the Secretary of Energy to vest title in 

interests acquired under agreements in 

any entity, including the United States, 

and delineating cost-sharing requirements. Funds for these activities and 

projects are made available to the Clean 

Coal Technology program in the Energy 

Security program.

It is the intent of the managers that 

contributions in the form of facilities 

and equipment be considered only to 

the extent that they would be amortized, 

depreciated or expensed in normal business practice. Normal business practice 

shall be determined by the Secretary 

and is not necessarily the practice of 

any single proposer. Property which 

has been fully depreciated would not 

receive any cost-sharing value except to 

the extent that it has been in continuous 

use by the proposer during the calendar 

year immediately preceding the enactment of this Act. For this property, a 

fair use value for the life of the project 

may be assigned. Property offered as 

a cost-share by the proposer that is 

currently being depreciated would be 

limited in its cost-share value to the 

depreciation claimed during the life of 

the demonstration project. Furthermore, 

in determining normal business practice, the Secretary should not accept 

valuation for property sold, transferred, 

exchanged, or otherwise manipulated 

to acquire a new basis for depreciation 

purposes or to establish a rental value 

in circumstances which would amount 

to a transaction for the mere purpose of 

participating in this program.

The managers agree that, with respect 

to cost-sharing, tax implications of proposals and tax advantages available to 

individual proposers should not be considered in determining the percentage of 

Federal cost-sharing. This is consistent 

with current and historical practices in 

Department of Energy procurements.

It is the intent of the managers that there 

be full and open competition and that 

the solicitation be open to all markets 

utilizing the entire coal resource base. 

However, projects should be limited to 

the use of United States mined coal as 

the feedstock and demonstration sites 

should be located within the United 

States.

The managers agree that no more than 

$1,500,000 shall be available in FY86 

and $2,000,000 each year thereafter for 
A-10

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 

retrofitting or repowering existing 

facilities, for which the Secretary of 

Energy upon review may provide fi -

nancial assistance awards. Proposals 

under this section shall be submitted 

to the Department of Energy no later 

than ninety days after issuance of the 

general request for proposals required 

herein, and the Secretary of Energy 

shall make any project selections no 

later than one hundred and sixty days 

after receipt of proposal: Provided, 

That projects selected are subject to all 

provisos contained under this head in 

Public Law 99-190: Provided further, 

That pre-award costs incurred by project sponsors after selection and before 

signing an agreement are allowable to 

the extent that they are related to (1) 

the preparation of material requested by 

the Department of Energy and identifi ed as required for the negotiation; or 

(2) the preparation and submission of 

environmental data requested by the 

Department of Energy to complete 

National Environmental Policy Act 

requirements for the projects: Provided 

further, That pre-award costs are to be 

reimbursed only upon signing of the 

project agreement and only in the same 

ratio as the cost-sharing for the total 

project: Provided further, That reports 

on projects selected by the Secretary of 

Energy pursuant to authority granted 

under the heading “Clean coal technology” in the Department of the Interior 

and Related Agencies Appropriations 

Act, 1986, as contained in Public Law 

99-190, which are received by the 

Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President of the Senate 

prior to the end of the fi rst session of the 

100th Congress shall be deemed to have 

met the criteria in the third proviso of 

the fourth paragraph under the heading 

“Administrative provision, Department 

of Energy” in the Department of the 

Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1986, as contained in 

Public Law 99-190, upon expiration 

of 30 calendar days from receipt of the 

report by the Speaker of the House of 

Representatives and the President of 

the Senate.

Conference Report (H.R. Conf. 

Rep. No. 498, 100th Cong., 1st 

Sess. [1987])

Clean Coal Technology

Appropriates $575,000,000 for clean coal 

technology instead of $350,000,000 as 

proposed by the House and $850,000,000 

as proposed by the Senate. The comparison by year is as follows:

Bill language, proposed by the House, 

which would have prohibited using 

grants has been deleted. The managers 

agree that project funding is expected 

to be based on cooperative agreements, 

but that grants might be applicable to 

support work also funded from this 

account.

The managers agree to deleted Senate 

language providing personnel fl oors for 

Clean Coal Technology. The managers 

further agree that the budget estimates 

for personnel and contract support are 

to be followed. The agreement included 

58 new positions above current employment fl oors for the fossil energy 

organization and 30 positions within 

the fl oors. Out of clean coal technology 

funds, up to $3,980,000 is for fi scal year 

1988 personnel-related costs and up to 

$16,520,000 is for all contract costs 

needed to make project selections and 

complete negotiations for both clean 

coal procurements. Contract costs 

necessary to monitor approved projects 

should be requested in the fi scal year 

1989 budget. Increases above to those 

amount are subject to reprogramming 

procedures. No funds other than personnel related costs for the 30 positions 

included in the program direction are 

to be provided from the fossil energy 

research and development account.

The length of time for selection of 

projects by the Secretary of Energy 

has been extended from 120 days to 

160 days based on experience from the 

original clean coal procurement. Once 

projects have been selected the Secretary should establish project milestones 

and guidelines for project negotiations 

in order to expedite the negotiation 

process to the extent feasible.

The managers agree that the funds 

provided are available for non-utility 

applications as well as for utility applications.

The managers agree that no funds are 

provided for the demonstration of clean 

coal technologies which are intended 
A-11

solely for new, stand alone, applications. The Senate had proposed up to 

25 percent of the funds be available for 

this purpose. 

