Volume 1Clean Coal Technology PProgram Update 2003Includes Clean Coal Technology Demonstration Power Plant Improvement Initiative, andClean Coal Power Initiative ProjectsAs of May 2003

U.S. Department of Energy

Assistant Secretary for Fossil Energy

Washington, DC 20585

December 2003
U.S. Department of Energy

Assistant Secretary for Fossil Energy

Washington, DC 20585

Volume 1Clean Coal Technology PProgram Update 2003Includes Clean Coal Technology Demonstration Power Plant Improvement Initiative, andClean Coal Power Initiative ProjectsAs of May 2003

December 2003
This report has been reproduced directly from the best available copy.

Available to DOE and DOE contractors from the Office of Scientific and Technical InformatioP.O. Box 62, Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37831; prices available from (615) 576-8401. http://wwwAvailable to the public from the National Technical Information Service, U.S. Department of C5285 Port Royal Rd., Springfield, Virginia 22161. http://www.ntis.govAvailable to the public from the National Energy Technology Laboratory’s Clean Coal Technohttp://www.lanl.gov/projects/cctc/index.html

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

Dr. Victor K. DerProduct Line DirectorU.S. Department of EnergyFE-22/Germantown Building1000 Independence Ave. S.W.Washington DC 20585-1290(301) 903-2700

Comments, corrections, or contributive information may be directed to:Program Updatec/o Gene H. KightSr. Financial & Procurement DirectorU.S. Department of EnergyFE-20/Germantown Building1000 Independence Ave. S.W.Washington DC 20585-1290(301) 903-2624(301) 903-9301 (fax)gene.kight@hq.doe.gov

Dr. C. Lowell MillerProduct Line DirectorU.S. Department of EnergyFE-24/Germantown Building1000 Independence Ave. S.W.Washington DC 20585-1290(301) 903-9453
Program Update 2003 Evaluation

In an effort to continue providing the most useful and effective information to the users of the Program Update, the U.S. D

is including the following evaluation form. Please take a few minutes to complete the evaluation and mail your comments 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 space has been provided to make comments. If you do not use a particular chapter and cannot comment on its effectivenes

Not Not VeryUsed Effective Effective C

Executive Summary 012345Section 1 Role of Clean Coal Technology 012345Section 2 Implementation 012345Section 3 Funding and Costs 012345Section 4 Accomplishments 012345Section 5 Projects 012345Appendix A Historical Perspective and Legislative History 012345Appendix B. Program History 012345Appendix C. CCTDP Environmental Aspects 012345Appendix D. Project Contacts 012345Appendix E. Acronyms, Abbreviations, and Symbols 012345What do you find is the best and most effective part of the Program Update?

What do you find is the least effective part of the Program Update?

Do you have any other suggestions on how to improve the Program Update?

Tear Here
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.

Name:

Company:

Address:

City:

State or Province:

Country:

ZIP or Postal Code:

Phone Number:

Fold Here

Fold Here

First

Class

Postage

Required
ContentsExecutive Summary Introduction ES-1

Programs ES-1

CCTDP ES-1PPII ES-1CCPI ES-2

Highlights ES-2

CCTDP ES-2

PPII ES-2CCPI ES-2

Outreach ES-2

Role of Clean Coal Technology ES-6

Coal ES-6

CCTDP ES-6PPII ES-6CCPI ES-6

Environmental Drivers ES-6Market Considerations ES-7Ensuring Sustainable Economic Growth ES-7FutureGen ES-7

Vision 21 ES-7

Implementation ES-7

CCTDP ES-7PPII ES-8CCPI ES-9

Funding and Costs ES-9

CCTDP ES-9PPII ES-10CCPI ES-10
ii Program Update 2003

Accomplishments ES-10

Marketplace Commitment ES-10Awards ES-16PPII ES-16CCPI ES-16

Market Communications—Outreach ES-16

Projects ES-16

Introduction ES-16Technology Overview ES-16

Introduction 1-1Coal 1-1CCTDP 1-1PPII 1-3CCPI 1-3Environmental Drivers 1-4

Soot and Smog 1-4Hazardous Air Pollutants 1-4Global Climate Change Initiative 1-5Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum 1-6Clear Skies Initiative 1-6Regional Haze 1-6Solid Waste 1-6

Market Considerations 1-6Ensuring Sustainable Economic Growth 1-7Future Directions 1-8

Future Gen 1-8Vision 21 1-9

Section 1. Role of Clean Coal TechnologyExecutive Summary (continued)
Introduction 2-1CCTDP 2-1

Implementation Principles 2-1Implementation Process 2-2Environmental Provisions 2-4Commitment to Commercial Realization 2-4Solicitation Results 2-5Future Implementation Direction 2-12

PPII 2-12

Solicitation 2-12Intellectual Property Rights 2-13

CCPI 2-13

Round I Solicitation 2-13CCPI-I Topic Areas 2-15Mandatory Requirements 2-16Proposal Requirements 2-16Technical Application Evaluation Criteria 2-17Cost Application Evaluation Criteria 2-17Project Selections 2-17

CCTDP 3-1

Introduction 3-1Program Funding 3-1CCTDP Cost-Sharing 3-4Recovery of Government Outlays (Recoupment) 3-10

PPII 3-10CCPI 3-12Introduction 4-1CCTDP 4-1

Overview of Events 4-1

Section 3. Funding and CostsSection 4. Accomplishments

Section 2. Implementation
iv Program Update 2003

Overview of Outreach 4-1Accomplishments—Environmental Control Devices 4-2Accomplishments—Advanced Electric Power Generation 4-3Accomplishments—Coal Processing for Clean Fuels 4-5Accomplishments—Industrial Applications 4-5Accomplishments—General 4-6Commercialization 4-6Summary 4-7Awards 4-7

PPII 4-7CCPI 4-7Market Communications—Outreach 4-14

Information Sources 4-14Publications 4-15Information Access 4-15Information Dissemination and Feedback 4-16

Conferences, Workshops, and Trade Missions—FY2002 4-16

Conferences 4-16Workshops 4-18Trade Missions 4-20Other Events 4-21

Conferences, Workshops, and Trade Missions—FY2003 4-21

Conferences 4-21Workshops 4-22Trade Missions 4-23Other Events 4-24

Section 4. Accomplishments (continued)
Introduction 5-1Technology Overview 5-1

Environmental Control Devices 5-1Advanced Electric Power Generation 5-2Coal Processing for Clean Fuels 5-2Industrial Applications 5-2

Project Fact Sheets 5-3CCTDP Historical Perspective A-1CCTDP Legislative History A-2PPII Historical Perspective A-8PPII Legislative History A-8CCPI Historical Perspective A-9CCPI Legislative History A-9Public Laws—CCTDP, PPII, and CCPI A-10

CCTDP Solicitation History B-1CCTDP Selection and Negotiation History B-1PPII Solicitation History B-6PPII Selection and Negotiation History B-6CCPI Solicitation History B-7CCPI Selection and Negotiation History B-7Introduction C-1The Role of NEPA in the CCTDP C-2Compliance with NEPA C-2

Categorical Exclusions C-2Memoranda-to-File C-2Environmental Assessments C-2Environmental Impact Statements C-5NEPA Actions in Progress C-5

Section 5. Projects

Appendix A. Historical Perspective andLegislative HistoryAppendix B. Program HistoryAppendix C. CCTDP Environmental Aspects
vi Program Update 2003

Appendix E. Acronyms, Abbreviations, andSymbolsIndex of Projects and ParticipantsAppendix D. Project Contacts

Environmental Monitoring C-6Air Toxics C-6Project Contacts D-1CCTDP D-1PPII D-2CCPI D-3Acronyms, Abbreviations, and Symbols E-1

State Abbreviations E-4Other E-5Index Index-1

Appendix C. CCTDP Environmental Aspects(continued)
Exhibits

Exhibit ES-1, CCTDP Projects ES-3Exhibit ES-2, PPII Projects ES-5Exhibit ES-3, CCPI Projects ES-5Exhibit ES-4, Completed Projects by Application Category ES-10

Exhibit ES-5, Commercial Activity—Environmental Control Technologies ES-1Exhibit ES-6, Commercial Activity—Advanced Electric Power Generation Techn

Exhibit ES-7, Commercial Activity—Coal Processing for Clean Fuels TechnologExhibit ES-8, Commercial Activity—Industrial Application Project ES-15Exhibit ES-9, Award-Winning CCTDP Projects ES-17Exhibit ES-10, Project Fact Sheets by Application Category ES-19Exhibit ES-11, Project Fact Sheets by Participant ES-20Exhibit 1-1, Comparison of Energy Projections for Electric Generators 1-9Exhibit 1-2, Vision 21 Objectives 1-10Exhibit 2-1, CCTDP Selection Process Summary 2-5Exhibit 2-2, Clean Coal Technology Demonstration Program Projects 2-6Exhibit 2-3, Geographic Locations of CCTDP Projects—Environmental Control Exhibit 2-4, Geographic Locations of CCTDP Projects—Advanced Electric PowExhibit 2-5, Geographic Locations of CCTDP Projects—Coal Processing for CleExhibit 2-6, Geographic Locations of CCTDP Projects—Industrial Applications Exhibit 2-7, Power Plant Improvement Initiative Projects 2-13Exhibit 2-8, Geographic Locations of PPII Projects 2-14Exhibit 2-9, Clean Coal Power Initiative Projects 2-17Exhibit 2-10, Geographic Locations of CCPI Projects 2-18

Executive SummarySection 2. Program ImplementationSection 1. Role of Clean Coal Technology
viii Program Update 2003

Exhibit 3-1, CCTDP Project Costs and Cost-Sharing 3-1Exhibit 3-2, Relationship Between Appropriations and Subprogram Budgets for thExhibit 3-3, Annual CCTDP Funding by Appropriations and Subprogram Budgets Exhibit 3-4, CCTDP Financial Projections as of May 31, 2003 3-4Exhibit 3-5, Financial Status of the CCTDP as of May 31, 2003 3-5Exhibit 3-6, CCTDP Schedules by Application Category 3-6Exhibit 3-7, CCTDP Funding by Application Category 3-8Exhibit 3-8, Financial Status of PPII and CCPI as of May 31, 2003 3-11Exhibit 3-9, PPII and CCPI Project Funding 3-13Exhibit 4-1, Commercial Activity—SO2 Control Technology 4-8

Exhibit 4-2, Commercial Activity—NOx Control Technology 4-9Exhibit 4-3, Commercial Activity—Multi-Pollutant Control Technology 4-10Exhibit 4-4, Commercial Activity—Advanced Electric Power Generation 4-11Exhibit 4-5, Commercial Activity—Coal Processing for Clean Fuels 4-12Exhibit 4-6, Commercial Activity—Industrial Applications 4-12Exhibit 4-7, Award-Winning CCTDP Projects 4-13Exhibit 4-8, How to Obtain CCTDP Information 4-15Exhibit 4-9, Perceptions of Barriers to Coal Combustion Have Changed—Ranked Exhibit 5-1, Project Fact Sheets by Application Category 5-4Exhibit 5-2, Project Fact Sheets by Participant 5-5Exhibit 5-3, Geographic Locations of Active CCT Projects 5-6Exhibit 5-4, Key to Milestone Charts in Fact Sheets 5-7Exhibit A-1, CCTDP Legislative History A-3Exhibit A-2, PPII Legislative History A-8Exhibit A-3, CCPI Legislative History A-9

Section 5. ProjectsSection 4. Accomplishments

Section 3. Funding and CostsAppendix A. Historical Perspective andLegislative History
Appendix C. CCTDP Environmental Aspects Exhibit C-1, NEPA Reviews Completed as of May 31, 2003 C-1

Exhibit C-2, Memoranda-to-File Completed C-3Exhibit C-3, Environmental Assessments Completed as of May 31, 2003 C-4Exhibit C-4, Environmental Impact Statements Completed as of May 31, 2003 CExhibit C-5, NEPA Reviews in Progress as of May 31, 2003 C-5Exhibit C-6, Status of Environmental Monitoring Plans for CCTDP Projects as oExhibit C-7, Status of CCTDP Projects Monitoring Hazardous Air Pollutants as o
x Program Update 2003

Project Fact Sheets by Application CategEnvironmental Control Devices Combustion Initiative for Innovative Cost-Effective NO

x Reduction (Alliant Energ

Services, Inc.) 5-10Achieving NSPS Emission Standards Through Integration of Low-NOx Burners w

Plan for Boiler Combustion (Sunflower Electric Power Corporation) 5-12Development of Hybrid FLGR/SNCR/SCR Advanced NOx Control (TIAX, LLC) Greenidge Multi-Pollutant Control Project (CONSOL Energy, Inc.) 5-16Demonstration of a Full-Scale Retrofit of the Advanced Hybrid Particulate CollectTail Power Company) 5-18Big Bend Power Station Neural Network-Sootblower Optimization (Tampa ElectriCommercial Demonstration of the Airborne Process (LG&E Energy Corporation) Demonstration of Integrated Optimization Software at the Baldwin Energy CompleTOXECON Retrofit for Mercury and Multi-Pollutant Control on Three 90 MW Co(Wisconsin Electric Power Company) 5-26McIntosh Unit 4A PCFB Demonstration Project (City of Lakeland, Lakeland ElecMcIntosh Unit 4B Topped PCFB Demonstration Project (City of Lakeland, LakelaJEA Large-Scale CFB Combustion Demonstration Project (JEA) 5-34Next Generation CFB Coal Generating Unit (Colorado Springs Utilities) 5-36Kentucky Pioneer Energy IGCC Demonstration Project (Kentucky Pioneer EnergyClean Coal Diesel Demonstration Project (TIAX, LLC) 5-40Lignite Fuel Enhancement (Great River Energy) 5-44Gilberton Coal-to-Clean Fuels and Power Co-Production Project (WMPI PTY., LLAdvanced Coal Conversion Process Demonstration (Western Syncoal LLC) 5-48

Advanced Electric Power GenerationCoal Processing for Clean Fuels
Industrial Applications Clean Power from Integrated Coal/Ore Reduction (CPICORTM) (CPICORTM Man

Commercial Demonstration of the Manufactured Aggregate Processing Technolo(Universal Aggregates, LLC) 5-56Advanced Multi-Product Coal Utilization By-Product Processing Plant (UniversiFoundation) 5-58Western Greenbrier Co-Production Demonstration Project (Western Greenbrier C
xii Program Update 2003

Project Fact Sheets by ParticipantAlliant Energy Corporate Services, Inc. (Combustion Initiative for Innovative Cost-Effective NOx Reduction) 5-10

Colorado Springs Utilities (Next Generation CFB Coal Generating Unit) 5-36CONSOL Energy, Inc. (Greenidge Multi-Pollutant Control Project) 5-16CPICORTM Management Company LLC (Clean Power from Integrated Coal/Ore Reduction (CPICORTM)) 5-54Great River Energy (Lignite Fuel Enhancement) 5-44JEA (JEA Large-Scale CFB Combustion Demonstration Project) 5-34Kentucky Pioneer Energy, LLC (Kentucky Pioneer Energy IGCC Demonstration Project) 5-38Lakeland, City of, Lakeland Electric (McIntosh Unit 4A PCFB Demonstration Project) 5-30Lakeland, City of, Lakeland Electric (McIntosh Unit 4B Topped PCFB Demonstration Project) 5-32LG&E Energy Corporation (Commercial Demonstration of the Airborne Process) 5-22NeuCo, Inc. (Demonstration of Integrated Optimization Software at the Baldwin Energy Complex) 5-24Otter Tail Power Company (Demonstration of a Full-Scale Retrofit of the Advanced Hybrid Particulate Collector Technology) 5-18Sunflower Electric Power Corporation (Achieving NSPS Emission Standards Through Integration of Low-NOx Burners with an Optimization 

5-12Tampa Electric Company (Big Bend Power Station Neural Network-Sootblower Optimization) 5-20TIAX, LLC (Clean Coal Diesel Demonstration Project) 5-40TIAX, LLC (Development of Hybrid FLGR/SNCR/SCR Advanced NOx Control) 5-14

Universal Aggregates, LLC (Commercial Demonstration of the Manufactured Aggregate Processing Technology Utilizing Spray Dryer Ash) University of Kentucky Research Foundation (Advanced Multi-Product Coal Utilization By-Product Processing Plant) 5-58Western Greenbrier Co-Generation, LLC (Western Greenbrier Co-Production Demonstration Project) 5-60Western SynCoal LLC (Advanced Coal Conversion Process Demonstration) 5-48Wisconsin Electric Power Company (TOXECON Retrofit for Mercury and Multi-Pollutant Control on Three 90 MW Coal-Fired Boilers) 5-2WMPI PTY., LLC (Gilberton Coal-to-Clean Fuels and Power Co-Production Project) 5-46
This 2003 annual update of clean coal technology(CCT) demonstration efforts marks a time of shiftingemphasis from the Clean Coal TechnologyDemonstration Program (CCTDP) to the Clean CoalPower Initiative (CCPI) and the transitory PowerPlant Improvement Initiative (PPII)—a precursor toCCPI. The CCTDP is nearing completion, with only5 of 36 projects still ongoing. The CCPI, similar inscope to the CCTDP, is on the verge of implementingactivities, following selection of first round projectsearlier this year. Projects have begun under thesingle, focused PPII solicitation issued in 2001.This annual report is presented in two volumes;Volume 1—Clean Coal Technology Demonstrations:Program Update 2003 and Volume 2—Clean CoalTechnology Demonstration Program: CompletedProjects 2003. Volume 1 focuses on ongoingCCTDP, PPII, and CCPI program and projectactivities and is to be updated annually. Volume 2captures results of completed projects as reported inthe final reports and is to be updated as final reportsare issued on remaining projects.Volume 1—Clean Coal Technology Demonstrations:Program Update 2003 discusses the programmaticaspects of CCTDP, PPII, and CCPI in chronologicalorder; and presents ongoing, active projectinformation in project fact sheets organized by marketsector – environmental control devices, advancedelectric power generation, coal processing for cleanfuels, and industrial applications. Section 1 firstexamines the importance of coal; discusses the roleCCTDP, PPII, and CCPI play in meeting 21st century

energy and environmental demands; reflects onenvironmental and market drivers; and addressesfuture CCT directions. Section 2 discusses theprinciples underlying CCTDP, PPII, and CCPIimplementation, the implementation process, and