Bill language has been included which 

provides that reports on projects selected in the fi rst round of clean coal 

procurements that are received before 

the end of the fi rst session of the 100th 

Congress will satisfy reporting 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 nonFederal: Provided further, That reports 

on projects selected by the Secretary of 

Energy pursuant to authority granted 

under the heading “Clean coal technology” in the Department of the Interior 

and Related Agencies Appropriations 

Act, 1986, as contained in Public Law 

99-190, which are received by the 

Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President of the Senate 

prior to the end of the second session 

of the 100th Congress shall be deemed 

to have met the criteria in the third proviso of the fourth paragraph under the 

heading “Administrative Provisions, 

Department Energy” in the Department 

of the Interior and Related Agencies 

Appropriations Act, 1986, as contained 

in Public Law 99-190, upon expiration 

of 30 calendar days from receipt of the 

report by the Speaker of the House of 

Representatives and the President of 

the Senate.

Conference Report (H.R. Conf. 

Rep. No. 862, 100th Cong., 2nd 

Sess. [1988])

Clean Coal Technology

Amendment No. 131: Reported in technical disagreement. The managers on 

the part of the House will offer a motion 

to recede and concur in the amendment 

of the Senate with an amendment as 

follows:

In lieu of the matter proposed by said 

amendment insert the following: For 

necessary expenses of, and associated 

with, Clean Coal Technology demonstrations pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 5901 

et seq., $575,000,000 shall be made 

available on October 1, 1989, and 

shall remain available until expended: 

Provided, That projects selected pursuant to a general request for proposals 

issued pursuant to this appropriation 

shall demonstrate technologies capable 

of retrofi tting or repowering existing 

facilities and shall be subject to all 

provisos contained under this head in 

Public Laws 99-190 and 100-202 as 

amended by this Act.

The managers on the part of the Senate 

will move to concur in the amendment 

of the House to the amendment of 

the Senate. The amendment provides 

$575,000,000 in fi scal year 1990 for a 

third Clean Coal Technology procurement as proposed by the Senate, and 

clarifi es that the procurement is for retrofi t and repowering technologies and is 

subject to the cost-sharing provisions of 

the previous two procurements.

The managers agree that a request for 

proposals should be issued by May 1, 

1989, with proposals due no later than 

120 days after issuance of the request 

for proposals, and that the Secretary of 

Energy should make project selections 

no later than 120 days after receipt of 

proposals.

Amendment No. 132: Reported in technical disagreement. The managers on 

the part of the House will offer a motion 
A-12

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 fi scal year 

1989 in Public Law 100-202 by making $190,000,000 available in 1989, 

$135,000,000 available in 1990, and 

$200,000,000 available in 1991 and 

also provides an outlay ceiling in fi scal 

year 1989. The House had proposed 

$100,000,000 in fiscal year 1989, 

$225,000,000 in fiscal year 1990, 

and $200,000,000 in fi scal year 1989, 

$225,000,000 in fi scal year 1990, and 

$200,000,000 in fi scal year 1991, and 

the Senate struck the House language.

Both of these changes are necessary because of budget allocation constraints, 

but neither action has an effect on the 

execution of the Clean Coal program, or 

on the Congress’ overall support for the 

program, as is evidenced by additional 

appropriations provided for a third 

procurement of technologies.

The managers agree that administrative contract expenses may be incurred 

up to the budget level of $9,820,000, 

but caution that close control of such 

expenditures is necessary to assure 

that the outlay ceiling provided will be 

suffi cient to cover project costs.

Amendment No. 133: Modifi es public 

law citation as proposed by the Senate.

Amendment No. 134: Reported in technical disagreement. The managers on 

the part of the House will offer a motion 

to recede and concur in the amendment 

of the Senate which clarifi es that funds 

borrowed by REA Electric Cooperatives from the Federal Financing Bank 

are eligible as cost-sharing in the clean 

coal technology program.

Amendment No. 135: Reported in 

technical disagreement. The managers on the part of the House will offer 

a motion to recede and concur in the 

amendment of the Senate which specifi es clean coal projects may proceed 30 

calendar days after receipt by Congress 

of required reports, provided the reports 

are received prior to the end of the 

100th Congress.

Public Law 101-45

Public Law 101-45, 103 Stat. 97 

(1989)

Clean Coal Technology

Notwithstanding any other provision 

of law, funds originally appropriated 

under this head in the Department of 

the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1989, shall be available for a third solicitation of clean coal 

technology demonstration projects, 

which projects are to be selected by 

the Department not later than January 

1, 1990.

Public Law 101-121

Public Law 101-121, 103 Stat. 701 

(1989)

Clean Coal Technology

For necessary expenses of, and associated with, Clean Coal Technology demonstrations pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. 5901 et seq., $600,000,000 

shall be made available on October 1, 

1990, and shall remain available until 

expended, and $600,000,000 shall be 

made available on October 1, 1991, and 

shall remain available until expended: 

Provided, That projects selected pursuant to a separate general request for 

proposals issued pursuant to each of 

these appropriations shall demonstrate 

technologies capable of replacing, retrofi tting or repowering existing facilities and shall be subject to all provisos 

contained under this head in Public 

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

amended by this Act: Provided further,

That the general request for proposals 

using funds becoming available on 

October 1, 1990, under this paragraph 

shall be issued no later than June 1, 

1990, and projects resulting from such 

a solicitation must be selected no later 

than February 1, 1991: Provided further,

That the general request for proposals 

using funds becoming available on 

October 1, 1991, under this paragraph 

shall be issued no later than September 

1, 1991, and projects resulting from 

such a solicitation must be selected no 

later than May 1, 1992. 