Overview

results from each solicitation. Section 3 addressesfunding for the CCT demonstrations and associatedprovisions, the financial status of the CCT programs,and project schedules. Section 4 reviewsaccomplishments to date under the CCT programs,including commercialization successes, providessources for CCT information, and summarizesoutreach events. Section 5 contains the project factsheets for the ongoing, active projects.Volume 2—Clean Coal Technology DemonstrationProgram: Completed Projects 2003 provides aproject fact sheet for each completed project. Theproject fact sheets offer information on theparticipants, describe the project and technologies,present key findings, and provide links to more indepth information. Also provided is a briefbackground on the CCTDP and associatedaccomplishments.
xiv Program Update 2003
IntroductionThe Clean Coal Technology Programs: Program Update2003 (Program Update 2003) addresses all three of theU.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) commercial-scaledemonstrations of clean coal technologies (CCTs)—CleanCoal Technology Demonstration Program (CCTDP),Power Plant Improvement Initiative (PPII), and CleanCoal Power Initiative (CCPI). Together, these programswill ensure the nation’s energy security and reliability, andprotect the environment while using the nation’s mostabundant energy resource—coal. A separate volume,Clean Coal Technology Programs: Completed Projects2003 (Completed Projects 2003), includes fact sheets forthe completed CCTDP projects. These reports provide astatus of the programs since the beginning of fiscal year(FY) 2002 through May 31, 2003.ProgramsCCTDPThe CCTDP, a model of government and industry cooperation, advances DOE’s mission to foster a secure andreliable energy system that is environmentally and economically sustainable. With 31 of the 36 active projectscompleted, the CCTDP has yielded CCTs that meet existing environmental regulations, compete in a competitive electric power marketplace, and provide a technicalfoundation for meeting future environmental demands.Executive Summary

The CCTDP is providing a portfolio of technologies thatwill assure that the U.S. recoverable coal reserves of 274billion tons can continue to supply the nation’s energyneeds economically and in an environmentally soundmanner. At the dawn of the 21st century, many of the

CCTs have realized commercial application. Industrynow stands ready to respond to the energy and environmental demands of the new century, both domesticallyand internationally. For existing power plants, theCCTDP provided cost-effective environmental controldevices requisite to meeting year 2000 emission requirements for sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides

(NOx), and particulate matter (PM). Also introducedwere a new generation of technologies with the potentialto commercially produce electricity and other commodities, and provide efficiencies and environmental performance responsive to emerging regulations and globalclimate change concerns. The CCTDP took a pollutionprevention approach as well, demonstrating technologiesthat produce clean, coal-based solid and liquid fuels byremoving pollutants or their precursors before beingused. Lastly, new technologies were introduced into themajor coal-using industries to enhance environmentalperformance. Thanks in part to the CCTDP, coal—abundant, secure, and economical—can continue in its role asa key component in the U.S. and world energy markets.PPIIThe Power Plant Improvement Initiative was established by Congress to provide for the commercial-scaledemonstration of technologies to assure the reliabilityof the nation’s energy supply from existing and newelectric generating facilities. The single solicitationrequired participants to offer significant improvementsin power plant performance leading to enhanced electric reliability.

Tidd PFBC Demonstration Company)—1991 Powerpmagazine.Tampa Electric Integrated Project (Tampa Electric Cpresented by Power maga
ES-2 Program Update 2003

CCPIThe Clean Coal Power Initiative is a government/industry partnership to implement the President’s NationalEnergy Policy (NEP) recommendation to increase investment in clean coal technology. This recommendation, one of several dealing with electricity, addresses thenational challenge of ensuring the reliability of the U.S.electric supply while simultaneously protecting the environment. The goal is to accelerate commercial deployment of advanced technologies to ensure that the UnitedStates has clean, reliable, and affordable electricity. Aspart of this initiative, DOE’s Office of Fossil Energy,through its National Energy Technology Laboratory(NETL), solicited applications for cost-shared projects.The first CCPI (CCPI-I) Program Opportunity Notice(PON) sought projects that would demonstrate advanced coal-based technologies and accelerate theirdeployment for commercial use. The CCPI-I PON wasdesigned to support the Clear Skies Initiative (CSI)through advanced pollution controls and the GlobalClimate Change Initiative through efficiency improvements for existing plants. As such, CCPI-I was open toany technology advancement related to coal-basedpower generation that results in efficiency, environmental, and economic improvements compared to currentlyavailable state-of-the-art alternatives. The solicitationwas also open to technologies capable of producingany combination of heat, fuels, chemicals or other useful by-products in conjunction with power generation.HighlightsCCTDPSince the beginning of FY 2002, the following majorevents have occurred:

• Demonstration of Advanced Combustion Techniques

for a Wall-Fired Boiler completed demonstrationoperations;

• Commercial-Scale Demonstration of the Liquid

Phase Methanol (LPMEOHTM) Process completeddemonstration operations;

• JEA Large-Scale CFB Combustion Demonstration

Project started operations;

• McIntosh Unit 4A PCFB Demonstration Project was

terminated; and

• McIntosh Unit 4B Topped PCFB Demonstration

Project was terminated.

A list of all the active and completed projects is shownin Exhibit ES-1.PPIIThe Department of Energy developed a PPII PON,incorporating general provisions of the CCTDP (percongressional direction) with some modifications totake into account lessons learned from the CCTDP. Theprogram solicitation was issued on February 6, 2001

and 24 proposals were reSeptember 28, 2001, a toover $110 million were ssequently, two projects wagreements have been sipants. A list of all the actExhibit ES-2.CCPIThe CCPI-I PON was isposals were received by selections were announcprojects valued at more t$317 million in federal clected by DOE for fundithree multi-pollutant envtions ($188 million), two tions ($517 million), two fuels demonstrations ($6co-production applicatioSubsequently, one projecfor the cooperative agreeremaining seven projectprojects is shown in ExhOutreachThe Office of Coal and Pthe National Energy Teccontinued outreach effortences, workshops, and trFive Clean Coal Today nToday Newsletter Index, Project Performance SumReports were published pDOE’s CCT programs.

Demonstration of Innovative Applications of Technology forthe CT-121 FGD Process Project (Southern CompanyServices, Inc.)—1994 Powerplant Award presented by Powermagazine.
Exhibit ES-1

CCTDP Projects

Project and Participant LoCCTDP-IDevelopment of the Coal Quality ExpertTM (ABB Combustion Engineering, Inc. and CQ Inc.) HoLIMB Demonstration Project Extension and Coolside Demonstration (The Babcock & Wilcox Company) LoAdvanced Cyclone Combustor with Internal Sulfur, Nitrogen, and Ash Control (Coal Tech Corporation) WiEnhancing the Use of Coals by Gas Reburning and Sorbent Injection (Energy and Environmental Research Corporation) HeTidd PFBC Demonstration Project (The Ohio Power Company) BrAdvanced Coal Conversion Process Demonstration (Western SynCoal LLC) CoNucla CFB Demonstration Project (Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, Inc.) NuJEA Large-Scale CFB Combustion Demonstration Project (JEA) JacCCTDP-IISNOXTM Flue Gas Cleaning Demonstration Project (ABB Environmental Systems) NiDemonstration of Coal Reburning for Cyclone Boiler NOx Control (The Babcock & Wilcox Company) Ca

SOx-NOx-Rox BoxTM Flue Gas Cleanup Demonstration Project (The Babcock & Wilcox Company) DiCement Kiln Flue Gas Recovery Scrubber (Passamaquoddy Tribe) Th

Advanced Flue Gas Desulfurization Demonstration Project (Pure Air on the Lake, L.P.) ChDemonstration of Advanced Combustion Techniques for a Wall-Fired Boiler (Southern Company Services, Inc.) CoDemonstration of Innovative Applications of Technology for the CT-121 FGD Process (Southern Company Services, Inc.) NeDemonstration of Selective Catalytic Reduction Technology for the Control of NOx Emissions from High-Sulfur, Coal-Fired Boilers Pe

(Southern Company Services, Inc.)180-MWe Demonstration of Advanced Tangentially Fired Combustion Techniques for the Reduction of NOx Emissions from Coal-Fired Ly

Boilers (Southern Company Services, Inc.)CCTDP-IIICommercial-Scale Demonstration of the Liquid Phase Methanol (LPMEOHTM) Process (Air Products Liquid Phase Conversion KiCompany, L.P.)10-MWe Demonstration of Gas Suspension Absorption (AirPol, Inc.) WeHealy Clean Coal Project (Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority) HeFull-Scale Demonstration of Low-NO

x Cell Burner Retrofit (The Babcock & Wilcox Company) Ab
ES-4 Program Update 2003

Exhibit ES-1 (continued)

CCTDP Projects

Project and Participant LocCCTDP-III (continued)Confined Zone Dispersion Flue Gas Desulfurization Demonstration (Bechtel Corporation) SewBlast Furnace Granular-Coal Injection System Demonstration Project (Bethlehem Steel Corporation) BurENCOAL® Mild Coal Gasification Project (ENCOAL Corporation) Gill

Evaluation of Gas Reburning and Low-NOx Burners on a Wall-Fired Boiler (Energy and Environmental Research Corporation) Den

LIFAC Sorbent Injection Desulfurization Demonstration Project (LIFAC–North America) RichIntegrated Dry NOx/SO2 Emissions Control System (Public Service Company of Colorado) Den

Tampa Electric Integrated Gasification Combined-Cycle Project (Tampa Electric Company) MuCCTDP-IVMicronized Coal Reburning Demonstration for NOx Control (New York State Electric & Gas Corporation) Lan

Milliken Clean Coal Technology Demonstration Project (New York State Electric & Gas Corporation) LanPiñon Pine IGCC Power Project (Sierra Pacific Power Company) Ren

Pulse Combustor Design Qualification Test (ThermoChem, Inc.) BaltWabash River Coal Gasification Repowering Project (Wabash River Coal Gasification Repowering Project Joint Venture) WesCCTDP-VClean Coal Diesel Demonstration Project (Arthur D. Little, Inc.) FairClean Power from Integrated Coal/Ore Reduction (CPICORTM) (CPICORTM Management Company LLC) VinKentucky Pioneer Energy IGCC Demonstration Project (Kentucky Pioneer Energy, LLC) Trap
Exhibit ES-2

PPII Projects

Exhibit ES-3

CCPI Projects

Project and Participant Achieving NSPS Emission Standards Through Integration of Low-NOx Burners with an Optimization Plan for Boiler Combustion 

(Sunflower Electric Power Corporation)Development of Hybrid FLGR/SNCR/SCR Advanced NOx Control (TIAX, LLC) 

Greenidge Multi-Pollutant Control Project (CONSOL Energy, Inc.) 

Demonstration of a Full-Scale Retrofit of the Advanced Hybrid Particulate Collector Technology (Otter Tail Power Company) Big Bend Power Station Neural Network-Sootblower Optimization (Tampa Electric Company) Commercial Demonstration of the Manufactured Aggregate Processing Technology Utilizing Spray Dryer Ash (Universal Aggregates, LLC) 

Project and Participant Demonstration of Integrated Optimization Software at the Baldwin Energy Complex (NeuCo, Inc.) TOXECON Retrofit for Mercury and Multi-Pollutant Control on Three 90 MW Coal-Fired Boilers (Wisconsin Electric Power Company) Next Generation CFB Coal Generating Unit (Colorado Springs Utilities) Lignite Fuel Enhancement (Great River Energy) Gilberton Coal-to-Clean Fuels and Power Co-Production Project (WMPI PTY., LLC) Advanced Multi-Product Coal Utilization By-Product Processing Plant (University of Kentucky Research Foundation) Western Greenbrier Co-Production Demonstration Project (Western Greenbrier Co-Generation, LLC) 
ES-6 Program Update 2003

Role of Clean CoalTechnologyCoalCoal accounts for over 94 percent of the proven fossilenergy reserves in the United States and supplies the bulkof the low-cost, reliable electricity vital to the nation’seconomy and global competitiveness. In 2001, over halfof the nation’s electricity was produced with coal, andprojections by the U.S. Energy Information Agency (EIA)predict that coal will continue to dominate electric powerproduction well into the first quarter of` the 21st century.CCTDPThe CCTDP was established to demonstrate the commercial feasibility of CCTs to respond to a growingdemand for a new generation of advanced coal-basedtechnologies characterized by enhanced operational,economic, and environmental performance. The firstPON (CCTDP-I) for clean coal projects resulted in abroad range of projects being selected in four majorproduct markets—environmental control devices, advanced electric power generation, coal processing forclean fuels, and industrial applications.The second PON (CCTDP-II) became the centerpiecefor satisfying the recommendations contained in theJoint Report of the Special Envoys on Acid Rain(1986). The goal was to demonstrate technologies thatcould achieve significant reductions in the emissions ofprecursors of acid rain, namely SO2 and NOx. The third

PON (CCTDP-III) furthered the goal of CCT-II andadded technologies that could produce clean fuel fromrun-of-mine coal.The fourth and fifth PONs (CCTDP-IV and CCTDPV, respectively) recognized emerging energy and environmental issues, such as global climate change and capping SO2 emissions, and thus focused on technolo- gies that were capable of addressing these issues. The CCTDP-IV PON called for energy efficient, economi- cally competitive technologies capable of retrofitting, repowering, or replacing existing facilities, while at the same time significantly reducing SO2 and NOx emissions. The CCTDP-V PON focused on technolo- gies applicable to new or existing facilities that could significantly improve efficiency and environmental performance. PPII The Department of Energy has embarked upon PPII to address near-term electricity delivery reliability con- cerns. The rapid growth in power demand, especially peak demand, coupled with the ongoing restructuring of the electric power industry, has resulted in a real and growing concern over the reliability of the nation’s electricity grid. The initiative arose from the brownouts and blackouts of 1999 and 2000 in California and elsewhere. This concern prompted Congress to add $95 million to the Office of Fossil Energy budget for FY 2001 for PPII. The Power Plant Improvement Initiative approved by Congress will have a near-term focus on improving the efficiency and environmental performance of coal-fired power generation. New technologies will be demonstrated that can boost the efficiency of a power plant—increasing the amount of elec- tricity it can generate and reducing air emissions per kilo- watt-hour produced. The initiative applies to existing and new coal-based, central power plants. Congress provided “for a general request for proposals for the commercial scale demonstration of technologies to assure the reliability of the [n]ation’s energy supply from existing and new electric generating facilities for which the Department of Energy upon review may provide financial assistance awards . . .” In the act, Congress transferred the funding from previously ap- propriated CCTDP funding. CCPI The Clean Coal Power In

recommendation to incretechnology for the purpoour electric supply while environment. Establishecost-shared partnership bindustry—like the CCTDaccelerate commercial dnologies to ensure that threliable, and affordable esigned to be implementeinvestment totalling $2 bdustry at a minimum of 5Environmental DrControlling SO2 and NOx ronmental drivers for the for PPII and CCPI includ2.5 microns in diameter (pollutants, primarily merBoth PPII and CCPI suppmental initiatives like the Advanced Flue Gas Desulf(Pure Air on the Lake, L.P.)presented by Power magaz
Change Initiative. Furthermore, efforts to reduce regional haze and reduce solid waste are supported byCCTDP, PPII, and CCPI demonstration efforts.Market ConsiderationsAs electricity generation moves from a regulated industry to a free market, the DOE has kept pace with thechanges. Whether the changes are brought about by thefederal government through existing or new legislationor by state governments, DOE is demonstrating the firstgeneration of many technologies that will be needed ina competitive power generation market. These newtechnologies will be far more efficient than existingplants and environmentally benign.Ensuring Sustainable Economic GrowthIt is in the nation’s interest to maintain a diverse energymix to sustain domestic economic growth. The Department of Energy is contributing to this interest by developing and deploying a technology portfolio that enhancesthe efficient use of the United States’ abundant coal resource while simultaneously achieving important environmental goals. The advancements in coal use technologyresulting from the CCTDP, PPII, and CCPI will reducedependence on foreign energy resources and create aninternational market for these new technologies.FutureGenFutureGen, as currently proposed, is a $1 billion venture

to build a prototype of the fossil fuel plant of the future.The plant will combine electricity and hydrogen production with the virtual elimination of harmful emissions,including greenhouse gases through sequestration. TheFutureGen power plant will serve as the test bed fordemonstrating the best technologies the world has tooffer. The CCTDP, PPII, and CCPI programs providethe platform for evaluating FutureGen technology candidates. The Department of Energy will ask the powerindustry to organize a consortium to manage the projectand share in the project costs.

Vision 21For the long term, the Office of Coal & Power Systems(OC&PS) will build upon the solid foundation established by the CCTDP and contributions from PPII andCCPI to meet Vision 21 goals. Vision 21 is a long-termstrategic set of objectives to develop the full potentialof the nation’s abundant fossil fuel resources whileaddressing regional and global environmental concerns. Vision 21 plants would comprise a portfolio offuel-flexible systems and modules capable of producing a varied slate of high-value commodities at nearzero emissions of pollutants. Such commodities includeclean fuels, chemicals, and electricity, tailored to meetmarket demands in the 2010-2015 time frame.ImplementationCCTDPImplementation PrinciplesThere are 10 guiding principles that have been instrumental in the success of the CCTDP. These principlesare:• Strong and stable financial commitment for the life

of a project, including full funding of thegovernment’s share of the costs;

• Multiple solicitations spread over a number of years,

enabling the CCTDP 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 assessmentof a technology’s commercial potential;

• A technical agenda established by industry, not the

government, enhancing commercialization potential;

• Clearly defined role

reflecting the degree 

• A requirement for at 

throughout all projepants’ commitment;

• An allowance for co

cost-sharing, recognproviding an importthe program;

• Industry retention o

rights, enhancing co

• A requirement for in

cialize the technologgoals; and

• A requirement for re

cost-share upon suctechnology being de

Implementation PrPublic and private sectoCCTDP process and hasuccess. Environmental through the process instronmental Policy Act (Nenvironmental assessmimpact statements (PEItal assessments (EAs) aments (EISs), and other able to comment and hafore the projects proceeenvironmental monitoriprojects to address non-As to the solicitation pfor each solicitation. Tlated the congressionabased criteria and dev“lessons learned” from criteria and solicitation public comment and pences. The solicitationagainst the pre-establi
ES-8 Program Update 2003

Projects are managed by the participants, not the government. However, to protect the public interest, safeguards are implemented to track and monitor projectprogress and direction. The Department of Energy interacts with the project at key negotiated decisionpoints (budget periods) to approve or disapprove continuance of the project. Also, any changes to cost orother major project changes require DOE approval. Inaddition to formal project reporting requirements, anoutreach program was instituted to make project information available to customers and stakeholders. ThisProgram Update 2003 is only one of the many publicreports made available through the outreach program.Environmental ProvisionsSection 415 (42 U.S.C. §7651n) of the Clean Air ActAmendments of 1990 included two important incentives for clean coal demonstration projects. First, atemporary (less than five years of operation) clean coaltechnology (CCT) demonstration project is exemptedfrom New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) andexempted from New Source Review (NSR) for pollutants in both attainment and non-attainment areas. However, the project must comply with the State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the state where the project is located and must maintain National Ambient Air QualityStandards (NAAQS). Second, a permanent CCT demonstration that constitutes repowering is exempted fromNSPS, and NSR for pollutants in attainment areas, ifthe potential pollutant emissions will not increase.(Congress has made section 415 applicable to bothPPII and CCPI projects.)Commitment to Commercial RealizationThe CCTDP has focused on achieving commercial realization since the program’s inception. All five PONs required the potential participants to address the commercialplans and approaches to be used by the participants toachieve full commercialization of the proposed technology. The cooperative agreements contain balanced provisions that provide protection for intellectual property but

require the participants to make the technology availableunder license on a nondiscriminatory basis.Solicitation ResultsEach solicitation was issued as a PON—a solicitationmechanism for cooperative agreements where the program goals and objectives are defined, but the technology is not defined. The procurements followed specificstatutory requirements that eventually led to a cooperative agreement between DOE and the participant. Theresult was a broad spectrum of technologies involvingcustomers and stakeholders from all market segments. Insum, 211 proposals were submitted and 60 of those wereselected. As of May 2003, a total of 36 projects havebeen completed or are currently active. These 36projects are spread across the nation in 18 states.Future Implementation DirectionThe future direction of the CCTDP focuses on completingthe five remaining projects as promptly as possible andassuring the collection, analyses, and reporting of theoperational, economic, and environmental performanceresults that are needed to effect commercialization.The body of knowledge obtained as a result of theCCTDP is being used in decision making relative toregulatory compliance, forging plans for meeting futureenergy and environmental demands, and developing thenext generation of technologies responsive to ever increasing demands on environmental performance atcompetitive costs.Built upon the success of the CCTDP, the two newinitiatives—PPII and CCPI—have incorporated manyof the implementation principles of the CCTDP. Theseimplementation principles will also reflect lessonslearned from the CCTDP to further enhance the returnon taxpayer investment.

PPIIThe Department of Enerincorporating general prcongressional direction) take into account lessons The PON provided that pcant improvements in poto enhanced electric reliacould be in the form of ielectricity production, reor increasing cost-comphad to be applicable to a plants and of commerciaover the early part of the Specific areas of interest • Advanced combustion 

components;

• Advanced NOx contro• CO2 capture, utilizatio• Combustion or gasific• Co-production;• Fine particulate contr• Hydrogen chloride co• Mercury control;• Process control system• Repowering;• Steam cycle improvem• Wet and dry scrubberWith regard to intellectuthree main issues that haticipants: commercializaand patent rights. For cothere must be a precise denvelope and it must addrangements. For data rigproprietary technology amust be made available t
Patent rights for inventions conceived or first actuallyreduced to practice under DOE contract are defined bystatute and regulation and vary depending on the statusof the participant, e.g., large business firm, small business firm, or non-profit organization.CCPIThe CCPI-I PON sought projects that demonstratedadvanced coal-based technologies, and would accelerate their deployment for commercial use. The CCPI-IPON was open to any technology advancement relatedto coal-based power generation that results in efficiency, environmental, and economic improvementcompared to currently available state-of-the-art alternatives. The PON was also open to technologies capableof producing any combination of heat, fuels, chemicals,or other useful byproducts in conjunction with powergeneration. Prospective participants had to ensure thatcoal is used for at least 75 percent of the fuel energyinput to the process. This will ensure that multiple fuelconcepts such as co-firing are not excluded, but theprogram remains focused on coal-based power generation. Additionally, they had to show the potential forrapid market penetration upon successful demonstration of the technology or concept. The PON was openfor application submission for a period of 150 days.The resultant awards are expected to be cooperativeagreements.Total government funding is expected to be between$300–400 million for CCPI-I. The minimum cost shareby the industrial participant is 50 percent, and must beat least 50 percent in each budget period. Periods ofperformance for the projects are expected to be two tosix years.The following examples of areas in which DOE expressed it interest were intended for guidance only anddid not exclude other technologies and concepts fromconsideration in the CCPI-I solicitation:• Carbon Management and Carbon Reduction• Combined Heat and Power Systems

• Combustion Concepts• Environmental Performance• Gasification Concepts• Process Control and Instrumentation• Steam Turbine ModificationsThe applicants were required to address the technicalmerit, project feasibility, commercialization potential,and cost in their CCPI-I proposals. The proposals hadto meet the following mandatory requirements:• The proposed project must be conducted at a facility

located in the United States.

• The proposed project must utilize at least 75 percent

coal, as measured on a fuel input (Btu) basis.

• The proposed project must be designed for and operated with coal mined in the United States and/or

refuse coal sources (e.g., culm and gob) that arederived from U. S. coals.

• The applicant must agree to provide a cost share of

at least 50 percent of the cost for the total projectand for each budget period.

• The applicant shall identify the proposed site and

any alternate sites in the application.

• The proposed project team must be clearly identified and firmly committed to fulfilling its proposed

role in the project.

• The applicant must agree to submit a Repayment

Agreement.

Funding and CostsCCTDPCongress has appropriated a federal budget of over$1.5 billion for the CCTDP. The participants in the 36completed and active projects will have contributed

more than $3.2 billion almost $4.8 billion. By exceed 50 percent of thever, industry has steppunprecedented 68 percCongress has provided solicitations through apments. Additional activthe Small Business Innthe Small Business TecFunding is also provideagement of the CCTDPcontrolled and monitormanagement techniqueshare specified in the cered committed to each gates funds for the projperiod. This procedure cial exposure and assurthe decision to proceed project implementationAs stated above, DOE’percent of the total cossharing is required for federal government ma(which is a potential foto 25 percent of the orithe same cost-share ratthe participant. The parthe cooperative agreemincurred and cannot be revenues, proceeds, or ments in facilities by pthe participant’s share.The policy objective of up to the federal governeach project when a tecmercialized. A recoupmeach demonstration agrment provisions.
ES-10 Program Update 2003

Exhibit ES-4

Completed Projects by Applic

Application Category Co

Ma

Environmental Control DevicesSO2 Control Technology 

NOx Control Technology Multi-Pollutant Control Technology Advanced Electric Power GenerationFluidized-Bed Combustion Integrated Gasification Combined-Cycle Advanced Combustion/Heat Engines Coal Processing for Clean Fuels Industrial Applications 

Total 

PPIIThe PPII was established by the Department of theInterior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act forFiscal Year 2001 (Public Law 106-291) through thetransfer of $95 million in previously appropriated funding for the CCTDP. Federal government commitmentswill be approximately $47 million with final valuesdetermined during negotiations. Private sector sponsorsare expected to contribute nearly $58 million, exceeding the 50 percent private sector cost-sharing mandatedby Congress. Repayment obligations start after thecompletion of the demonstration and last for 20 years.In accordance with congressional direction, repaymentswill be retained by DOE for future projects.CCPIFunding provided by appropriations for FY 2002 andFY 2003, along with additional funds available fromthe PPII, served as the basis for the CCPI-I PON. Theselected projects are valued at more than $1.3 billionwith a government commitment of approximately $317million. The projects are in negotiation and the firstawards are anticipated in late-2003. DOE funding commitments for the selected CCPI projects represent lessthan 25 percent of the total estimated costs for the eightselected projects, while participant commitments exceed $1 billion. The two largest projects in terms oftotal costs have proposed 84 and 90 percent participantfunding levels, showing that project participants arewilling to be substantial partners in the demonstrationof clean coal technologies.CCPI funds are subject to general provisions similarto those governing the use of CCTDP funds. For repayment, the CCPI-I PON did not designate explicitvalues or terms in the model repayment agreement,but instead left the details to be defined by the applicant. The applicant-proposed repayment provisionswere considered as one of five factors under the commercial potential evaluation criteria used to makeproject selections. The commercial potential criteria

represented 20 percent of the evaluation, with 50 percent based on technical merit and 30 percent onproject feasibility. In accordance with congressionaldirection, funds obtained from repayment provisionswill be retained by DOE for future activities.AccomplishmentsMarketplace CommitmentThe success of the CCTDP ultimately will be measuredby the contribution the technologies make to the resolution of energy, economic, and environmental issues.These contributions can only be achieved if the publicand private sectors understand that CCTs can increase the efficiency ofenergy use and enhanceenvironmental performance at costs that arecompetitive with alternative energy options. Thedemonstrations, in conjunction with an aggressive outreach effort, aredesigned to impart thatunderstanding. Also, theCCTDP is organizedfrom a market perspective with projects placedin four major productlines—environmentalcontrol devices, advancedelectric power generation,coal processing for cleanfuels, and industrial applications. A summary of

the number of completeshown in Exhibit ES-4.The first major product ldevices, is subdivided in

technologies, NOx contro

pollutant control technoland limestone-based sysachieve a range of SO2 c99 percent. All five of th

onstrations have been suFor NOx control technol

were used: (1) combustioincluding low-NOx burn

trols, and reburning systtechniques using selectivand selective non-catalyThese NOx control techn
The PC-based software tool CQETM can be used to determinethe complete costs of various fuel options by integrating theeffects of fuel purchase decisions on power plant performance,emissions, and power generation costs.

Wabash River Coal GasifRiver Coal Gasification R1996 Powerplant Award pFull-Scale Demonstration 

Project (The Babcock & WAward presented by R&D 

of combinations on a diverse group of boilers, whichare representative of 99 percent of existing coal-firedboilers. The result of the NOx control technology demonstrations is a portfolio of technologies that can beapplied to the full range of boiler types and used toaddress today’s pressing environmental concerns. Allseven NOx control technology demonstrations havebeen successfully completed.All six of the combined multi-pollutant control technology demonstrations have been successfully completed.

The demonstrations tested a multiplicity of complementary and synergistic control methods to achieve costeffective SO2 and NOx emission reductions.

The commercial activity of the environmental controltechnologies can be seen in Exhibit ES-5.The second major product line, advanced electric powergeneration, is subdivided into three groups—fluidized-bedcombustion (FBC), integrated gasification combined-cycle

(IGCC), and advanced combustion/heat engines. Thesetechnologies can be used for repowering existing plantsand for new plants.

For fluidized-bed combustion, two approaches wereused: atmospheric fluidized-bed combustion (AFBC)and pressurized fluidized-bed combustion (PFBC). Thetwo AFBC projects use a circulating-bed, as opposed toa bubbling-bed, operating at atmospheric pressure togenerate steam for electricity production. One projectis complete and the other project is ongoing. There isone PFBC project in the CCTDP (two other projectswere terminated in FY 2003). The completed PFBCproject used a bubbling-bed operating at 16 atmospheres to generate steam and drive a gas turbine in acombined-cycle mode.Three IGCC projects completed operations and afourth IGCC project is in the design stage. The IGCCprojects represent a diversity of gasifier types, cleanupsystems, and applications.Two projects are demonstrating advanced combustion/heat engine technology. One used an entrained (slagging) combustor, and the other uses a heavy duty dieselengine fired on a coal-water fuel. One project is completed and the other project is ongoing.The commercial activity of these advanced electricpower generation projects can be seen in Exhibit ES-6.For the third major product line, coal processing forclean fuels, there are four projects. Two completedprojects used chemical and physical processes to transform raw coal into high-energy-density, environmentallycompliant fuels. Another completed project convertedcoal to methanol from coal-derived synthesis gas. Afourth project in this product line is a software programused to assess the environmental and operational performance of and determine the least-cost option for available coals. All four of the coal processing for clean fuelsprojects have completed operations, with one of the fourin the reporting phase.The commercial activity of the coal processing forclean fuels projects can be seen in Exhibit ES-7.
ES-12 Program Update 2003

SO2 Control Technology

10-MWe Demonstration of Gas Suspension Absorption Sold domestically and internationally. GSA market entry was significantly enhanced w

(AirPol, Inc.) worth $12.5 million, to the city of Hamilton, Ohio, subsidized by the Ohio Coal Develop

$1.3 million has been made to the U.S. Army for hazardous waste disposal. A GSA systeiron ore sinter plant. Two GSA systems valued at $1.8 million have been sold to Taiwan fired cogeneration plant. Airpol sold a GSA system valued at $1.5 million to a petroleum units include a $300,000 GSA system at a municipal waste incinerator in Utah, a $3 milliincinerator in Holland, and a $500,000 GSA system at a municipal waste incinerator in M

Confined Zone Dispersion Flue Gas Desulfurization No sales reported. CZD/FGD can be used to retrofit existing plants or for new installa

Demonstration (Bechtel Corporation) one-tenth that of a commercial wet scrubber.LIFAC Sorbent Injection Desulfurization Sold domestically and internationally. The LIFAC system at Richmond Power & Lig

Demonstration Project (LIFAC–North America) power plant using high-sulfur (2.0-2.9%) coal. The LIFAC system has been retained fo

Power & Light at Whitewater Valley Station, Unit No. 2. There are 10 full-scale LIFAC China, Finland, Russia, Japan, and the United States, including 5 projects started beforChina, the estimated value is $44.6 million.

Advanced Flue Gas Desulfurization Demonstration Project No sales reported. The AFGD continues in commercial service at Northern Indiana Pu

(Pure Air on the Lake, L.P.) Bailly Generating Station. Gypsum produced by the PowerChip® process is being sold 

value for 17 years of continued scrubber operations is $154 million. FLS miljo, a Copecurrently working on a potential $60 million project in Kentucky using the next genera

Demonstration of Innovative Applications of Sold internationally. Plant Yates continues to operate with the CT-121 scrubber as an 

Technology for the CT-121 FGD Process CAAA compliance strategy. There are now 22 CT-121 plants in the planning, construc(Southern Company Services, Inc.) worldwide. There are 17 CT-121 plants (10 operating on coal) operating in Japan, Aus

Republic, Korea, Denmark, Malaysia, and Kuwait. The value of these 17 plants is estimprojects in the planning stage, the value is estimated at $880 million.

NO

x Control Technology

Micronized Coal Reburning Demonstration for NOx Control No sales reported. Technology retained for commercial use at the Kodak Park Power 

(New York State Electric & Gas Corporation)Demonstration of Coal Reburning for Cyclone Boiler NOx No sales reported. Technology retained for commercial use at Wisconsin Power and L

Control (The Babcock & Wilcox Company) Dewey Station.Full-Scale Demonstration of Low-NO

x

 Cell Burner Retrofit Sold domestically. Dayton Power & Light has retained the LNCB® for use in commer

(The Babcock & Wilcox Company) commercial contracts have been awarded for 196 burners or 5,475 MWe of capacity, vEvaluation of Gas Reburning and Low-NOx Burners on a Sold domestically and internationally. Public Service Company of Colorado, the hos

Wall-Fired Boiler (Energy and Environmental Research retain the low-NOx burners and the gas-reburning system for immediate use; however, 

Corporation) to remove the flue gas recirculation system. Since the CCTDP, the participant has insta

of installing the gas reburning or the gas reburning-low-NOx burner technology on 11 

2,310 MWe of capacity. Estimated value is over $50 million.

Exhibit ES-5

Commercial Activity—Environmental Control Technologies

Project Commercial Use
Exhibit ES-5 (continued)

Commercial Activity—Environmental Control Technologies

Project Commercial UseNO

x Control Technology (continued)

Demonstration of Selective Catalytic Reduction Technology Sold domestically and internationally. Since the project was initiated, revenues from 

for the Control of NO

x Emissions from High-Sulfur, $7.1 billion through 2002.

Coal-Fired Boilers (Southern Company Services, Inc.)180-MWe Demonstration of Advanced Tangentially Fired Sold domestically and internationally. LNCFSTM has been retained at the host site 

Combustion Techniques for the Reduction of NOx Emissions Power has sold about 67 GWe of LNCFSTM burners. Of this amount, about 49 GWe 

from Coal-Fired Boilers (Southern Company Services, Inc.) and 18 GWe are without overfire air. Total sales are estimated at $1.35 billion.Demonstration of Advanced Combustion Techniques Sold domestically and internationally. The host has retained the technologies for co

for a Wall-Fired Boiler (Southern Company Services, Inc.) Wheeler has equipped 83 boilers with low-NOx burner technology—a total of over 1

over 26,635 MWe capacity valued at $86 million. Foreign sales make up 35 percent oTwenty-six commercial installations of GNOCIS, the associated artificial intelligence or planned. This represents over 12,000 MWe of capacity.

Multi-Pollutant Control TechnologySNOXTM Flue Gas Cleaning Demonstration Project (ABB International use. The host utility, Ohio Edison, is retaining the SNOXTM technologEnvironmental Systems) pollution control system at Niles Station to help meet its overall SO2 and NOx reduct

SNOXTM plants are also operating in Japan, Russia, Denmark, The Czech Republic, 

LIMB Demonstration Project Extension and Coolside Sold domestically and internationally. LIMB has been sold to an independent pow

Demonstration (The Babcock & Wilcox Company) & Wilcox has sales of 2,805 DRB-XCL® burners for 38,284 MWe of capacity (20,29

17,993 MW domestically). The low-NOx burners have an estimated value of $388 m

SOx-NOx-Rox BoxTM Flue Gas Cleanup No sales reported. Commercialization of the technology is expected to develop with 

Demonstration Project (The Babcock & Wilcox Company) equivalent to 50-100 MWe. The focus of marketing efforts is being tailored to match 

industrial, utility, and independent power producers for both retrofit and new plant cotechnology that can be tailored to maximize control of SO2, NOx, particulate, or comb

performance requirements while providing flexibility to address future needs.