The fi rst paragraph under this head in 

Public Law 100-446 is amended by 

striking “$575,000,000 shall be made 

available on October 1, 1989” and 

inserting “$450,000,000 shall be made 

available on October 1, 1989, and shall 

remain available until expended, and 

$125,000,000 shall be made available 

on October 1, 1990”: Provided, That 

these actions are taken pursuant to section 202(b)(1) of Public Law 100-119 

(2 U.S.C. 909). 
A-13

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 

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 
A-14

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 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 
A-15

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 (CCTDPIII) Demonstration Projects (solicitation 

number DE-PS01-89 FE 61825), issued 

by the Department of Energy on May 

1, 1989: Provided further, That funds 

provided under this head in this or 

any other appropriations Act shall be 

expended only in accordance with the 

provisions governing the use of such 

funds contained under this head in this 

or any other appropriations Act. 

With regard to funds made available 

under this head in this and previous appropriations Acts, unobligated balances 

excess to the needs of the procurement 

for which they originally were made 

available may be applied to other procurements for use on projects for which 

cooperative agreements are in place, 

within the limitations and proportions 

of Government fi nancing increases currently allowed by law: Provided, That 

the Department of Energy, for a period 

of up to fi ve (5) years after completion 

of the operations phase of a cooperative 

agreement may provide appropriate 

protections, including exemptions from 

subchapter II of chapter 5 of title 5, 

United States Code, against the dissemination of information that results from 

demonstration activities conducted 

under the Clean Coal Technology Program and that would be a trade secret 

or commercial or fi nancial information 

that is privileged or confi dential if the 

information had been obtained from and 

fi rst produced by a non-Federal party 

participating in a Clean Coal Technology project: provided further, That, in 

addition to the full-time permanent Federal employees specifi ed in section 303 

of Public Law 97-257, as amended, no 

less than 90 full-time Federal employees shall be assigned to the Assistant 

Secretary for Fossil Energy for carrying 

out the programs under this head using 

funds available under this head in this 

and any other appropriations Act and 

of which 35 shall be for PETC and 30 

shall be for METC: Provided further, 

That reports on projects selected by the 

Secretary of Energy pursuant to authority granted under this heading which are 

received by the Speaker of the House 

of Representatives and the President of 

the Senate less than 30 legislative days 

prior to the end of the second session 

of the 101st Congress shall be deemed 

to have met the criteria in the third proviso of the fourth paragraph under the 

heading “administrative provisions, Department of Energy” in the Department 

of the Interior and Related Agencies 

Appropriations Act, 1986, as contained 

in Public Law 99-190, upon expiration 

of 30 calendar days from receipt of the 

report by the Speaker of the House of 

Representatives and the President of 

the Senate or at the end of the session, 

whichever occurs later. 

Conference Report (H.R. Conf. 

Rep. No. 971, 101st Cong., 2nd 

Sess. [1990])

Clean Coal Technology

Amendment No. 142: Provides 

$35,000,000 for clean coal technology 

on September 1, 1991 as proposed by 

the House instead of $100,000,000 as 

proposed by the Senate. This amendment and Amendment No. 143 shift the 

availability of $65,000,000 from fi scal 

year 1991 to fi scal year 1992.

Amendment No. 143: Provides 

$315,000,000 for clean coal technology on October 1, 1991 as proposed by 

the House instead of $250,000,000 as 

proposed by the Senate. This amendment and Amendment No. 142 shift the 

availability of $65,000,000 from fi scal 

year 1991 to fi scal year 1992.

Amendment No. 144: Provides dates for 

two solicitations for clean coal technology as proposed by the Senate. The date 

for CCTDP-IV is amended to February 

1, 1991 from January 1, 1991. The date 

for CCTDP-V is not changed from the 

Senate date of March 1, 1992.
A-16

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. 

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 
A-17

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 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 
A-18

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.

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.
A-19

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.

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 
A-20

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 

Technology Laboratory, and of which 

$33,700,000 shall be derived by transfer 

from funds appropriated in prior years 

under the heading ‘Clean Coal Technology’, and of which $150,000,000 and 

such sums as may be appropriated in 

FY03 are to be made available, after 

coordination with the private sector, 

for a request for proposals for a Clean 

Coal Power Initiative providing for 

competitively-awarded demonstrations 

of commercial-scale technologies to 

reduce the barriers to continued and 

expanded coal use: Provided, That the 

request for proposals shall be issued 

no later than 120 days following enactment of this Act, proposals shall be 

submitted no later than 150 days after 

the issuance of the request for proposals, and the Department of Energy shall 

make project selections no later than 

160 days after the receipt of proposals: Provided further, That no project 

may be selected for which suffi cient 

funding is not available to provide for 

the total project: Provided further, That 

funds shall be expended in accordance 

with the provisions governing the use 

of funds contained under the heading 

‘Clean Coal Technology’ in prior appropriations: Provided further, That 

the Department may include provisions for repayment of Government 

contributions to individual projects 

in an amount up to the Government 

contribution to the project on terms 

and conditions that are acceptable to 

the Department including repayments 

from sale and licensing of technologies from both domestic and foreign 

transactions: Provided further, That 

such repayments shall be retained by 

the Department for future coal-related 

research, development and demonstration projects: Provided further, That 

any technology selected under this program shall be considered a Clean Coal 

Technology, and any project selected 

under this program shall be considered 

a Clean Coal Technology Project, for 

the purposes of 42 U.S.C. Sec. 7651n, 

and Chapters 51, 52, and 60 of title 40 

of the Code of Federal Regulations: 