Enhancing the Use of Coals by Gas Reburning and No sales reported. Illinois Power has retained the gas-reburning system and City Wa

Sorbent Injection (Energy and Environmental Research the full technology for commercial use. (See Evaluation of Gas Reburning and Low-

Corporation) Boiler project for a complete understanding of commercial success of the technologyMilliken Clean Coal Technology Demonstration Project Sold domestically. Eight modules of DHR Technologies’ Plant Emissions Optimizat

(New York State Electric & Gas Corporation) estimated value of $280,000, have been sold. DHR Technologies, Inc., is no longer i

Electric & Gas Corporation owns the PEOA software. ABB Combustion Engineering representing over 25,000 MWe with LNCFSTM or its derivative TFS 2000TM.

Integrated Dry NOx/SO2 Emissions Control System Sold domestically. The technology was retained by Public Service Company of Colo

(Public Service Company of Colorado) its Arapahoe Station. Babcock & Wilcox has sales of 2,805 DRB-XCL® burners for 3

(20,291 MW domestically). The low-NOx burners have an estimated value of $388 m
ES-14 Program Update 2003

Exhibit ES-6

Commercial Activity—Advanced Electric Power Generation Technolog

Project Commercial UseTidd PFBC Demonstration Project Sold internationally. The project’s success has led Babcock & Wilcox to invest in the (The Ohio Power Company) and acquire domestic licensing rights.

Commercial coal-fired ventures abroad include the following:– Vartan in Sweden is operating two P200 units to produce 135 MWe and 224 MWt*– Escatron in Spain is operating one P200 unit producing 80 MWe*;– Wakamatsu in Japan has retired one P200 unit that produced 71 MWe;– Cottbus in Germany is operating one P200 unit to produce 71 MWe and 40 MWt;– Karita in Japan operates one P800 unit to produce 360 MWe;– Chuoku in Japan to produce 250 MWe; and– Tomato-Atswo plant in Japan to produce 80 MWe.The value of these projects is estimated at $1.35 billion.

Nucla CFB Demonstration Project (Tri-State Generation Sold domestically and internationally. Since the demonstration, Foster Wheeler Enerand Transmission Association, Inc.) supplier for the demonstration effort, made sales in Germany, Italy, Poland, Taiwan, Ch

Indonesia, Finland, The Czech Republic, Denmark, Sweden, Austria, Spain, France, CDomestic sales constitute almost 2 GW and international sales over 6 GW.

Tampa Electric Integrated Gasification Combined-Cycle Sold domestically and internationally. First greenfield IGCC unit in commercial serv

Project (Tampa Electric Company) Brown Boveri signed an agreement forming an alliance to market IGCC technology in 

gasifiers representing 3,871 MW in the development or operation phase at an estimate14 Texaco gasifiers representing 7,246 MWe in the planning phase at an estimated cos

Wabash River Coal Gasification Repowering Project No sales reported. First repowered IGCC unit in commercial service and is the world’

(Wabash River Coal Gasification Repowering Joint project in commercial service.Venture)Healy Clean Coal Project (Alaska Industrial Development No sales reported. TRW is offering licensing of combustor worldwide. Commercial opand Export Authority)

* Parallel project with Tidd.
Exhibit ES-7

Commercial Activity—Coal Processing for Clean Fuels Technologie

Project Commercial UseDevelopment of the Coal Quality ExpertTM (ABB Combustion Sold domestically and internationally. The Electric Power Research Institute (EPREngineering and CQ Inc.) Engineering software and distributes it to EPRI members for their use. CQ Inc. and 

commercialization agreements that give both companies nonexclusive worldwide riconsulting services that include use of CQE®. More than 22 U.S. utilities, two Unit

utility in France have received CQE® through EPRI membership. Two modules of t

$6,000 have been sold. EPRI estimated that the Acid Rain Advisor has saved one Umore than the total cost of the demonstration project. There have also been two salesoftware (Vista) at an estimated value of $180,000.

ENCOAL® Mild Coal Gasification Project (ENCOAL Domestic and international sales pending. In order to determine the viability of p

Corporation) plants, five detailed commercial feasibility studies—two Indonesian, one Russian, a

completed.

Commercial-Scale Demonstration of the Liquid Phase No sales reported. Nominal 80,000 gallon/day methanol production being used by Methanol (LPMEOHTM) Process (Air Products LiquidPhase Conversion Company, L.P.)Advanced Coal Conversion Process Demonstration No sales reported. Total sales of SynCoal® product exceed 1.9 million tons. Six lon

(Western SynCoal LLC) place to purchase the product. One domestic and five international projects have be

SynCoal LLC has a joint marketing agreement with Ube Industries of Japan providrights outside of the United States. Ube is pursuing several projects in Asia.

Exhibit ES-8

Commercial Activity—Industrial Applications Projects

Project Commercial UseCement Kiln Flue Gas Recovery Scrubber feasibility No sales reported. The scrubber became a permanent part of the cement plant at th(Passamaquoddy Tribe) study has been completed for a Taiwanese cement plant.Blast Furnace Granular-Coal Injection System Demonstration No sales reported. Technology remains in commercial service at demonstration site

Project (Bethlehem Steel Corporation)Advanced Cyclone Combustor with Internal Sulfur, Nitrogen, No sales reported. While the combustor is not yet fully ready for sale with commer

and Ash Control (Coal Tech Corporation) have commercial potential. Follow-on work to the CCTDP demonstration was unde

technology close to commercial introduction.
ES-16 Program Update 2003

The fourth and final major product line is industrialapplications. This product line is addressing the environmental issues and barriers associated with coal usein industry. There are five diverse projects in this category; four are completed and one is ongoing.Commercial activity of the industrial applicationprojects can be seen in Exhibit ES-8.AwardsA list of the award-winning CCTDP projects isshown in Exhibit ES-9.PPIIThe PON was issued on February 6, 2001, and 24 proposals were received on April 19, 2001. On September28, 2001, a total of eight projects with a combined industry/government value of $110 million were selectedfor negotiations. Cooperative agreements have beenawarded to four participants. Two projects have beenwithdrawn by the participants. Negotiations are underway with the two remaining participants.CCPIThe CCPI-I PON was issued on March 4, 2002, and 36proposals were received on August 1, 2002. On January 15, 2003, DOE announced the selection of eightprojects under CCPI-I. Three of the projects are directed at new ways to comply with President Bush’sCSI, which calls for dramatic reductions in air pollutants from power plants over the next decade-and-ahalf. Three other projects are expected to contribute tothe President’s Global Climate Change Initiative toreduce greenhouse gases. The remaining two projectswill reduce air pollution through coal gasification andmulti-pollutant control systems. Subsequently, oneproject was withdrawn.

Market Communications—OutreachOutreach has been a hallmark of the CCTDP since itsinception. Commercialization of new technologiesrequires acceptance by a wide range of interests—customers, manufacturers, suppliers, financiers, government, and public interest groups. The CCTDP hasaggressively sought to disseminate key information tothis full range of customers and stakeholders and toobtain feedback on changing needs. This disseminationof information takes the form of printed media, exhibits, and electronic media. Printed media consist ofnewsletters, proceedings, technical papers, fact sheets,program updates, and bibliographies. The CCTDPcurrently uses four traveling exhibits of varying sizeand complexity that can be updated and tailored tospecific forums. Electronic media are available throughthe World Wide Web.Feedback is another important part of the outreacheffort. From public meetings during the PON processto open houses at demonstration sites, the CCTDPstays in contact with customers and stakeholders.Stakeholder meetings, conferences, workshops, andtrade missions are used by the CCTDP to disseminateinformation and obtain feedback.Over 30 domestic and international coal-related conferences and workshops were attended or sponsoredby OC&PS or NETL since the beginning of FY 2002.All of these events were used to endorse and promotethe technologies demonstrated in the CCTDP.

ProjectsIntroductionThe Program Update 20sheets on active CCTDPvarious stages of implemthe completed CCTDP pseparate volume—Compincluded are fact sheets CCTDP projects, one wone withdrawn CCPI pring the status of the CCT The CCTDP, PPII, and Corganized by market secter enable stakeholders tkey areas of interest. Thenvironmental control dpower plants; (2) advancfor repowering existing peration capacity; (3) coaconvert the nation’s vast and (4) industrial applicproducts. A list of the achibit ES-10 organized by ES-11, organized alphabTechnology OvervAdvanced NOx controls NOx emission caps propCall” source emission rastates and the District of tional Ambient Air Qualozone and PM2.5, which precursor to both. Techn
Exhibit ES-9

Award-Winning CCTDP Projects

Project and Participant AwardFull-Scale Demonstration of Low-NO

x Cell Burner 1994 R&D 100 Award presented by R&D magazine to the U.S. Department of Energy for 

Retrofit (The Babcock & Wilcox Company) burner.Evaluation of Gas Reburning and Low-NOx Burners on 1997 J. Deane Sensenbaugh Award presented by the Air and Waste Management Associati

a Wall-Fired Boiler; Enhancing the Use of Coals by Gas Energy, Gas Research Institute, and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for the develo

Reburning and Sorbent Injection (Energy and gas-reburning technology.Environmental Research Corporation)Advanced Flue Gas Desulfurization Demonstration 1993 Powerplant Award presented by Power magazine to Northern Indiana Public Service Com

Project (Pure Air on the Lake, L.P.)

1992 Outstanding Engineering Achievement Award presented by the National Society of P

Demonstration of Innovative Applications of Technology 1995 Design Award presented by the Society of Plastics Industries in recognition of the m

for the CT-121 FGD Process (Southern CompanyServices, Inc.) 1994 Powerplant Award presented by Power magazine to Georgia Power’s Plant Yates. Co

Department of Energy.1994 Outstanding Achievement Award presented by the Georgia Chapter of the Air and W1993 Environmental Award presented by the Georgia Chamber of Commerce.

Tidd PFBC Demonstration Project (The Ohio Power 1992 National Energy Resource Organization award for demonstration of energy-efficient Company)

1991 Powerplant Award presented by Power magazine to American Electric Power Comp

was The Babcock & Wilcox Company.

Tampa Electric Integrated Gasification Combined-Cycle 1997 Powerplant Award presented by Power magazine to Tampa Electric’s Polk Power St

Project (Tampa Electric Company)

1996 Association of Builders and Contractors Award presented to Tampa Electric for qual1993 Ecological Society of America Corporate Award presented to Tampa Electric for its i1993 Timer Powers Conflict Resolution Award presented to Tampa Electric by the state of Florid1991 Florida Audubon Society Corporate Award presented to Tampa Electric for the innov

Wabash River Coal Gasification Repowering Project 1996 Powerplant Award presented by Power magazine to CINergy Corp./PSI Energy, Inc.

(Wabash River Coal Gasification Repowering ProjectJoint Venture) 1996 Engineering Excellence Award presented to Sargent & Lundy upon winning the 199

Council competition.

Development of the Coal Quality ExpertTM (ABB In 1996 recognized by then Secretary of Energy Hazel O’Leary and EPRI President Richa

Combustion Engineering, Inc. and CQ Inc.) DOE/EPRI cost-shared utility R&D projects under the Sustainable Electric Partnership PrJEA Large-Scale CFB Combustion Demonstration Project 2002 Powerplant Award presented by Power magazine to JEA.

(JEA)
ES-18 Program Update 2003

• Low-NOx burners and reburning systems that limit

NOx formation by staging the introduction of air in

the combustion process (combustion modification);

• SCR, 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 address proposed CSI targets andanticipated U.S. Environmental Protection Agency(EPA) regulations regarding mercury emissions fromcoal-based power generation, which represents roughlyone-third of U.S. mercury emissions. Technologiesinclude:• Sorbents and oxidizing agents to transform mercury

to a solid for removal along with fly ash in electrostatic precipitators (ESP) or fabric filter dust collectors (FFDC);

• Oxidizing agents in conjunction with wet flue gas

desulfurization (FGD) scrubbers to capture mercuryin the sulfate by-products; and

• Real-time measurement of mercury species and total

mercury for mercury control and validation.

Particulate-matter controls respond to revised NAAQSfor PM2.5, for primary particulate matter (fly ash) and

acid aerosols that can cause localized plume opacity,visibility impairment, and have been linked to humanhealth impacts. Acid aerosols are required to be reported under the Toxic Release Inventory. Secondary

PM2.5 emissions, formed chemically in the atmosphere

by precursors such as NOx and SO2, were addressed

previously. Technologies include:• ESP/FFDC hybrids to leverage the best features of

both;

• 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.

Coal utilization by-product (CUB) efforts provide theknowledge and technology needed to increase utilization of CUBs from the current 30 percent usage to 50percent. Landfill space is limited, and NOx and mercury controls impact CUB quality and raise questionsregarding environmental acceptability. Technology andknowledge targets include:• Characterizing the fate of mercury and other trace

metals in CUBs;

• Novel applications to expand CUB use; and• Separation technology to remove carbon and associated mercury from CUBs to enhance sales value.Advanced power systems address Global ClimateChange Initiative, CSI, and Hydrogen Production Initiative by enhancing power generation efficiency, producing near-zero pollutant emissions, and providing forhydrogen separation and carbon dioxide (CO2) captureand sequestration. Technologies include:• IGCC systems that convert coal to a clean synthesis

gas (syngas) amenable to use by gas turbines andadvanced fuel cells, conversion to chemicals andclean transportation fuels, and separation into hydrogen and CO2; and transform residual gases and

solids into salable by-products.

• CFB combustion systems that utilize low-grade fuels

and waste materials to generate power at high efficiency and very low emissions, without the parasiticpower drain of add-on environmental controls.

Coal liquefaction enhances energy security by converting coal into clean transportation fuels and chemicals.Coal gasification-derived syngas is converted into synthetic hydrocarbon liquids via a catalytic chemicalprocess known as Fischer Tropsch (FT) synthesis. TheFT Process can be manipulated to produce an array ofproducts that are virtually free of sulfur and nitrogenpollutants.
Project Participant Environmental Control DevicesCombustion Initiative for Innovative Cost-Effective NO

x Reduction Alliant Energy Corporate Services, Inc. 

Achieving NSPS Emission Standards Through Integration of Low-NOx Burners with an Optimization Sunflower Electric Power Corporation 

Plan for Boiler CombustionDevelopment of Hybrid FLGR/SNCR/SCR Advanced NOx Control TIAX, LLC 

Greenidge Multi-Pollutant Control Project CONSOL Energy, Inc. Demonstration of a Full-Scale Retrofit of the Advanced Hybrid Particulate Collector Technology Otter Tail Power Company 

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

Commercial Demonstration of the Airborne Process LG&E Energy Corporation Demonstration of Integrated Optimization Software at the Baldwin Energy Complex NeuCo, Inc. TOXECON Retrofit for Mercury and Multi-Pollutant Control on Three 90 MW Coal-Fired Boilers Wisconsin Electric Power Company Advanced Electric Power GenerationMcIntosh Unit 4A PCFB Demonstration Project City of Lakeland, Lakeland Electric McIntosh Unit 4B Topped PCFB Demonstration Project City of Lakeland, Lakeland Electric JEA Large-Scale CFB Combustion Demonstration Project JEA Next Generation CFB Coal Generating Unit Colorado Springs Utilities Kentucky Pioneer Energy IGCC Demonstration Project Kentucky Pioneer Energy, LLC Clean Coal Diesel Demonstration Project TIAX, LLC Coal Processing for Clean FuelsLignite Fuel Enhancement Great River Energy Gilberton Coal-to-Clean Fuels and Power Co-Production Project WMPI PTY., LLC Advanced Coal Conversion Process Demonstration* Western Syncoal LLC Industrial ApplicationsClean Power from Integrated Coal/Ore Reduction (CPICORTM) CPICORTM Management Company LLC Commercial Demonstration of the Manufactured Aggregate Processing Technology Utilizing Spray Dryer Ash Universal Aggregates, LLC 

Advanced Multi-Product Coal Utilization By-Product Processing Plant University of Kentucky Research FoundaWestern Greenbrier Co-Production Demonstration Project Western Greenbrier Co-Generation, LLC 

Exhibit ES-10

Project Fact Sheets by Application Category

 * Completed demonstration operations.
ES-20 Program Update 2003

Participant Project Alliant Energy Corporate Services, Inc. Combustion Initiative for Innovative Cost-Effective NOx Reduction 

Colorado Springs Utilities Next Generation CFB Coal Generating Unit CONSOL Energy, Inc. Greenidge Multi-Pollutant Control Project CPICORTM Management Company LLC Clean Power from Integrated Coal/Ore Reduction (CPICORTM) Great River Energy Lignite Fuel Enhancement JEA JEA Large-Scale CFB Combustion Demonstration Project Kentucky Pioneer Energy, LLC Kentucky Pioneer Energy IGCC Demonstration Project Lakeland, City of, Lakeland Electric McIntosh Unit 4A PCFB Demonstration Project Lakeland, City of, Lakeland Electric McIntosh Unit 4B Topped PCFB Demonstration Project LG&E Energy Corporation Commercial Demonstration of the Airborne Process NeuCo, Inc. Demonstration of Integrated Optimization Software at the Baldwin Energy Complex Otter Tail Power Company Demonstration of a Full-Scale Retrofit of the Advanced Hybrid Particulate Collector Technology Sunflower Electric Power Corporation Achieving NSPS Emission Standards Through Integration of Low-NOx Burners with an 

Optimization Plan for Boiler Combustion

Tampa Electric Company Big Bend Power Station Neural Network-Sootblower Optimization TIAX, LLC Clean Coal Diesel Demonstration Project TIAX, LLC Development of Hybrid FLGR/SNCR/SCR Advanced NOx Control 

Universal Aggregates, LLC Commercial Demonstration of the Manufactured Aggregate Processing Technology Utilizing 

Spray Dryer Ash

University of Kentucky Research Foundation Advanced Multi-Product Coal Utilization By-Product Processing Plant Western Greenbrier Co-Generation, LLC Western Greenbrier Co-Production Demonstration Project Western SynCoal LLC Advanced Coal Conversion Process Demonstration Wisconsin Electric Power Company TOXECON Retrofit for Mercury and Multi-Pollutant Control on Three 90 MW Coal-Fired Boilers WMPI PTY., LLC Gilberton Coal-to-Clean Fuels and Power Co-Production Project 

Exhibit ES-11

Project Fact Sheets by Participant
1. Role of Clean Coal TechnologyIntroductionThe role of clean coal technology (CCT) in energy hasevolved from the Clean Coal Technology DemonstrationProgram (CCTDP) begun in fiscal year (FY) 1985 to thePower Plant Improvement Initiative (PPII) in FY 2001to the Clean Coal Power Initiative (CCPI) in FY 2002.These efforts have built upon sound fundamental principles to achieve government/industry partnerships thatare models of cooperation for all government agencies.Discussed below are the importance of coal, domestically and internationally, and the respective roles ofCCTDP, PPII, and CCPI in ensuring that coal-basedsystems meet 21st century energy and environmentaldemands. Also examined are the environmental driversfor clean coal technologies, market considerations, sustainable growth, and finally future directions in CCT.CoalCoal is recognized as an essential element in the U.S.energy policy for the foreseeable future because of thefollowing:• The location, magnitude, and characteristics of the

coal resource base are well understood.

• The technology and skilled labor base to safely and

economically extract, transport, and use coal areavailable.

• A multi-billion dollar infrastructure is in place to

gather, transport, and deliver this valuable energy

commodity to serve the domestic and internationalmarketplace.

• Coal is used to produce over half of the nation’s

electric power and is vital to industrial processes,such as steel and cement production, as well as industrial power.

• This abundant fossil energy resource is secure within

the nation’s borders and relatively invulnerable todisruptions because the coal industry’s production isdispersed and flexible, the delivery network is vast,and the stockpiling capability is great.

• Coal is the fuel of necessity in many lesser developed economies, which provides export opportunities for U.S.-developed, coal-based technologies.Coal, which accounts for over 94 percent of the provenfossil energy reserves in the United States, supplies thebulk of the low-cost, reliable electricity vital to thenation’s economy and global competitiveness. According to the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) EnergyInformation Administration (EIA) Annual Energy Review 2001 (November 2002) (AER2001), coal was

used to produce over 51 percent of the nation’s electricity in 2001. The EIA projections count on coal continuing to dominate electric power production, at leastthrough 2025 (the end of the forecast period). In theAnnual Energy Outlook 2003 (January 2003)(AEO2003), EIA estimates 1,350 million tons of coalwill generate an estimated 2,736 billion kilowatt-hours,or almost half of all electricity generated in 2025. TheEIA coal consumption projection is 0.7 percent higherthan the previous year’s estimate (for comparableyears) due to a projected increase in the demand forcoal-based electricity by almost 2.4 percent and analmost 8 percent increase in new coal-based capacityfrom the previous estimate.While the CCTDP, PPII, and CCPI respond to domestic needs for competitive clean coal-based technology,

they also position the Uburgeoning power marto be the most rapidly gsumption in the world. tional Energy Outlook show electricity demanwatt-hours in 2001 to 22025. The strongest grdependent developing China and India. This gtremendous economic tal opportunity to reducthrough the application technologies. In 2025, leading fuel for electriccounting for 31 percenmarket. In 2001, the Upercent of all coal used China and India togeth

CCTDPOver the past quarter cnationally, the energy pchange, including the othe environmental debabrought about more chemission reductions foof more stringent nitroozone nonattainment aparticulates, the beginning, and concern about The immediate challenmestic demands for ele
1-2 Program Update 2003

ciated electricity delivery reliability concerns. Thischallenge came at a time when natural gas prices wereextremely volatile and environmental regulations werebecoming increasingly stringent.The CCTDP, begun in fiscal year 1985, has respondedto the many changes experienced through the 1990s.Adjustments to meet changing national needs wereenabled by spacing a series of five competitive solicitations from 1986 to 1992. The CCTDP has provided astrong technical foundation for responding to the challenges now emerging in the energy market.The CCTDP is implemented through unique cost-sharedgovernment/industry partnerships that allow each partyto best apply its expertise and carry out appropriateroles. The magnitude of the projects and extent of industry participation in the CCTDP is unprecedented. Almost$4.8 billion is being expended, with industry and stategovernments investing two dollars for every federalgovernment dollar invested. New technologies to reducethe emissions of acid rain precursors, namely sulfur dioxide (SO2) and NOx, are now in the marketplace andare being used by electric power producers and heavyindustry. Advanced electric power generation systemsthat generate electricity with greater efficiency and fewerenvironmental consequences are now operating using thenation’s most plentiful fossil energy resource—coal.The ability of coal and coal technologies to respond tothe nation’s need for low-cost, reliable electricityhinges on the ability to meet two central requirements:(1) environmental performance requirements established in current and emerging laws and regulations,and (2) operational and economic performance requirements consistent with competition in the era of utilityrestructuring. The CCTDP is responding to these requirements by producing a portfolio of advanced coalbased technologies that will enable coal to retain itsprominent role in the nation’s power generation future.Furthermore, advanced technologies emerging from theCCTDP will also enhance coal’s competitive positionin the industrial and fuel sectors. For example, technology advances in steel making, involving direct use of coal, will reduce the cost of production while greatly improving environmental performance. Also, coal could increase its market share in the industrial sector through cogeneration (steam and electricity) and coproduction of products (clean fuels and chemicals). For example, integrated gasification combined-cycle (IGCC) technology can co-produce electricity and clean fuels from coal. While the CCTDP responds to domestic needs for competitive and clean coal-based technology, it also positions U.S. industry to compete in a burgeoning power market abroad. Electricity continues to be the most rapidly growing form of energy consumption in the world. The environmentally sound and competitive perfor- mance of modern coal technologies has evolved through many years of industry and government re- search, development, and demonstration (RD&D). The programs were pursued to assure that the U.S. recover- able coal reserves of 274 billion tons, which represent a secure, low-cost energy source, could continue to supply the nation’s energy needs economically and in an environmentally acceptable manner. During the 1970s and early 1980s, many of the govern- ment-sponsored technology demonstrations focused on synthetic fuels production technology. Under the Energy Security Act of 1980, the Synthetic Fuels Corporation (SFC) was established for the purpose of reducing the U.S. vulnerability to disruptions of crude oil imports. The SFC’s purpose was accomplished by encouraging the private sector to build and operate synthetic fuel production facilities that would use abundant domestic energy resources, primarily coal and oil shale. The strategy was for the SFC to be primarily a financier of pioneer commercial and near-commercial scale facili- ties. The goal of the SFC was to achieve production capacities of 500,000 barrels per day of synthetic fuels by 1987 and 2 million barrels per day by 1992, at an estimated cost of $8.8 billion. By 1985, the market driv

as oil prices declined, woshort-term supply buffer Petroleum Reserve. In 19decline of private-sector synthetic fuels in light of Law 99-190, the DepartmAgencies Appropriations ished the SFC and transfeU.S. Department of TreaThe CCTDP was initiate98-473, Joint Resolution priation for Fiscal Year 1vided $750 million from to be deposited in a sepasury entitled The Clean Cnation moved from an enfuels production to a moestablished that the natiosupply of energy, maintaconsistent with environmtives. Energy stability, sefoundations for this poliCongress recognized thacoal as a source of energonstration and commerction of advanced coal-baby enhanced operationalperformance. The CCTDstrate the commercial feogy applications in respoDOE issued the first solicoal technology projectsresulted in a broad range four major product markdevices, advanced electrcessing for clean fuels, aIn 1987, the CCTDP befying the recommendatiReport of the Special EnPresidential initiative la
$5-billion U.S. government/industry effort to curbprecursors to acid rain formation—SO2 and NOx

.

Thus, the second solicitation (CCTDP-II), issued inFebruary 1988, provided for the demonstration oftechnologies that were capable of achieving significant emission reductions in SO2, NOx, or both, from

existing power plants. These technologies were to bemore cost-effective than current technologies andcapable of commercial deployment in the 1990s. InMay 1989, DOE issued a third solicitation (CCTDPIII) with essentially the same objective as the second,but additionally encouraged technologies that wouldproduce clean fuels from run-of-mine coal.The next two solicitations recognized emerging energyand environmental issues, such as global climatechange and capping of SO2 emissions, and thus

focused on seeking highly efficient, economically competitive, and low-emission technologies. Specifically,the fourth solicitation (CCTDP-IV), released in January 1991, had as its objective the demonstration ofenergy-efficient, economically competitive technologies capable of retrofitting, repowering, or replacingexisting facilities while achieving significant reductionsin SO2 and NOx emissions. In July 1992, DOE issued

the fifth and final solicitation (CCTDP-V) to providefor demonstration projects that significantly advancedthe efficiency and environmental performance of technologies applicable to new or existing facilities. As aresult of these five solicitations, a total of 60 government/industry cost-shared projects were selected, ofwhich 36, valued at almost $4.8 billion, have eitherbeen successfully completed or remain active in theCCTDP.The success of the government/industry CCTDP isdirectly attributable to its responsiveness to public andprivate sector needs to reduce environmental emissionsand maximize economic and efficient energy production. The CCTDP is strengthening the economy, enhancing energy security and reliability, and reducingthe vulnerability of the economy to global energy market shocks.

PPIIThe PPII was established in FY 2001 by Congress inPublic Law 106-291, Department of the Interior andRelated Agencies Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year2001. The act provided “for a general request forproposals for the commercial scale demonstration oftechnologies to assure the reliability of the [n]ation’senergy supply from existing and new electric generating facilities for which the Department of Energyupon review may provide financial assistance awards .. . .” In the act, Congress transferred $95 million forthis purpose from previously appropriated CCTDPfunding. Congress also applied the principles of theCCTDP to PPII to ensure success of the program.The roots of PPII lie in the blackouts and brownouts of1999 and 2000 and increasing concerns over the adequacy of the nation’s power supplies as a whole. Several parts of the United States, including the WestCoast and parts of the Northeast, had experienced rolling blackouts and brownouts in the previous two yearscaused in large part by sharp rises in demand for electricity and lagging construction of new power plants.A total of eight projects were selected in the PPII solicitation. As of May 2003, two projects were withdrawn,four have been awarded cooperative agreements, andtwo are still in negotiations.CCPIThe CCPI is a government/industry partnership toimplement the President's National Energy Policy(NEP) recommendation to increase investment inclean coal technology. This recommendation, one ofseveral dealing with electricity, addresses the national

challenge of ensuring supply while simultanement. The CCPI was eby Congress in Public Interior and Related AFiscal Year 2002. The ship between the govements the NEP recommclean coal technology.commercial deploymeensure the United Statfordable electricity.In the appropriation, CCCPI funds were to be prior congressional guinology appropriations. CCPI projects will be gregulations as the CCTexpand the repayment tional sales and specifitained by DOE for futuThe first CCPI solicitathat would demonstrate gies and accelerate theiuse. The CCPI-I was dPresident’s proposed Cthrough advanced polluClimate Change Initiatments for existing planany technology advancpower generation that rtal, and economic impravailable state-of-the-awas also open to technany combination of heaful byproducts in conjuBuilding on lessons leaprovisions of the CCPI • Minimum of 50 perc

participants.
1-4 Program Update 2003

• Site guarantees were required prior to award.• 75 percent of fuel input for projects must be U.S.

coal.

• Public abstracts must be submitted that include information on project costs, schedules, and principal

entities.

• Communication plans must be submitted to show

approaches for technology transfer.

• Repayment plans must be developed by the participant and evaluated for merit by DOE.• Non-DOE experts may be used to review technical

proposals.

• Projects may be eligible for exemptions from New

Source Review (NSR) and New Source Performance Standards (NSPS).

• Funding is provided for a project definition phase,

which allows time and partial funding to finalizefinancing and National Environmental Policy Act(NEPA) review.

• Evaluations were based on technical merit (50%),

project feasibility (30%), and commercial potential(20%).

The CCPI-I was issued March 4, 2002; 36 proposalswere received by DOE on August 1, 2002; and 8 selections were announced January 15, 2003. Eight projectsvalued at more than $1.3 billion, including $317 million in federal cost sharing support, were selected byDOE for funding. These projects include three multipollutant environmental control demonstrations($188 million), two advanced power demonstrations($517 million), two coal processing for clean fuelsdemonstrations ($634 million), and one industrial applications demonstration ($9 million). Cooperativeagreement negotiations are ongoing with seven of theprojects, while one project was withdrawn.The second CCPI solicitation (CCPI-II) is scheduledfor Fall 2004. Round II will continue to support theCSI and Global Climate Change Initiative, with emphasis on:

• Clean, high-efficiency next-generation coal-based

power systems, e.g., integrated gasification combined-cycle; and

• Carbon sequestration, i.e., carbon dioxide (CO2

)

capture, recycle, and storage.

Subsequent rounds are scheduled on a two-year cycleto support advanced technology in the research anddevelopment pipeline.Environmental DriversSoot and SmogIn July 1997, under Title I of the CAAA, EPA issuedfinal rules revising the primary and secondary NAAQSfor particulate matter (PM) and ozone (O3) (commonlyreferred to as “soot and smog” regulations).The soot provisions addressed ambient air concentrationsof particulate matter in the respirable range of 2.5 millionths of a meter (microns) in diameter or less (PM2.5).Previous fine particulate standards dealt with airbornematerial in the inhalable range of 10 microns in diameteror less (PM10). The PM2.5 standard affects primary sourcessuch as fly ash, carbon soot, and acid mists (aerosols) andsecondary sources such as ammonium sulfates and nitratesfrom precursor SO2 and NOx gases. Monitoring to ascertain PM2.5 attainment is ongoing, with designations of nonattainment expected by 2003–2004. State ImplementationPlans (SIPs) for compliance are expected by 2007–2008,with compliance by 2013–2014.The ozone standards in turn impact NOx emissions because NO

x is a precursor to ozone formation. As an interim measure, EPA issued a rulemaking in response to

recommendations of a 37-state Ozone Transport Assessment Group (OTAG). The rulemaking, in the form of a“SIP Call,” required 22 eastern states and the District of

Columbia to reduce NO

x 

fied amounts (budgets) brule was amended to extMay 2004. The expected plants is 0.15 lb/106 Btu, tively expensive selective technology. Under the geNAAQS provisions, SIPcompliance ranging from air quality in a particular A major thrust of the PPcost-effective technologsmog provisions. To do CCTDP technologies, uslished in CCTDP.

Hazardous Air PoHazardous Air PolluUnder Title III of the CAAtermining the hazards to pardous air pollutants (HAHazardous air pollutants weWilcox Company’s DemonsCyclone Boiler NOx Control 
study of HAPs to determine the public health risks that arelikely to occur as a result of power plant emissions. Toaddress this issue, DOE implemented a program withindustry to monitor HAPs emissions at CCTDP projectsites. Objectives of the HAPs monitoring are to (1) improve the quality of HAPs data being gathered, and (2)monitor a broader range of plant configurations and emissions control equipment. As a result of this program, 20CCTDP projects are monitoring or have monitored HAPs,with 15 having completed monitoring by May 2003 (seeAppendix C, Exhibit C-7).In a parallel effort begun in January 1993, EPA, withthe participation of DOE under the Coal Research andDevelopment Program, the Electric Power ResearchInstitute (EPRI), and the Utility Air Regulatory Group(UARG), began an emissions data collection programusing state-of-the-art sampling and analysis techniques.Emissions data were collected from eight utilities representing nine process configurations, several of whichwere CCTDP projects. These utilities represented different coal types, process configurations, furnace types,and pollution control methods. The report, A Comprehensive Assessment of Toxic Emissions from CoalFired Power Plants: Phase I Results from the U.S.Department of Energy Study, was released in September 1996 and provided the raw data from the emissionstesting. The second phase of the DOE/EPRI effort involved sampling at other sites, including the CCTDP’sWabash River, Tampa Electric, and Sierra Pacific integrated gasification combined-cycle (IGCC) projects.In another DOE study, HAPs data were collected from 16power plants and reported in Summary of Air ToxicsEmissions Testing at Sixteen Utility Plants. The report,issued in July 1996, provides an assessment of HAPsmeasured in the coal, across the major pollution controldevices, and emitted from the stack. The results of theHAPs program significantly have mitigated concernsabout a broad range of HAPs emissions from coal-firedpower generation, and focused attention on mercury (Hg).

MercuryFollowing up on the October 1996 EPA report to Congress, Study of Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissionsfrom Electric Utility Steam Generating Units—InterimFinal Report (final report was issued February 1998),the Mercury Study Report to Congress, issued December 1997, estimates that U.S. industrial sources wereresponsible for releasing 158 tons of mercury into theatmosphere in 1994 and 1995. The EPA estimates that87 percent of those emissions originated from combustion sources such as waste and fossil fuel facilities,10 percent from manufacturing facilities, 2 percentfrom area sources, and 1 percent from other sources.The EPA also identified four specific categories thataccount for about 80 percent of the total anthropogenicsources: coal-fired power plants, 33 percent; municipalwaste incinerators, 18 percent; commercial and industrial boilers, 18 percent; and medical waste incinerators, 10 percent.

In December 2000, EPfor mercury emissions. tions, PPII and CCPI sthat address mercury emMany of the selected ptechnologies emerging efforts begun in the latGlobal Climate CThe CCTDP had its roprecursors and was rescontained in the Joint RAcid Rain, as discussed over global climate chato emphasize demonstrgeneration technology cantly higher efficiency reducing carbon emissiFor example, achieving long-term efficiency of proximately 40 percent conventional coal-fired content feedstock. Theprojects in the CCTDPifier types and cleanup pioneering this environwhich in addition to lowvery low SO2 and NOx ogy offers flexibility in structed in modules as On February 14, 2002, Global Climate Change mitted the United States cut greenhouse gas inteten years. The initiative to slow the growth of grand—as the science justhat growth.