Provided further, That funds excess to 

the needs of the Power Plant Improvement Initiative procurement provided 

for under this heading in Public Law 

106-291 shall be made available for the 

Clean Coal Power Initiative provided 

for under this heading in this Act: Provided further, That no part of the sum 

herein made available shall be used for 

the fi eld testing of nuclear explosives 

in the recovery of oil and gas: Provided 

further, That up to 4 percent of program 

direction funds available to the National 

Energy Technology Laboratory may be 

used to support Department of Energy 

activities not included in this account.
A-21

Public Law 108-7

Public Law 108-7, 117 Stat. 11 

(2003)

Clean Coal Technology (Deferral)

Of the funds made available under this 

heading for obligation in prior years, 

$87,000,000 shall not be available until 

October 1, 2003: Provided, That funds 

made available in previous appropriations Acts shall be available for any ongoing project regardless of the separate 

request for proposal under which the 

project was selected.

Fossil Energy Research and 

Development

For necessary expenses in carrying out 

fossil energy research and development 

activities, under the authority of the 

Department of Energy Organization 

Act (Public Law 95-91), including the 

acquisition of interest, including defeasible and equitable interests in any real 

property or any facility or for plant or 

facility acquisition or expansion, and 

for conducting inquiries, technological 

investigations and research concerning 

the extraction, processing, use, and 

disposal of mineral substances without 

objectionable social and environmental 

costs (30 U.S.C. 3, 1602, and 1603), 

$624,900,000, to remain available 

until expended, of which $4,000,000 

is to continue a multi-year project for 

construction, renovation, furnishing, 

and demolition or removal of buildings at National Energy Technology 

Laboratory facilities in Morgantown, 

West Virginia and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; and of which $150,000,000 are 

to be made available, after coordination 

with the private sector, for a request 

for proposals for a Clean Coal Power 

Initiative providing for competitivelyawarded research, development, and 

demonstration projects to reduce the 

barriers to continued and expanded 

coal use: Provided, That no project 

may be selected for which suffi cient 

funding is not available to provide for 

the total project: Provided further, That 

funds shall be expended in accordance 

with the provisions governing the use 

of funds contained under the heading 

“Clean Coal Technology” in prior appropriations: Provided further, That the 

Department may include provisions for 

repayment of Government contributions 

to individual projects in an amount up 

to the Government contribution to the 

project on terms and conditions that are 

acceptable to the Department including 

repayments from sale and licensing 

of technologies from both domestic 

and foreign transactions: Provided 

further, That such repayments shall be 

retained by the Department for future 

coal-related research, development 

and demonstration projects: Provided 

further, That any technology selected 

under this program shall be considered a 

Clean Coal Technology, and any project 

selected under this program shall be 

considered a Clean Coal Technology 

Project, for the purposes of 42 U.S.C. 

7651n, and Chapters 51, 52, and 60 of 

title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations: Provided further, That no part of 

the sum herein made available shall be 

used for the fi eld testing of nuclear explosives in the recovery of oil and gas: 

Provided further, That up to 4 percent 

of program direction funds available to 

the National Energy Technology Laboratory may be used to support Department of Energy activities not included 

in this account.

Public Law 108-108

Public Law 108-108, 117 Stat. 1241 

(2003)

Clean Coal Technology (Deferral 

and Recision)

Of the funds made available under this 

heading for obligation in prior years, 

$97,000,000 shall not be available until 

October 1, 2004, and $88,000,000 are 

rescinded: Provided, That funds made 

available in previous appropriations 

Acts shall be available for any ongoing project regardless of the separate 

request for proposal under which the 

project was selected.

Fossil Energy Research and 

Development

For necessary expenses in carrying out 

fossil energy research and development 

activities, under the authority of the 

Department of Energy Organization 

Act (Public Law 95-91), including the 

acquisition of interest, including defeasible and equitable interests in any real 

property or any facility or for plant or 

facility acquisition or expansion, and 

for conducting inquiries, technological 

investigations and research concerning 

the extraction, processing, use, and 

disposal of mineral substances without 

objectionable social and environmental 

costs (30 U.S.C. 3, 1602, and 1603), 

$681,163,000, to remain available 

until expended, of which $4,000,000 

is to continue a multi-year project for 

construction, renovation, furnishing, 

and demolition or removal of buildings 

at National Energy Technology Laboratory facilities in Morgantown, West 

Virginia and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; 

of which not to exceed $536,000 may 

be utilized for travel and travel-related 

expenses incurred by the headquarters 

staff of the Offi ce of Fossil Energy; 

and of which $172,000,000 are to be 

made available, after coordination 

with the private sector, for a request 

for proposals for a Clean Coal Power 

Initiative providing for competitivelyawarded research, development, and 

demonstration projects to reduce the 

barriers to continued and expanded 

coal use: Provided, That no project 

may be selected for which suffi cient 

funding is not available to provide for 

the total project: Provided further, That 

funds shall be expended in accordance 

with the provisions governing the use 

of funds contained under the heading 

“Clean Coal Technology’’ in 42 U.S.C. 

5903d: Provided further, That the Department may include provisions for repayment of Government contributions 

to individual projects in an amount up 
A-22

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 

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-23

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 assumptions on the future use of deferred 

clean coal technology funds.

Fossil Energy Research and 

Development

The conference agreement provides 

$579,911,000 for fossil energy research and development instead of 

$601,875,000 as proposed by the House 

and $542,529,000 as proposed by the 

Senate. The changes described below 

are to the House recommended funding level. 

FutureGen — There is an increase of 

$18,000,000 for the FutureGen power 

plant initiative. 

Clean Coal Power Initiative — There is 

a decrease of $55,000,000 for the clean 

coal power initiative. 

The managers note that funding will 

need to be increased substantially in 

FY06 if the program is to remain on a 

schedule consistent with the President’s 

clean coal initiative.

Public Law 109-103 

Public Law 109-103, 119 Stat. 2247 

(2005) 

Clean Coal Technology (Deferral 

and Rescission)

Of the funds made available under this 

heading for obligation in prior years, 

$257,000,000 shall not be available 

until October 1, 2006: Provided, That 

funds made available in previous appropriations Acts shall be made available for any ongoing project regardless 

of the separate request for proposal 

under which the project was selected: 

Provided further, That $20,000,000 of 

uncommitted balances is rescinded.

Fossil Energy Research and 

Development 

For necessary expenses in carrying out 

fossil energy research and development 

activities, under the authority of the 

Department of Energy Organization 

Act (Public Law 95-91), including the 

acquisition of interest, including defeasible and equitable interests in any real 

property or any facility or for plant or 

facility acquisition or expansion, the 

hire of passenger motor vehicles, the 

hire, maintenance, and operation of 

aircraft, the purchase, repair, and cleaning of uniforms, the reimbursement to 

the General Services Administration 

for security guard services, and for 

conducting inquiries, technological 

investigations and research concerning the extraction, processing, use, and 
A-24

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 may be retained 

by the Secretary of Energy, to be available until expended, and used only for 

plant construction, operation, costs, 

and payments to cost-sharing entities 

as provided in appropriate cost-sharing 

contracts or agreements.

Public Law 110-5

Public Law 110-5, 121 Stat. 8 (2007)

The fi nal continuing resolution for fi scal year 2007 did not contain language 

specifi c to the Clean Coal Technology 

Demonstration Program or the Clean 

Coal Power Initiative. For the Clean 

Coal Technology Demonstration Program, the availability of $257,000,000 

was deferred until October 1, 2007. 

For the Clean Coal Power Initiative, 

$60,433,000 was made available.

House Report 109-474 (2006)

Clean Coal Technology (Rescission)

The Committee recommends the rescission of $257,000,000 in clean coal 

technology funding. These balances are 

no longer needed to complete active 

projects in this program. For several 

years the Administration has proposed, 

and Congress has to some extent 

obliged, the deferral of these balances 

to the out-years, for the appearance of 

retaining them for FutureGen activities. 

The practice of ‘deferring balances’ 

or ‘transferring balances’ is purely a 

budgetary optical illusion. Congress 

appropriates FutureGen activities on 

an annual basis. There are no budgetary savings by utilizing prior year clean 

coal technology balances. The Committee will continue to evaluate budget 

requests for FutureGen activities on an 

annual basis, and appropriate directly, 

without the budget scoring gimmickry 

of clean coal technology prior year 

balances. 

Fossil Energy Research and 

Development

Clean coal power initiative — This 

program researches, develops, and 

demonstrates commercial readiness to 

implement advanced clean coal-based 

technologies that enhance electricity 

reliability, increase generation capacity, 

and reduce emissions. The Committee recommends $36,400,000 for the 

clean coal power initiative (CCPI), an 

increase of $31,443,000 over the budget 

request. This funding will support the 

third round of demonstration projects, 

incorporating the latest advances in 

clean coal technologies. The Committee believes it is important to keep 

momentum in this program towards 

the accumulation of balances for future 
A-25

rounds of CCPI awards. The Committee does not accept the Department’s 

argument that this next solicitation is 

not needed because the technologies 

demonstrated will be too late for incorporation in FutureGen. The Committee 

views FutureGen as a major step in the 

development of coal fi red power plants, 

but not the end of new technology in 

this area. 

Senate Report 109-274 (2006)

Clean Coal Technology (Including 

Deferral and Rescission)

The Committee recommends the deferral of $203,000,000 in clean coal 

technology funding until fi scal year 

2008. The Committee recommends that 

the Department rescind $50,000,000 of 

prior year balances from excess contingency estimates in demonstration 

projects. 

Fossil Energy Research and 

Development

Clean Coal Power Initiative — The 

Committee recommends $70,000,000. 

The Committee is frustrated by the remarkably low level of funding provided 

to this initiative which demonstrates 

advanced coal technologies including 

carbon capture, mercury control and 

other co-production opportunities. The 

budget only provided $4,957,000. The 

Committee is aware that not all of the 

previously awarded projects have been 

successfully developed for a variety of 

reasons, and available balances will not 

be used. The Department has identifi ed 

one project that will not be able to spend 

the remaining balances of $50,000,000. 

The Committee directs the Department 

to rescind the available balances and 

apply that funding to the Clean Coal 

Power Initiatives for a future competitive award. In addition, the Committee 

provides an additional $20,000,000. 

Combined with existing balances 

of $70,000,000 provided in the current year, the Department will have 

$140,000,000 to commit to the next 

CCPI solicitation.
A-26
B-1

Appendix B. CCTDP Financial History

This appendix provides predominately 

historical funding and cost information 

on the CCTDP. As of September 30, 

2007, there were 33 successfully completed projects. The fi nal active project 

withdrew prior to completion in March 

2006. Exhibit B-1 summarizes the costs 

associated with the 33 successfully 

completed projects.