Wabash River was one of the sites where DOE and EPRIcollected HAPs data.
1-6 Program Update 2003

Three CCPI projects are expected to contribute to theGlobal Climate Change Initiative to reduce greenhousegases. Two of the projects will reduce CO2, a primary

GHG, by boosting the fuel use efficiency of powerplants. The third project will demonstrate a potentialalternative to conventional portland cement manufacturing, a large emitter of CO2

.

Carbon Sequestration Leadership ForumOn February 27, 2003, the Secretary of Energy and theUnder Secretary of State for Global Affairs announcedthat the United States is taking the lead in forming anambitious new international effort to advance carboncapture and storage technology as a way to reducegreenhouse gas emissions. The two departments outlined plans for creating the Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum, which will bring together ministerial-levelrepresentatives to discuss the growing body of scientific research and emerging technologies for permanently isolating CO2 and other GHG from the

atmosphere.The Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum will focuson development of carbon capture and storage technologies as a means to accomplishing long-term stabilization of greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere. Thisinitiative is designed to improve carbon capture andstorage technologies through coordinated research anddevelopment with international partners and privateindustry.Three types of cooperation are currently envisionedwithin the framework of the forum: data gathering, information exchange, and joint projects. Data gathered fromparticipating countries will be aggregated, summarized,and distributed to all of the forum’s participants. Jointprojects will be identified by member nations with theforum serving as a mechanism for bringing togethergovernment and private sector representatives frommember countries.

The CCTDP went a long issue of solid waste by dproduced commercial-grwhich required excessivPPII and CCPI are addreticularly from the standpNOx control impacts on Market ConWhen the CCTDP starteindustry was highly reguwas the breadth and deptrequirements that would Even this uncertainty waenvironmental control cothe consumer if approvemission. As long as the uments in plant and equipfairly stable and predictaassumed that coal and nuburden of baseload geneout, and natural gas wouload requirements.By mid-1997, the picture utility industry was in thing to accommodate a coutility restructuring, powrisk for new capacity addcapital cost and short leasystems make them the pseeable future. As a resunatural gas to be the fuel additions through 2025. nuclear-based capacity ibased capacity is project

Clear Skies InitiativeOn February 14, 2002, the President announced theClear Skies Initiative. The initiative cuts power plantemissions of the three worst air pollutants—NOx, SO2

,

and Hg—by approximately 70 percent by 2018. Theinitiative will improve air quality using a market-based“cap-and-trade” program based on the CAAA’s acidrain program. The Clear Skies Initiative is a primarydriver for the CCPI. Numerous multi-pollutant controltechnology projects were selected in CCPI-I.Regional HazeIn July 1999, EPA published a new rule calling for longterm protection of, and improvement in, visibility for156 national parks and wilderness areas across the country. Many environmental groups believe coal-firedpower plants are a source of regional haze in the nationalparks and wilderness areas.During the period 2003-2008, states are required to establish goals for improving visibility in each of these 156areas and adopt emission-reduction strategies for theperiod extending to 2018. States have flexibility to setthese goals based upon certain factors, but as part of theprocess, they must consider the rate of progress neededto reach natural visibility conditions in 60 years. Coalfired power plants are likely targets for new controls toreduce regional haze.Solid WasteCoal utilization by-products (CUB), the solid wastefrom power plants, represent a potentially valuableresource as construction materials and soil amendments. But in 2001, only 39 million tons of the approximately 130 million tons of CUBs generated wererecycled. The primary hurdle to increased CUB use hasbeen questions raised as to potential environmentalimpact and liability associated with their use.
Under retail deregulation, end users are not requiredto purchase power from their local utility company,but instead may purchase power from generators ormarketers located in other states and regions of thecountry. In this competitive market environment,power is priced according to market conditions, notnecessarily according to generation costs.Advancement in the technology of electricity production is another factor that has had an impact on restructuring. Nonutility generators have taken advantage ofthese advances, such as aero-derived gas turbines, togenerate electricity cheaper than can be achieved usingconventional fossil steam or nuclear generators. Thenew technologies are often more efficient, less environmentally obtrusive, and can be installed in a very shortperiod of time in capacity modules closely matchingthe load growth curves.These factors have had a pronounced effect on the utility market for coal and clean coal technology. A comparison of 1985 and 2003 energy projections for coal,natural gas, and oil, which is shown in Exhibit 1-1,illustrates the magnitude of the change that restructuring is causing, as well as environmental regulationsdiscussed previously. According to EIA’s AEO2003,coal is projected to maintain its lead in the productionof electricity in 2010 at almost 52 percent; however,that is down from 60 percent when the CCTDP started.The differential has been, for the most part, made up bythe growth in natural gas-powered generation.Industry restructuring and competition will impact coaland coal technologies for the foreseeable future. As ofMarch 2003, restructuring is active in 17 states and theDistrict of Columbia, delayed in 5 states, suspended in1 state, and not active in 27 states. Utilities are expected to improve their operating efficiencies by usingexisting plants at higher capacity factors. Contributingto increased capacity factors is a projected drop ingenerating capacity, not only from nuclear plant retirements, but also from fossil-fueled plant retirements.EIA predicts that nearly 46 GW of new coal-fired capacity is expected to come on line between 2000 and 2020 (a 47 percent increase from the previous year’s estimate). In the forecast period through 2025, a total of 74 GW of new coal-fired capacity is expected to come on line, accounting for over 17 percent of capac- ity expansion. During this time, new, highly efficient, low-emissions power systems will enter the power pro- duction markets. New concepts to reduce delivered electricity prices will likely be employed. Examples include minemouth plants that reduce or eliminate the coal transportation cost component in power produc- tion. Also, cogeneration and coproduction systems will be available, which allow the consumer’s cost of elec- tricity potentially to be reduced by the profitability of co-products. General Electric’s Advanced Turbine System combustion 

Ensuring SuEconomic GIt is in the national inteergy mix to sustain natikey component of natiits affordability, availabnation’s borders. The denough to supply U.S. current rates of producEnergy’s strategy incluployment of a technoloefficient use of this coanational and global env
1-8 Program Update 2003

The United States is increasingly dependent on imported oil as lower average prices had resulted in decreased domestic oil production capacity for 13 years.That trend was broken in 1995 by an oil productioncapacity increase of 0.4 million barrels per day. In2001, net petroleum imports were 10.6 million barrelsper day, or 54 percent of domestic consumption. TheAEO2003 reference case for 2025 calls for net importsof 18.6 million barrels per day of crude and refinedproducts, which represents more than 63 percent of thetotal forecasted supply.Also, natural gas imports are expected to grow from15.5 percent of total gas consumption in 2000 to22.4 percent in 2025. These imports are primarily fromCanada, which does not represent a supply stabilityproblem. Other sources of imports include liquefiednatural gas (LNG) from Trinidad and Tobago, Algeria,and Japan. United States coal consumption is 1,060million tons/year, which is equivalent to approximately10.5 million barrels of oil per day, and equates to$84 billion per year using 2001 average import crudeoil prices. The Department of Energy’s clean coal technology demonstrations will provide the technologiesthat will enable coal to continue as a major componentin the nation’s economy while achieving the environmental quality that society demands. Coal-related jobsare dispersed through the mining, transportation, manufacturing, utility, and supporting industries.A U.S. coal conversion industry could directly reducethe nation’s dependency on imported oil. The Department of Energy is responding to this opportunity throughdevelopment and demonstration of coal liquefactionproduction, Fischer-Tropsch synthesis, and hydrogenproduction.On an international basis, the prospects for coal havedeclined somewhat, but coal still represents a majorsource of energy throughout the world by contributingalmost a quarter of the world’s energy needs. Highlights of the EIA’s IEO2003 projections for coal are as

follows:

• World coal use has been in a period of generally

slow growth since the 1980s, and the trend is expected to continue through the forecast period. Theprojected slow growth in coal consumption, averaging 1.5 percent per year through 2025, suggests thatcoal will account for a shrinking share of worldenergy consumption. The coal share of total energyconsumption is projected to fall from 24 percent in2001 to 22 percent by 2025.

• Substantial declines in coal use are projected for

Western Europe and the Eastern Europe/FormerSoviet Union (EE/FSU) countries, where natural gas(and in the case of France, nuclear power) is increasingly being used for electricity generation andfor other uses in the industrial and buildings sectors.

• In developing Asia, especially in China and India,

coal continues to dominate many fuel markets. Asvery large countries in terms of both population andland mass, and with ample domestic coal resources,China and India are projected to account for 75 percent of the total expected increase in coal use worldwide (on a Btu basis). Coal’s share of electricityproduction in China is now 72 percent and is projected to rise to 73 percent in 2025. Over the sameperiod, coal’s share of India’s electricity market isexpected to remain dominant, but decline from72 percent in 2001 to 63 percent in 2025.

• Almost 55 percent of the coal consumed worldwide

is used for electricity generation, and its role in thefuture is expected to be primarily as a fuel for powergeneration, and secondarily as an energy source in afew key industrial sectors, such as steelmaking.

• Where coal is used in the industrial, residential, and

commercial sectors, other energy sources—primarily natural gas—are expected to gain market share.One exception is China, where coal continues to bethe most widely used fuel in the country’s rapidlygrowing industrial sector, reflecting China’s abundant coal reserves and limited access to othersources of energy.

• Consumption of cokin

slightly in most regiontechnological advanceoutput from electric arreplacement of steel bapplications.

This international market technology suppliers, devand other U.S. firms to cagained through experieaggressive action is neeare recognizing the enotheir economies can enjcapture a greater share Beyond the current prograt creating a favorable excoal technology. These evisibility of U.S. firms anan information clearinghU.S. representatives in otinteragency coordination to these exports, and (3) iand policies for facilitatinprojects abroad.Future DirecFutureGenOn February 27, 2003, thnounced plans for the Untype of the fossil fuel poFutureGen. FutureGen is ture with private sector awill combine electricity the virtual total eliminaticluding greenhouse gase
FutureGen power plant will serve as the test bed fordemonstrating the best technologies the world has tooffer. The Department of Energy will ask the powerindustry to organize a consortium to manage the projectand share in the project costs. Current plans call for theplant to be designed and built over the next five years,then operated for at least five years beyond that.Virtually every aspect of the FutureGen plant will be

based on cutting-edge technology. The federal government will ask the industrial consortium to design a plantthat will turn coal into a hydrogen-rich gas, rather thanburning it directly. The hydrogen could then be combusted in a turbine or used in a fuel cell to produce cleanelectricity, or it could be fed to a refinery to help upgrade petroleum products. In the future, the plant couldbecome a model hydrogen-production facility to supply

a new fleet of hydrogen-powered cars and trucks.Common air pollutants such as SO2 and NOx would be

cleaned from the coal gases and converted to usablebyproducts such as fertilizers and soil enhancers. Mercury pollutants would also be removed. Carbon dioxide

would be captured and sequestered in deep underground geologic formations.Carbon sequestration will be one of the primary features that will set the FutureGen plant apart from otherelectric power projects. Engineers will design into theplant advanced capabilities to capture the carbon dioxide in a form that can be sequestered. The initial goalwill be to capture at least 90 percent of the plant’s carbon dioxide. Once captured, the carbon dioxide will beinjected deep underground, perhaps into the brackishreservoirs that lie thousands of feet below the surfaceof much of the United States, or potentially into oil orgas reservoirs, or into unmineable coal seams or basaltformations. Once entrapped in these formations, thegreenhouse gas would be permanently isolated from theatmosphere.The plant would be sized to generate approximately 275megawatts of electricity, roughly equivalent to an average mid-size coal-fired power plant. The prototype plantwould be a stepping stone toward a future coal-firedpower plant that not only would be emission-free butwould operate at unprecedented fuel efficiencies.

Vision 21The Department of Eneneeded to build a future based power systems caenvironmental demand

ware and attendant datapower, environmental, acan meet the long-term Energy’s Coal & Power sion 21” goals are delinpected result is a suite ousing a broad range of fagricultural, municipal, a varied slate of high-vasteam, clean fuels, and percent efficiency and nFirst-generation systems and CCPI programs proknowledge base from wtems, which will experieand performance over tiand (2) platforms on wh

Exhibit 1-1

Comparison of Energy Projections for Electric Generators

Electricity Sales Coal Consumption Gas Consumptiona O(109 kWh/yr) (106 tons/yr) (1012 ft3/yr) (

NEPP AEO % ∆ NEPP AEO % ∆ NEPP AEO % ∆ N

1985 2003 1985 2003 1985 2003 1

1995 3,018 3,026b 0.27 924 958b 3.7 3.0 3.37b 12 

2010 4,176 4,101 -1.80 1,355 1,123 -17.1 1.7 6.80 300 

NEPP 1985: National Energy Policy Plan Projections to 2010, U.S. Department of Energy, December 1985.

AEO 2002: Annual Energy Outlook 2003 with Projections to 2025, Energy Information Agency, January 2003.% ∆ = percent difference between the two projections.

a Consumption by electric generators excluding cogenerators.b Actuals from Annual Energy Outlook 1998, December 1997.
1-10 Program Update 2003

which will result in jumps in cost and performance. Examples of new components include advanced particulatefiltration, sulfur and alkali removal, air separation membranes, high-temperature heat exchangers, artificial intelligence-based controls and sensors, and CO2 and hydrogenseparation technologies. A strategy of the Vision 21 effortis to develop and spin off such key components to mitigate the risk and cost of integrating the technologies intopower, environmental, and fuel system modules.

PowerFuels

Hydrogen

Separation

Electricity

Fuel Chemicals

CO2 Sequestration

Gas Stream

Cleanup Gasification Oxygen Membrane

Coal

OtherFuels

ProcessHeatSteam

Exhibit 1-2

Vision 21 Objectives

a The efficiency goal for a plant co-feeding coal and natural gas will be calculated on a pro-rata basis. Likewise, the efficiency goal for a plant producing both electricity

and fuels will be calculated on a pro-rata basis

Vision 21 modules can be combined in a variety of configurations. One example, shownabove, incorporates modules to produce a variety of energy products.

Efficiency—Electricity Coal-based systems 60% (HHV); natural gas-based systems 75% (LHV) with no credit for cogenerated steam.aGenerationEfficiency—Combined Overall thermal efficiency above 85% (HHV); also meets efficiency goals for electricity.aHeat & PowerEfficiency—Fuels Plant Only Fuel utilization efficiency of 75% (LHV) when producing coal-derived fuels.aEnvironmental Near-zero emissions of sulfur, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, trace elements, and organic compounds; 40-50%

reduction in CO2 emissions by efficiency improvement; 100% reduction with sequestration.

Costs Cost of electricity 10% lower than conventional systems; Vision 21 plant products cost-competitive with market

clearing prices.

Timing Major spinoffs such as improved gasifiers, advanced combustors, high-temperature filters and heat exchangers, and

gas separation membranes begin by 2006; designs for most Vision 21 subsystems and modules available by 2012;Vision 21 modules available for commercial plant designs available by 2015.
2. ImplementationIntroductionThe implementation principles of the Clean CoalTechnology Demonstration Program (CCTDP),Power Plant Improvement Initiative (PPII), andClean Coal Power Initiative (CCPI) have been builtupon the lessons learned from each successive solicitation. A discussion of the implementation ofeach of these three programs follows.CCTDPThe CCTDP founding principles and implementing process resulted in one of the most successful cost-sharedgovernment/industry partnerships forged to respond tocritical national needs. Through five nationwide competitions, a total of 60 government/industry cost-sharedprojects were selected, of which 36, valued at almost$4.8 billion, either have been completed or remain activeas of May 2003. For the 36 projects, the industry costshare is an unprecedented 68 percent. Thirty-one of the36 projects have completed operations. The balance aremoving forward, with operational testing under way forone project. The remaining projects are either in thedesign or construction phase.Over the nine-year period (1986–1995) of solicitingand awarding projects, the thrust of the environmentalconcerns relative to coal use has changed. Nevertheless, the implementing process allowed the program toremain responsive to the changing needs. The result isa portfolio of technologies and a database of technicaland cost information that will enable coal to remain a

major contributor to the U.S. energy mix without beinga threat to the environment. This result will ensure thesecure, low-cost energy that is requisite to a healthyeconomy well into the 21st century.Success of the CCTDP is measured by the degree towhich the operational, environmental, and economicperformance of a technology can be projected for commercial applications. Decision makers must have asufficient database to project performance and assessrisk for commercial introduction and deployment ofnew technologies. This need for information was adriving force in establishing the principles that createdthe foundation for the implementation process. Thegovernment role is non-traditional, moving away froma command-and-control approach to a performancebased approach, where the government sets performance objectives and industry responds with its ideasand is allowed broad latitude in technical managementof the projects. This approach encourages technologyinnovation and cost-sharing. Industry and the publicplay major roles in the process, reflecting their respective roles in moving technologies into the marketplace.Implementation PrinciplesThe principles underlying the CCTDP were developedafter much study of previous government demonstration programs, assessing both positive and negativeresults. The principles represent a composite of incentives and checks and balances that allows all participants to best apply their expertise and resources.These guiding principles are outlined below.• A strong and stable financial commitment exists

for the life of the projects. Full funding for thegovernment’s share of selected projects was appropriated by Congress at the start of the program. This upfront commitment has been vital to getting industry’s

response in terms of received and the achsharing.

• Multiple solicitatio

years enabled the prange of national ning technologies. Ations enabled Congrprogram to meet chathe U.S. Departmenthe implementation learned in prior solithe opportunity to dconfidently propose 

• Demonstrations ar

scale in actual usetechnology is constwith full system inttended commercial as a commercial faing commercial factechnology’s perforin the intended com

• The technical agen

and not the governlished by Congress DOE set definitive performance-based which proposals wogiven the flexibility tion to define the tein response to the oDepartment of Enerbest met the evalua

• Roles of the govern

defined and reflect quired. The govern
2-2 Program Update 2003

front in structuring the cooperative agreements toprotect public interests. This includes negotiatingdefinitive performance milestones and decision pointsthroughout the project. Once the project begins, theindustrial participant is responsible for technical management, while the government oversees the projectthrough aggressive monitoring and engages in implementation only at decision points. Continued government support is assured as long as project milestonesand the terms and conditions of the original cooperative agreement continue to be met.