Exhibit B-1

CCTDP Project Costs and Cost-Sharing for Successfully Completed Projects

(Dollars in Thousands)

Total Cost-Share Dollars Cost-Share Percent

Project Costs % DOEb Participants DOE Participants

Subprogram

CCTDP-I 844,363 23 239,640 604,723 28 72

CCTDP-II 318,577 9 139,195 179,382 44 56

CCTDP-III 1,138,741 30 483,665 655,076 42 58

CCTDP-IV 950,429 25 437,876 512,553 46 54

CCTDP-V 0 0 0 0 0 0

Totala 3,252,110 100 1,300,376 1,951,734 40 60

Application Category

Advanced Electric Power 

Generation

1,978,492 61 812,912 1,165,580 41 59

Environmental Control Devices 620,110 19 252,832 367,278 41 59

Coal Processing for Clean Fuels 431,810 13 192,029 239,781 44 56

Industrial Applications 221,698 7 42,603 179,095 19 81 

Totala 3,252,110 100 1,300,376 1,951,734 40 60

a Totals may not add up to the total fi gure shown due to rounding.

b DOE share does not include $155,229,000 obligated for withdrawn projects and audit expenses.

Exhibit B-2 presents the allocation 

of appropriated CCTDP funds (after 

adjustment) and the amount available 

for each solicitation. Additional activities funded by CCTDP appropriations 

are the Small Business Innovation 

Research (SBIR) Program, the Small 

Business Technology Transfer (STTR) 

Program, and program direction for 

CCTDP management.

Exhibit B-3, on the following page, depicts the apportionment of appropriated 

funds to DOE. Funds can be transferred 

among subprogram budgets to meet 

project and program needs.

Exhibit B-2

Relationship Between Appropriations and Subprogram Budgets

(Dollars in Thousands)

Appropriation 

Enacted Subprogram

Adjusted 

Appropriations

SBIR & STTR 

Budgetsa

Program Direction 

Budget

Projects

Budget

P.L. 99-190 CCTDP-I 380,600 4,902 144,767 230,931

P.L. 100-202 CCTDP-II 473,776 6,781 32,512 434,483

P.L. 100-446 CCTDP-III 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, 109-103, and 110-5.
B-2Exhibit B-3

Annual CCTDP Funding by Appropriations and Subprogram Budgets

(Dollars in Thousands)

Fiscal Year 1986–98 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Totald

Adjusted AppropriationsaP.L. 99-190 380,600 380,600P.L. 100-202 473,997 (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 2,306,529 (40,163) (146,038) 8,980 8,290 (47,000) (98,000) (160,000) (20,000) 0 257,000 2,069,598

Subprogram BudgetsCCTDP-I Projects 303,231 (14,900) (14,400) (14,000) (14,000) (15,000) 230,931CCTDP-II Projects 434,704 (40,163) 9,962 14,980 15,000 434,483

CCTDP-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 2,097,921 (55,063) (160,438) (5,020) (5,700) (62,000) (98,000) (160,000) (20,000) 0 257,000 1,788,700Program Direction 177,527 14,900 14,400 14,000 13,990 15,000 249,817

Fossil Energy Subtotal 2,275,448 (40,163) (146,038) 8,980 8,290 (47,000) (98,000) (160,000) (20,000) 0 257,000 2,038,517

SBIR & STTRc 31,081 31,081

Totald 2,306,529 (40,163) (146,038) 8,980 8,290 (47,000) (98,000) (160,000) (20,000) 0 257,000 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, 109-103, and 110-5.

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 September 30, 2007

(Dollars in Thousands)

Subprogram

Appropriations 

Allocated to 

Subprogramb

Apportioned

to Date

Committed

to Date

Obligated

to Date

Cost

to Date

CCTDP-I 230,931 230,931 257,048 257,048 257,048

CCTDP-II 434,483 434,483 165,335 165,335 165,335

CCTDP-III 423,844 423,844 506,012 506,012 506,012

CCTDP-IV 299,935 299,935 476,770 476,770 476,770

CCTDP-V 399,507 142,507 50,440 50,440 50,440

Projects Subtotal 1,788,700 1,531,700 1,455,605 1,455,605 1,455,605

SBIR & STTRa 31,081 31,081 31,081 31,081 31,081

Program Direction 249,817 249,817 249,817 249,817 249,374

Total 2,069,598 1,812,598 1,736,503 1,736,503 1,736,060

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 

September 30, 2007. 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 September 30, 

2007, 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 0 1,812,598

2008 257,000 2,069,598

Exhibit B-6 indicates the apportionment sequence as modifi ed by Public 

Law 110-5. 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:

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);

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

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.

1.

2.

3.

Environmental Impact 

Statements

The primary purpose of an EIS is 

to serve as an action-forcing device 

to ensure that the policies and goals 

defi ned in NEPA are infused into the 

programs and actions of the federal 

government. An EIS contains a full 

and fair discussion of all signifi cant 

environmental impacts. The EIS should 

inform decision-makers and the public 

of reasonable alternatives that would 

avoid or minimize adverse impacts 

or enhance the quality of the human 

environment.

The CEQ regulations state that an EIS is 

to be more than a disclosure document; 

it is to be used by federal offi cials in 

conjunction with other relevant material to plan actions and make decisions. 