• At least 50 percent cost-sharing by industry is

required throughout all project phases.Industry’s cost-share was required to be tangible anddirectly related to the project, with no credit forprevious work. By sharing essentially in each dollarexpended along the way, on at least an equal basis,industry’s commitment to fulfilling project objectives was strengthened.

• Allowance for cost growth provides an important

check-and-balance feature to the program.Statutory provisions allow for additional financialassistance beyond the original agreement in anamount up to 25 percent of DOE’s original contribution. Such financial assistance, if provided, must becost-shared by the industrial participant at no lessthan the cost-share ratio of the original cooperativeagreement. This statutory provision recognizes therisk involved in first-of-a-kind demonstrations byallowing for cost growth. At the same time, it recognizes the need for the industrial participant’s commitment to share cost growth and limits thegovernment’s exposure.

• Industry retains real and intellectual property

rights. The level of cost-sharing warrants the industrial participant retaining intellectual and realproperty rights and removes potential constraintsto commercialization. Industry would otherwise bereluctant to come forward with technologies developed to the point of demonstration, relinquishingtheir competitive position.

• Industry must make a commitment to commercialize the technology. Consistent with program

goals, the industrial participant is required to makethe technology available on a nondiscriminatorybasis, under reasonable terms and conditions, to allU.S. companies that seek to use the technology.While the technology owner is not forced to divulgeknow-how to a competitor, the technology must bemade available to potential domestic users on reasonable commercial terms.

• Upon successful commercialization of the technology, repayment up to the government’s cost-share

is required. The repayment obligation occurs onlyupon successful commercialization of the technology.It is limited to the government’s level of cost-sharingand the 20-year period following the demonstration.

In summary, these principles provide built-in checksand balances to ensure that the industry and government roles are appropriate and that the governmentserves as a risk-sharing partner without impedingindustry from using its expertise and getting the technology into the marketplace.Implementation ProcessSignificant public and private sector involvement wasintegral to the process leading to technology demonstration and critical to program success. Even beforeengaging in a solicitation, a public process was instituted under the National Environmental Policy Act(NEPA) to review the environmental impacts. A programmatic environmental impact assessment (PEIA),followed by a programmatic environmental impactstatement (PEIS), was prepared. Public comment andresolution of comments were required prior to proceeding with the program.As to the solicitation process, Congress set the goalsfor each solicitation in the enabling legislation andreport language (see Appendix A for legislative historyand Appendix B for program implementation history).The Department of Energy translated the congressional

guidance and direction inand developed approachfrom previous solicitatiosolicitation, however, an licitation and attendant isented in a series of regifeedback. The public mthe lines of workshops to tain comments from the Comments from the pubpreparing a draft solicitafor public comment. Comally resolved prior to sTo aid proposers, prepropthe purpose of clarifying Further, every attempt waimpart a clear understandhow it would be evaluateand conditions would appwas devoted to helping ptechnology eligibility, anthe evaluation criteria waalso contained a model ckey relevant contractual tProject selection and negconducted under stringenalties for noncomplianceand projects negotiated scriteria and terms and cosolicitation. In the spirit and evaluated included phealth, safety, and socioeimplementation.Upon project award, anogaged to ensure that all sicerns were addressed. ThPolicy Act requires that a ment be conducted to addtal, health, safety, and socwith the project. The finformal environmental im
the findings can remain as an environmental assessment(EA) along with a finding of no significant impact(FONSI). During the EIS process, public meetings areheld for the purpose of disclosing the intended projectactivities, with emphasis on potential environmental,health, safety, and socioeconomic impacts, and plannedmitigating measures. Comments are sought and must beresolved before the project can proceed. This processhas led to additional actions taken by the industrial participants beyond the original project scope. To facilitatethe NEPA process, DOE encouraged environmental datacollection through cost-sharing during the negotiationperiod contingent upon project award.Because of the environmental nature of the CCTDP,DOE took a proactive posture in following the principles of NEPA. Environmental concerns were aggressively addressed and the public engaged prior to majorexpenditure of public funds. Furthermore, DOE required that an in-depth environmental monitoring plan(EMP) be prepared, fully assessing potential pollutantemissions, both regulated and unregulated, and defining the data to be collected and the methods for collection. All cooperative agreements required preparationof environmental monitoring reports that provide results of the monitoring activities. As environmentalissues emerged, every effort was made to address themdirectly with the understanding that commercial technology acceptance hinged on satisfying users and thepublic as to acceptable environmental performance.Appendix C reviews the proactive environmentalstance taken by the program, further delineates theNEPA process, and provides the status of key actions.Projects are managed by the participants, not the government. However, public interests are protected by requiring defined periods of performance referred to as budgetperiods, throughout the project. Budget periods are keyedto major decision points. A set amount of funds is allottedto each budget period, along with performance criteria tobe met before receiving funds for the next budget period.These criteria are contained in project evaluation plans(PEPs). Progress reports and meetings during budget

periods serve to keep the government informed. At thedecision points, progress against PEPs is formally evaluated, as is the PEP for the next budget period. Financialdata is also examined to ensure the participants’ capabilityto continue required cost-sharing. Failure to perform asexpected results in greater government involvement in thedecision making process. Proposal of major projectchanges precipitates not only in-depth programmaticassessment, but legal and procurement review as well.Decisions regarding continuance into succeeding budget periods, any increase in funding, or major projectchanges require the approval of DOE’s AssistantSecretary of Fossil Energy.Beyond the formal process associated with the solicitations, parallel efforts were conducted to informstakeholders of ongoing events, results, and issuesand to engage them in discussion on matters pertinentto ensuring that the program remained responsive toneeds. A continuing dialog was facilitated by directinvolvement in the projects of a large number of utilities, technology suppliers, and states, as well as keyindustry-based research organizations (e.g., the Electric Power Research In

tute). This was accompdesigned to enhance coindependent power prounderwriter, and financto identify those sectorthen structure seminars program and obtain the suggestions for enhancthermore, a periodic cltuted to serve as a foruand results and discussof the CCTDP. And, an place to ensure that neeand disseminated in the ing a variety of domestsymposia, and workshocussed in further detail During implementation setting actions were takused by both the public procedural problems, crand controls, and move shared objectives. The with complex business dollar clean coal technoasset that has contributecess—an asset of value forge government/induslessons learned, Clean sons Learned was publdocuments the knowledthe CCTDP through the The report was based oadvantage to the private those factors thought to cess and to point out pitactions taken.Subsequent to issuance 

ment in July 1994, othefurther improvement in 

The NEPA process assured environmental acceptability of theHealy Clean Coal Project on the border of Denali NationalPark in Alaska.
2-4 Program Update 2003

warranted. Several projects required relocation, newpartners, and redesign more than once in order to moveforward. These delays resulted in federal resourcesbeing underused for some time. Also, repayment hasnot reached expected levels, which prompted preparation of a Repayment Lessons Learned document in

1997. The Department of Energy has attempted to address these issues in the CCPI solicitation issued inMarch 2002; for example, by making internationalsales subject to repayment provisions. These improvements reflect the principles outlined in the President'sManagement Agenda, including the Research and Development Investment Criteria.

Environmental ProvisionsSection 415 (42 U.S.C. §7651n) of the Clean Air ActAmendments of 1990 included two important incentives for clean coal demonstration projects. First, atemporary (less than five years of operation) clean coaltechnology (CCT) demonstration project is exemptedfrom New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) andexempted from New Source Review (NSR) for pollutants in both attainment and non-attainment areas. However, the project must comply with the State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the state where the project is located and must maintain National Ambient Air QualityStandards (NAAQS). Second, a permanent CCT demonstration that constitutes repowering is exempted fromNSPS, and NSR for pollutants in attainment areas, ifthe potential pollutant emissions will not increase.(Congress has made section 415 applicable to bothPPII and CCPI projects.)Commitment to Commercial RealizationThe CCTDP has been committed to commercial realization since its inception. The significant environmental,operational, and economic benefits of the technologiesbeing demonstrated in the program will be realized whenthe technologies achieve widespread commercial success. The importance attached to commercial realization

of clean coal technologies is highlighted in Senate Report 99-82, which contains the following recommendation for project evaluation criteria: “[t]he project mustdemonstrate commercial feasibility of the technology orprocess and be of commercial scale or of such size as topermit rapid commercial scale-up.”The commitment to commercial realization recognizesthe complementary but distinctive roles of the technology owner and the government. It is the technologyowner’s role to retain and use the information and experience gained during the demonstration and to promote the use of the technology in the domestic andinternational marketplaces. The detailed operational,economic, and environmental data and the experiencegained during the demonstration are vital to efforts tocommercialize the technology. The government’s roleis to capture, assess, and transfer operational, economic, and environmental information to a broad spectrum of the private sector and international community.The information must be sufficient to allow potentialcommercial users to confidently screen the technologies and to identify those meeting operational requirements. The importance of commercial realization isconfirmed by the requirement in the solicitations andcooperative agreements that the project participantmust pursue commercialization of the technology aftersuccessful demonstration.Each of the five solicitations contained requirementsfor the project proposals to include a discussion of thecommercialization plans and approaches to be used bythe participants. The proposer was required to discussthe following topics:• The critical factors required to achieve commercial

deployment, such as financing, licensing, engineering, manufacturing, and marketing;

• A timetable identifying major commercialization

goals and schedule for completion;

• Additional requirements for demonstration of the

technology at other operational scales, as well assignificant planned parallel efforts to the demonstration project, that may 

approach or schedule

• The priority placed by 

complishing the commthe project fits into thness, marketing, or en

The cooperative agreemto ensure that the demonlicated by responsible firPressurized fluidized-bed cat Ohio Power Company’s Tcommercialization.
prietary commercial position of the technology owner.These three mechanisms are:• The commercialization clause requires the technology owner to meet U.S. market demands for the

technology on a nondiscriminatory basis (this clause“flows down” from the project participant to theproject team members and contractors);

• The clauses concerning rights to technical data deal

with the treatment of data developed jointly in theproject as well as data brought into the project; and

• The patent clause affords protection for new inventions developed in the project.In addition to ensuring implementation of the aboveproject-specific mechanisms, the government role alsoincludes disseminating the operational, environmental,and economic performance information on the technologies to potential customers and stakeholders. To carryout this role, a CCT Outreach Program was establishedto perform the following functions:• Make the public and local, state, and federal government policy makers aware of the CCTs and their

operational, economic, and environmental benefits;

• Provide potential domestic and foreign users of the

technologies with the information needed for decision making;

• Inform financial institutions and insurance underwriters about the advancements in technology and associated risk mitigation to increase confidence; and• Provide customers and stakeholders opportunities

for feedback on program direction and informationrequirements.

Specific accomplishments of the CCT Outreach Program are discussed in Section 4.Solicitation ResultsEach solicitation was issued as a Program OpportunityNotice (PON)—a solicitation mechanism for cooperative agreements where the program goals and objectives are defined but the technology is not. Proposals

for demonstration projects consistent with the objectives of the PON were submitted to DOE by specificdeadlines. DOE evaluated, selected, and negotiatedprojects strictly within the bounds of the PON provisions. Award was made only after Congress was allowed 30 in-session days to consider the projects asoutlined in a Comprehensive Report to Congress issuedafter each solicitation.Exhibit 2-1 summarizes the results of solicitations. Exhibit2-2 identifies the projects currently in the CCTDP and thesolicitation under which the projects were selected. Appendix B provides a summary of the procurement historyand a chronology of project selection, negotiation, restructuring, and completion or termination. Project sites aremapped in Exhibits 2-3 through 2-6, which indicate thegeographic locations of projects by application category.The resultant projects have achieved broad-based support. Team members for the projects include more than50 utilities; more than 45 technology suppliers; andmore than 20 engineering, construction, or consultingfirms. Other team members include the Electric PowerResearch Institute, the Gas Research Institute, numerous state and local agencies and authorities, industrialmanufacturers, and one Native American tribe.The contributions ofthe selected projectsto domestic and international energy andenvironmental needsare significant. Thesecontributions include:• Completing demonstration and proving commercial

viability of a suiteof cost-effectiveSO2 and NOx control options capable

of achieving moderate (50 percent)

to deep (70–95 percfull range of coal-fir

• Providing the databa

requisite to making bustion a commerci

• Completing demonst

cesses to produce higfuels and clean liquid

• Laying the foundatio

nologies to meet the mands of the 21st cenoperation or have corate utilities; and sucized fluidized-bed co

• Demonstrating signi

emissionreduction enhancemcombustion for comdioxide (SO2)/nitrog

matter (PM) control boilers, and innovat

nation in cement proExhibit 2-1

CCTDP Selection Process 

Proposals P

Solicitation PON Issued Submitted SCCTDP-I February 17, 1986 51 1CCTDP-II February 22, 1988 55 1CCTDP-III May 1, 1989 48 1CCTDP-IV January 17, 1991 33 CCTDP-V July 6, 1992 24 Total 211 6
2-6 Program Update 2003

Exhibit 2-2

Clean Coal Technology Demonstration Program Projects

Project and Participant LocCCTDP-IDevelopment of the Coal Quality ExpertTM (ABB Combustion Engineering, Inc. and CQ Inc.) HomLIMB Demonstration Project Extension and Coolside Demonstration (McDermott Technology, Inc.) LoraAdvanced Cyclone Combustor with Internal Sulfur, Nitrogen, and Ash Control (Coal Tech Corporation) WillEnhancing the Use of Coals by Gas Reburning and Sorbent Injection (Energy and Environmental Research Corporation) HenTidd PFBC Demonstration Project (The Ohio Power Company) BrillAdvanced Coal Conversion Process Demonstration (Western SynCoal LLC) ColsNucla CFB Demonstration Project (Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, Inc.) NucJEA Large Scale CFB Combustion Demonstration Project (JEA) JackCCTDP-IISNOXTM Flue Gas Cleaning Demonstration Project (ABB Environmental Systems) NileDemonstration of Coal Reburning for Cyclone Boiler NOx Control (The Babcock & Wilcox Company) Cass

SOx-NOx-Rox BoxTM Flue Gas Cleanup Demonstration Project (The Babcock & Wilcox Company) DilleCement Kiln Flue Gas Recovery Scrubber (Passamaquoddy Tribe) Thom

Advanced Flue Gas Desulfurization Demonstration Project (Pure Air on the Lake, L.P.) ChesDemonstration of Advanced Combustion Techniques for a Wall-Fired Boiler (Southern Company Services, Inc.) CooDemonstration of Innovative Applications of Technology for the CT-121 FGD Process (Southern Company Services, Inc.) NewDemonstration of Selective Catalytic Reduction Technology for the Control of NOx Emissions from High-Sulfur, Coal-Fired Boilers Pens

(Southern Company Services, Inc.)180-MWe Demonstration of Advanced Tangentially Fired Combustion Techniques for the Reduction of NOx Emissions from Coal-Fired Lynn 

Boilers (Southern Company Services, Inc.)CCTDP-IIICommercial-Scale Demonstration of the Liquid Phase Methanol (LPMEOHTM) Process (Air Products Liquid Phase Conversion KingCompany, L.P.)10-MWe Demonstration of Gas Suspension Absorption (AirPol, Inc.) WesHealy Clean Coal Project (Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority) HealFull-Scale Demonstration of Low-NO

x Cell Burner Retrofit (The Babcock & Wilcox Company) Abe
Exhibit 2-2 (continued)

Clean Coal Technology Demonstration Program Projects

Project and Participant LoCCTDP-III (continued)Confined Zone Dispersion Flue Gas Desulfurization Demonstration (Bechtel Corporation) SeBlast Furnace Granular-Coal Injection System Demonstration Project (Bethlehem Steel Corporation) BuENCOAL® Mild Coal Gasification Project (ENCOAL Corporation) G

Evaluation of Gas Reburning and Low-NOx Burners on a Wall-Fired Boiler (Energy and Environmental Research Corporation) D

LIFAC Sorbent Injection Desulfurization Demonstration Project (LIFAC–North America) RiIntegrated Dry NOx/SO2 Emissions Control System (Public Service Company of Colorado) D

Tampa Electric Integrated Gasification Combined-Cycle Project (Tampa Electric Company) MCCTDP-IVMicronized Coal Reburning Demonstration for NOx Control (New York State Electric & Gas Corporation) La

Milliken Clean Coal Technology Demonstration Project (New York State Electric & Gas Corporation) LaPiñon Pine IGCC Power Project (Sierra Pacific Power Company) Re

Pulse Combustor Design Qualification Test (ThermoChem, Inc.) BaWabash River Coal Gasification Repowering Project (Wabash River Coal Gasification Repowering Project Joint Venture) WCCTDP-VClean Coal Diesel Demonstration Project (Arthur D. Little, Inc.) FaClean Power from Integrated Coal/Ore Reduction (CPICORTM) (CPICORTM Management Company LLC) ViKentucky Pioneer Energy IGCC Demonstration Project (Kentucky Pioneer Energy, LLC) Tr
2-8 Program Update 2003

Exhibit 2-3

Geographic Locations of CCTDP Projects—Environmental Control Dev
Exhibit 2-4

Geographic Locations of CCTDP Projects—Advanced Electric Power Ge
2-10 Program Update 2003

Exhibit 2-5

Geographic Locations of CCTDP Projects—Coal Processing for Clean F
Exhibit 2-6

Geographic Locations of CCTDP Projects—Industrial Applications
2-12 Program Update 2003

Future Implementation DirectionThe future implementation direction of the CCTDPfocuses on completing the existing projects as promptlyas possible and assuring the collection, analysis, andreporting of the operational, economic, and environmental performance results that are needed to promotecommercialization.The body of knowledge obtained as a result of theCCTDP demonstrations is being used in immediatedecision making relative to regulatory compliance,forging plans for meeting future energy and environmental demands, and developing the next generation oftechnology responsive to ever-increasing demands onenvironmental performance at competitive costs. Anexpanded portfolio of information will be forthcomingto make it easier for stakeholders and customers to siftthrough the already enormous amount of data resultingfrom the demonstrations.