Analysis of alternatives is to encompass 

those alternatives to be considered by 

the ultimate decision-maker, including 

a complete description of the proposed 

action. In short, the EIS is a means of 

assessing the environmental impacts of 

a proposed DOE action (rather than justifying decisions already made), prior to 

making a decision whether to proceed 

with the proposed action. Consequently, 

before a Record of Decision (ROD) is 

issued, DOE may not take any action 

that would have an adverse environmental effect or limit the choice of 

reasonable alternatives.

NEPA Actions and Status

Exhibit C-1 provides the NEPA action 

taken and the status of that action for 

each of the active clean coal technology 

demonstration projects. The projects 

are presented by program and are listed 

alphabetically within each program.
C-2

Exhibit C-1

NEPA Action and Status

Project NEPA Action Status

PPII

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

 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

Demonstration of a 285-MWe Coal-Based Transport Gasifi er EIS ROD issued 4/7/06

Mercury Specie and Multi-Pollutant Control CX Completed 3/28/05

 Mesaba Energy Project – Unit 1 EIS In process
D-1

Appendix D. Acronyms, 

Abbreviations, and Symbols

¢ cent

°C degrees Celsius

°F degrees Fahrenheit

$ dollars (U.S.)

$/kW dollars per kilowatt

$/ton dollars per ton

% percent

® registered trademark

TM trademark

ACFB atmospheric circulating 

fl uidized-bed

ACFM actual cubic feet per 

minute

A/E architect/engineering

AFBC atmospheric fl uidized-bed 

combustion

AHPC Advanced Hybrid 

Particulate Collector

AI artifi cial intelligence

APH air preheater

API application programming 

interface

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

CCPI-3 Third 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

CFR Code of Federal 

Regulations 

CO carbon monoxide

CO2 carbon dioxide

COS carbonyl sulfi de

CSC convective syngas cooler

CUB coal utilization 

by-product(s)

CX Categorical Exclusion

DEP Department of 

Environmental Protection

DOE U.S. Department of 

Energy

DOE/HQ U.S. Department of 

Energy Headquarters

DSE dust stabilization 

enhancement

EA Environmental Assessment

EIA U.S. Energy Information 

Administration

EIS Environmental Impact 

Statement

EIV Environmental 

Information Volume

EPA U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency

EPAct Energy Policy Act

EPRI Electric Power Research 

Institute

ESP electrostatic precipitator

FBC fl uidized-bed combustion

FD forced draft

FE Offi ce of Fossil Energy

FFDC Fabric fi lter dust collector

FGD fl ue gas desulfurization

FONSI fi nding of no signifi cant 

impact

FSQ full-slurry quench

ft, ft2

, ft3 foot (feet), square feet, 

cubic feet

FT Fischer-Tropsch

FY fi scal year

gal gallon(s)

gal/ft3 gallons per cubic foot

GHG greenhouse gases

gob coal waste used as a fuel

gpm gallons per minute

gr grains

GRE Great River Energy

GW gigawatt(s)

GWe gigawatt(s)-electric

H2 molecular hydrogen

H2

S hydrogen sulfi de

H2

SO4 sulfuric acid

HAPs hazardous air pollutants

HCl hydrogen chloride

HF hydrofl uoric acid
D-2

Hg mercury

HHV higher heating value

hr. hour(s)

HRSG heat recovery steam 

generator

ID induced draft

IGCC integrated gasifi cation 

combined-cycle

in, in2

, in3 inch(es), square inch(es), 

cubic inch(es)

kV kilovolt

kW kilowatt(s)

kWh kilowatt-hour(s)

lb pound

LHV lower heating value

LLC limited liability company

LNB low-NOx

 burner

LP low pressure

MHz megahertz

mills/kWh mills per kilowatt-hour

min minute(s)

mo month(s)

MOU Memorandum of 

Understanding

MW megawatt(s)

MWe megawatt(s)-electric

MWt megawatt(s)-thermal

N2 molecular nitrogen

N/A not applicable

NAAQS National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards

NaHCO3 sodium bicarbonate

NaNO3 sodium nitrate

NaOH sodium hydroxide

Na2

CO3 sodium carbonate

Na2

SO4 sodium sulfate

NEPA National Environmental 

Policy Act

NETL National Energy 

Technology Laboratory

NH3 ammonia

NH4

HCO3 ammonium bicarbonate

NH4

NO3 ammonium nitrate

(NH4

)2SO4 ammonium sulfate

NO2 nitrogen dioxide

NOx nitrogen oxides

NSPS New Source Performance 

Standards

O2 molecular oxygen

O3 ozone

O&M operation and maintenance

PAC powdered activated carbon

PC pulverized coal

PCD particulate collection 

device

PM particulate matter

PM2.5 particulate matter less than 

2.5 microns in diameter

PON Program Opportunity 

Notice

PPII Power Plant Improvement 

Initiative

PRB Powder River Basin

ppm parts per million (mass)

ppmv parts per million by 

volume

PSC Public Service 

Commission

PSDF Power Systems 

Development Facility

psi pound(s) per square inch

psia pound(s) per square inch 

absolute

psig pound(s) per square inch 

gauge

Pty Proprietary

Pub.L. Public Law

R&D research and development

RD&D research, development, 

and demonstration

RFP request for proposals

ROD Record of Decision

S sulfur

SBIR Small Business Innovation 

Research

scf standard cubic feet

scfm standard cubic feet per 

minute

SCR selective catalytic 

reduction

SCS Southern Company 

Services, Inc.

SDA spray dryer ash

SIP State Implementation Plan

SNCR selective noncatalytic 

reduction

SO2 sulfur dioxide

SO3 sulfur trioxide

STTR Small Business 

Technology Transfer 

Programs

syngas synthetic gas

TBD to be determined

TRI Toxics Release Inventory

UKRF University of Kentucky 

Research Foundation

U.S. United States

VIP value improving practices

WGC Western Greenbrier CoGenerating LLC

WMPI Waste Management 

Processors, Inc.

yr. year(s)
D-3

Other

Some companies have adopted an acronym as their corporate names. The 

following corporate names refl ect the 

former name of the company.

JEA Jacksonville Electric Authority

KBR Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc.

State Abbreviations

AK Alaska

AL Alabama

AR Arkansas

AZ Arizona

CA California

CO Colorado

CT Connecticut

DC District of Columbia

DE Delaware

FL Florida

GA Georgia

HI Hawaii

IA Iowa

ID Idaho

IL Illinois

IN Indiana

KS Kansas

KY Kentucky

LA Louisiana

MA Massachusetts

MD Maryland

ME Maine

MI Michigan

MN Minnesota

MO Missouri

MS Mississippi

MT Montana

NC North Carolina

ND North Dakota

NE Nebraska

NH New Hampshire

NJ New Jersey

NM New Mexico

NV Nevada

NY New York

OH Ohio

OK Oklahoma

OR Oregon

PA Pennsylvania

PR Puerto Rico

RI Rhode Island

SC South Carolina

SD South Dakota

TN Tennessee

TX Texas

UT Utah

VA Virginia

VI Virgin Islands

VT Vermont

WA Washington

WI Wisconsin

WV West Virginia

WY Wyoming
D-4
Index-1

Index of Projects and Participants

M

MEP-I LLC ES-5, 3-7, 3-8, 3-9, 3-28–

3-29

Mercury Specie and Multi-Pollutant 

Control ES-5, 2-5, 3-7, 3-8, 3-10, 

3-20–3-21, C-2

Mesaba Energy Project – Unit 1 ES-5, 

2-5, 3-7, 3-8, 3-10, 3-28–3-29, C-2

N

NeuCo, Inc. ES-5, 3-7, 3-8, 3-9, 3-16–

3-17, 3-20–3-21

O

Otter Tail Power Company ES-5, 3-7, 

3-8, 3-9, 3-12–3-15

P

Pegasus Technologies ES-5, 3-7, 3-8, 

3-9, 3-20–3-21

S

Southern Company Services, Inc. ES-5, 

3-7, 3-8, 3-9, 3-26–3-27, D-2

T

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, 3-22–3-23, C-2

U

Universal Aggregates, LLC ES-5, 3-7, 

3-8, 3-9, 3-40–3-41

University of Kentucky Research 

Foundation ES-5, 3-7, 3-8, 3-9, 

3-38–3-39, D-2

W

Western Greenbrier Co-Generation, LLC 

ES-5, 3-7, 3-8, 3-9, 3-44–3-45, 

D-2

Western Greenbrier Co-Production Demonstration Project ES-5, 2-4, 3-7, 

3-8, 3-10, 3-44–3-45, C-2

Wisconsin Electric Power Company 

ES-5, 3-7, 3-8, 3-9, 3-22–3-23

WMPI PTY., LLC ES-5, 3-7, 3-8, 3-9, 

3-32–3-33, D-2

A

Advanced Multi-Product Coal Utilization By-Product Processing Plant 

ES-5, 2-4, 3-7, 3-8, 3-10, 3-38–

3-39, C-2

C

Commercial Demonstration of the Manufactured Aggregate Processing 

Technology Utilizing Spray Dryer 

Ash ES-5, 2-3, 3-1, 3-7, 3-8, 3-10, 

3-40–3-43, C-2

CONSOL Energy, Inc. ES-5, 3-7, 3-8, 

3-9, 3-18–3-19, 3-43

D

Demonstration of a 285-MWe CoalBased Transport Gasifi er ES-5, 

2-5, 3-7, 3-8, 3-10, 3-26–3-27, C-2

Demonstration of a Full-Scale Retrofi t of 

the Advanced Hybrid Particulate 

Collector Technology ES-5, 2-3, 

3-1, 3-7, 3-8, 3-10, 3-12–3-15, C-2

Demonstration of Integrated Optimization 

Software at the Baldwin Energy 

Complex ES-5, 2-4, 3-7, 3-8, 

3-10, 3-16–3-17, C-2

E

Excelsior Energy, Inc. 3-28–3-29

G

Gilberton Coal-to-Clean Fuels and Power 

Co-Production Project ES-5, 2-4, 

3-7, 3-8, 3-10, 3-32–3-33, C-2

Great River Energy ES-5, 3-7, 3-8, 3-9, 

3-34–3-35, D-1

Greenidge Multi-Pollutant Control 

Project ES-5, 2-3, 3-7, 3-8, 3-10, 

3-18–3-19, C-2

I

Increasing Power Plant Effi ciency – Lignite Fuel Enhancement ES-5, 2-4, 

3-7, 3-8, 3-10, 3-34–3-35, C-2
Index-2
Contents

Executive Summary

Chapter 1. Role of Clean Coal Technology Demonstrations

Chapter 2. Funding and Costs

Chapter 3. Projects

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

Appendix B. CCTDP Financial History

Appendix C. NEPA Actions and Status for Active Projects

Appendix D. Acronyms, Abbreviations, and Symbols

Index of Projects and Participants