Efforts will continue toward refining the effectiveness ofthe program in responding to customer and stakeholderneeds. Toward that end, as needs change, forums will besought to obtain feedback, particularly in view of utilityrestructuring, continued environmental concerns, and aburgeoning foreign market. Objectives are to ensure thatCCTDP efforts are fully leveraged and that follow-onefforts under the Office of Coal and Power Systems(OC&PS) Research, Development, and DemonstrationProgram are appropriate.Two new initiatives arising out of the President’s National Energy Policy—PPII and CCPI—will use many

of the same implementation principles as the CCTDP.These initiatives will also build upon lessons learned inthe CCTDP.

PPIIThe Department of Energy developed a PPII solicitation, incorporating general provisions of the CCTDP(per congressional direction) with some modificationsto take into account lessons learned from the CCTDP.The program solicitation was issued on February 6,2001 and 24 proposals were received on April 19,2001. On September 28, 2001, a total of eight projectsvalued at over $110 million were selected for negotiations. Subsequently, two projects were withdrawn. Exhibit 2-7 lists the six active projects and Exhibit 2-8shows the locations.SolicitationThe solicitation provided that participants must offersignificant improvements in power plant performanceleading to enhanced electric reliability. These improvements could be in the form of increasing theefficiency of electricity production, reducing environmental impacts, or increasing cost-competitiveness. A Comprehensive Report to Congress was issued after each

solicitation for each selected project.

The projects also had to tion of existing plants anto be deployed over the Specific areas in which D• Advanced combustion 

components;

• Advanced NOx contro• Carbon dioxide (CO2) 

sequestration;

• Combustion or gasific• Co-production;• Fine particulate contr• Hydrogen chloride co• Mercury (Hg) control• Process control system• Repowering;• Steam cycle improvem• Wet and dry scrubber

The proposals were evalof the proposed technoloviability and market poteogy (30 percent), and mabilities of the project teathe technical merit, DOE funding and financial prstraints; environmental, and program policy factoOther implementing proproperty lies with the paLike the CCTDP, particileast a 50 percent cost-shup to 25 percent funding by the participant at no ltive agreement. The soli75 percent of the direct ltract labor, come from th
Exhibit 2-7

Power Plant Improvement Initiative Projects

Project and Participant Achieving NSPS Emission Standards Through Integration of Low-NOx Burners with an Optimization Plan for Boiler Combustion 

(Sunflower Electric Power Corporation)Development of Hybrid FLGR/SNCR/SCR Advanced NOx Control (TIAX, LLC) Greenidge Multi-Pollutant Control Project (CONSOL Energy, Inc.) 

Demonstration of a Full-Scale Retrofit of the Advanced Hybrid Particulate Collector Technology (Otter Tail Power Company) Big Bend Power Station Neural Network-Sootblower Optimization (Tampa Electric Company) Commercial Demonstration of the Manufactured Aggregate Processing Technology Utilizing Spray Dryer Ash (Universal Aggregates, LLC) 

Potential participants were required to submit a business plan with their proposal. This plan had to be specific to the proposed project and show a managementdecision to commit funds for the project. The plan hadto address competition for funds, both internal andexternal. Finally, the plan had to convince DOE thatexpenditures of public monies on the proposed projectwould be a wise investment, i.e., that the effort would

result in commercialization of a technology that serveda public purpose and it would not have been commercialized absent federal dollars.Potential participants also needed to submit an Environmental Information Volume (EIV). The Department ofEnergy uses the EIV to perform a project-specific reviewof environmental issues pertinent to each proposedproject prior to selection and a more detailed sitespecific review required under NEPA after selection.

Intellectual Property RightsWith regard to intellectual property rights, there werethree main issues that had to be addressed by the participants—commercialization of technology, data rights,and patent rights. For commercialization of technology,

there must be a precise definition of the technology envelope and third-party licensing arrangements must beaddressed. For data rights, the participant can protectproprietary technology and data; however, such datamust be made available to DOE without limitations.Patent rights for inventions conceived or first actuallyreduced to practice under DOE contract are defined bystatute and regulation and vary depending on the statusof the participant, e.g., large business firm, small business firm, or non-profit organization.

CCPI

The Clean Coal Power Initiative is a government/industrypartnership to implement the President’s National EnergyPolicy (NEP) recommendation to increase investment inclean coal technology. This recommendation, one of several dealing with electricity, addresses the national challenge of ensuring the reliability of the U.S. electric supplywhile simultaneously protecting the environment. TheCCPI is a cost-shared partnership between the government and industry to dem

power generation technocommercial deploymenensure that the United Sfordable electricity. As pof Fossil Energy, througLaboratory (NETL), solprojects. Round I SolicitatThe CCPI Round I (CCprojects that: demonstranologies; and would accommercial use. The Cogy advancement relatethat results in efficiencyimprovement compared the-art alternatives. Thtechnologies capable oheat, fuels, chemicals, conjunction with powepants had to ensure thacent of the fuel energy 
2-14 Program Update 2003

Exhibit 2-8

Geographic Locations of PPII Projects
ensure that multiple fuel concepts such as co-firing arenot excluded, but the program remains focused on coalbased power generation. Additionally, they had to showthe potential for rapid market penetration upon successful demonstration of the technology or concept.The solicitation was open for application submissionfor a period of 150 days. The resultant awards are expected to be cooperative agreements.It is anticipated that a number of cooperative agreements will result from the solicitation. Total government funding is expected to be between $300–$400million. The minimum cost share by the industrial participant is 50 percent, and must be at least 50 percent ineach budget period. Periods of performance for theprojects are expected to be two to six years. Eachproject will be broken into phases: Phase I-ProjectDefinition (optional), Phase II-Design, Phase III-Construction, and Phase IV-Demonstration.CCPI-I Topic AreasThe following descriptions are examples of potentialinterest areas that were intended for guidance only anddid not exclude other technologies and concepts fromconsideration in the CCPI-I solicitation.Carbon Management and Carbon Reduction. Electric power generation represents one of the largest CO2emitters in the United States. Roughly one-third of theUnited States’ carbon emissions come from powerplants. Electricity generation is expected to grow, andfossil fuels will continue to be the dominant fuelsource. Consequently, an important focus of the CCPIis carbon management and carbon reduction from coalbased power generation facilities. Technologies relatedto improved carbon management and the reduction ofCO2 emissions from coal-based power plants werestrongly encouraged.Combined Heat and Power Systems. Combined heatand power (CHP) systems produce electricity andusable thermal energy (typically steam) from a single

primary energy source. The CHP systems attempt tooptimize the thermal efficiency of a plant by usingthermal energy that is otherwise wasted in producingelectricity. The CHP systems offer the potential toachieve a greater level of overall energy efficiency,reduce coal usage, lower energy costs, and reducecarbon emissions.Combustion Concepts. The combustion system (e.g.,boiler and steam generator system) represents one of themajor causes for unscheduled downtime and performance derating in coal-fired power plants. The wear andtear on the heat transfer surfaces of combustion systemscan cause unplanned outages, result in major repairs tocritical components, and result in poor steam quality andreduced steam generation. In addition to improvementsto existing combustion systems, emerging combustionsystems such as advanced fluidized-bed combustionshould be considered. Emerging combustion systems canprovide fuel flexibility for co-firing, provide more stableperformance over a wider range of operating conditions,and result in reduced emissions compared to conventional combustion systems. Areas of interest included,but were not limited to: low-emission boiler systems,new burner/boiler designs, advanced fluidized-bed combustion systems, advanced slagging combustion systems,and advanced moving bed combustion technologies/combustion systems.Environmental Performance. Technologies that improvethe overall environmental performance of coal-based powersystems (e.g., pulverized coal and integrated gasificationcombined-cycles (IGCC)) are critical to coal’s continuedcontribution to the nation’s energy mix. Of specific interestin this topic area were low-cost technologies for reducingemissions of Hg, NOx, SO2, particulate matter (PM), andacid gases (e.g., sulfur trioxide (SO3), hydrogen fluoride(HF), and hydrogen chloride (HCl)). Multi-pollutant control strategies that take advantage of synergistic effects onmultiple pollutants were of particular interest. Additionally,water and byproduct (e.g., fly ash, gasification residues)use, treatment, and disposal strategies are becoming increasingly important issues in coal-based power generation.

Technologies related to wcooling systems) were alGasification Conceptstion technologies are enutility, refinery, and othgies can provide improvsions. However, costs telower compared to convtechnologies also offer valuable products that cand enhanced market opincluded, but were not liments; improved economtechnologies (e.g., candadvanced chemical contare capable of achieving SOx, NOx, Hg, chlorides

ants (HAPS) (e.g., selecwarm gas cleaning, and vanced gas separation teoxygen, hydrogen, and Cproduction concepts to plieu of disposal.Process Control and Icess control systems animpact on plant performcontrol and data acquisiprove plant efficiency, rless unscheduled downtcompared to many antiqin use. Additionally, new stantial diagnostic capaof plant components. Tolimited to, advanced diginstrumentation and sentems, and plant diagnosSteam Turbine Modifiturbine generators repregeneration capability in ing improvements/moderators can increase ele
2-16 Program Update 2003

improved availability and reliability. Areas of interestincluded, but were not limited to, new turbine bladedesigns, new turbine blade materials, reduced dropletformation/blade erosion, and new generator diagnostics.Mandatory RequirementsThe CCPI-I project has to meet the following mandatory requirements:• The proposed project must be conducted at a facility

located in the United States.

• The proposed project must utilize at least 75 percent

coal, as measured on a fuel input (Btu) basis.

• The proposed project must be designed for and operated with coal mined in the United States and/or

refuse coal sources (e.g., culm and gob) that are

derived from U.S. coals.

• The applicant must agree to provide a cost share of

at least 50 percent of the cost for the total projectand for each budget period.

• The applicant shall identify the proposed site and

any alternate sites in the application.

• The proposed project team must be clearly identified and firmly committed to fulfilling its proposed

role in the project.

• The applicant must agree to submit a Repayment

Agreement.

• The application must be signed by a responsible

official of the proposing organization authorized tocontractually bind the organization to the performance of the Cooperative Agreement in its entirety.

• The application must be consistent with the objectives of the solicitation.• The application must contain sufficient technical,

management, financial, cost, and commercializationinformation to enable its comprehensive evaluation.

Failure to meet one or more of these mandatory requirements would result in rejection of the applicationat the preliminary evaluation phase. Applicationspassing the preliminary evaluation were subject to a

comprehensive evaluation in accordance with theevaluation criteria described below.Proposal RequirementsThe applicants were required to address the technicalmerit, project feasibility, commercialization potential,and cost in their CCPI-I proposals.Technical Merit. The applicant had to provide a description of the proposed project including, but not limited to, discussions and supporting evidence that address the following topics:• Scientific and engineering approach of the proposed

demonstration to the objectives of the solicitation.

• Process concept and how it operates (including preliminary process flow diagrams with major equipment items and energy and material balances around

each major process unit and the overall plant.

• Important process chemistry and engineering concepts must be included.• Readiness of the technology for demonstration at the

size proposed.

• Attributes of the device or module being proposed,

such as environmental performance, efficiency ofoperation, or expectations of low-cost producibility.

• Principles of operation, engineering analysis, and

process data to support the technology claims.

• Potential benefits relative to commercial technology

that the proposed technology offers including, improved performance (such as output, heat rate/efficiency and availability), improved plant reliability,improved environmental performance, and reducedcost.

• Major exit streams to the environment that would be

impacted by this technology.

Project Feasibility. The applicant had to do thefollowing:• Identify the proposed site and any alternate sites in

the application.

• Defend the degree to w

the demonstration incwater, power transmisties and equipment inf

• Document relevant pr

ence related to propoand scale-up and dem

• Show responsibilities 

the various project tea

• Provide letters of com

team members.

• Describe the credenti

ence of key personneother information incnel and percentages oproposed project.

• Provide a Statement 

stone schedule showi

Commercialization Potmercial viability and marproject, the applicant had • Provide a marketing p

will realize the full coposed technology.

• Provide quantitative 

the proposed technolor module in the exisgeneration market.

• Show how the scale o

of the appropriate size 

• Describe the credenti

ence of the applicant of the technology.

• Identify potential spin

components, and modcompletion of the pro

• Provide a detailed an

ment agreement showof projected repaymement period.
Cost. The applicant had to provide sufficient evidenceto demonstrate its financial capability to fund, or obtainfunding, for the non-federal share of the proposedproject costs. In addition, the applicant had to providea budget and supporting documentation that will reflectthe estimated costs to be incurred in support of theproposed effort to be conducted as described in thetechnical application.The applicant had to address two major areas: (1)funding and financial information and (2) budgetinformation. The information to be provided in thefunding and financial section included a fundingplan, a financial business plan, financial statements,financial commitments, and a financial managementsystem. The information to be provided in the budgetsection included the budget form, supporting costdetail, and royalty information.Technical Application EvaluationCriteriaThe technical evaluation was conducted to determinethe merits of the technical application with regard tothe potential success of the project, the potential forfuture commercial applications, and the extent to whichit meets the objectives of the solicitation, as evidencedby the quality, conciseness, and completeness of theapplication. Technical applications submitted in response to CCPI-I were evaluated and numericallyscored against the technical evaluation criteria listedbelow.Criterion 1: Technical Merit (50%). The technicalapplication was evaluated to determine overall technical merit of the proposed approach and the ability ofthe project to achieve the technical objectives of thesolicitation.Criterion 2: Project Feasibility (30%). The technicalapplication was evaluated to determine the potential fora successful demonstration of the proposed technology.

Criterion 3: Commercialization Potential (20%).

The technical application was evaluated to determine the potential of the proposed technology to becommercialized and to allow the government torecoup its share of project cost.

Cost Application Evaluation CriteriaCriterion 1: Funding and Financial Information.The funding and financial evaluation, which wasadjectively rated, was conducted to determine the:(1) adequacy and completeness of the proposed funding/business plan to fund the project; (2) financialcondition and capability of proposed funding sourcesto provide the non-federal share of project costs;(3) priority placed by management on financing theproject; and (4) adequacy of the applicant’s financialmanagement system.

Criterion 2: Budget Ition, which was not podetermine the: (1) reasoallocability of the propcost share; (2) completsupporting documentat(3) applicant’s understaby ensuring all work elof work (SOW) have aelements in the proposwork elements includeProject SelectionOn January 15, 2003, Deight projects under CCwas withdrawn by the pseven remaining projeclocations.

Exhibit 2-9

Clean Coal Power Initiative Proje

Project and Participant Demonstration of Integrated Optimization Software at the Baldwin Energy Complex (NeuCo, Inc.)TOXECON Retrofit for Mercury and Multi-Pollutant Control on Three 90 MW Coal-Fi(Wisconsin Electric Power Company)Next Generation CFB Coal Generating Unit (Colorado Springs Utilities) Lignite Fuel Enhancement (Great River Energy) Gilberton Coal-to-Clean Fuels and Power Co-Production Project (WMPI PTY., LLC) Advanced Multi-Product Coal Utilization By-Product Processing Plant (University of Kentucky Research Foundation)Western Greenbrier Co-Production Demonstration Project (Western Greenbrier Co-Generation, LLC)
2-18 Program Update 2003

Exhibit 2-10

Geographic Locations of CCPI Projects
3. Funding and CostsCCTDPIntroductionCongress has appropriated $2.2 billion for the CleanCoal Technology Demonstration Program (CCTDP).These funds have been committed to demonstrationprojects selected through five competitive solicitations.As of May 31, 2003, the CCTDP consisted of 36 activeor completed projects. These 36 projects have resultedin a combined commitment by the federal governmentand the private sector of nearly $4.8 billion. The Department of Energy’s (DOE) cost-share for these projectsexceeds $1.5 billion, or approximately 32 percent of thetotal. The project participants (i.e., the non-federalgovernment participants) are providing the remaining

$3.2 billion, or 68 percent of the total. Exhibit 3-1 summarizes the total costs of active projects and cost-sharingbetween DOE and project participants. The data used toprepare this section are based on the 36 projects thatwere active as of May 31, 2003.

Program FundingGeneral ProvisionsIn the CCTDP, the federal government’s contributioncannot exceed 50 percent of the total cost of any individual project. The federal government’s funding commitments and other terms of federal assistance are represented in a cooperative agreement negotiated for eachproject in the program. Each project also has an agreement for the federal government to recoup up to the fullamount of the federal government’s contribution. Thisapproach enables taxpayers to benefit from commerExhibit 3-1 CCTDP Project Costs and Cost-Sh

(Dollars in Thousands) Total Cost-Share Dollars 

Project Costs % DOEb Participants 

Subprogram CCTDP-I 844,363 18 239,640 604,723 CCTDP-II 318,577 6 139,229 179,348 CCTDP-III 1,138,741 24 483,665 655,076 CCTDP-IV 950,429 20 439,063 511,366 CCTDP-V 1,545,374 32 251,374 1,294,000  Totala 4,797,484 100 1,552,971 3,244,513 

Application Category Advanced Electric Power 2,458,061 51 916,004 1,542,057 Generation Environmental Control Devices 620,110 13 252,866 367,244 Coal Processing for Clean Fuels 431,810 9 192,029 239,781 Industrial Applications 1,287,503 27 192,072 1,095,431  Totala 4,797,484 100 1,552,971 3,244,513 a Totals may not add due to rounding. b DOE share does not include $117,701,000 obligated for withdrawn projects and audit expense
3-2 Program Update 2003

cially successful projects. This is in addition to the benefits derived from the demonstration and commercialdeployment of technologies that improve environmentalquality and promote the efficient use of the nation’s coalresources.The project participant has primary responsibility forthe project. The federal government monitors projectactivities, provides technical advice, and assessesprogress by periodically reviewing project performancewith the participant. The federal government also participates in decision making at major project juncturesnegotiated into the cooperative agreement. Throughthese activities, the federal governmentensures the efficient use of public funds in theachievement of individual project and overallprogram objectives.

Congress has provided program funding through appropriation acts and adjustments. (See Appendix A forlegislative history and excerpts from the relevant funding legislation.)Exhibit 3-2 presents the allocation of appropriatedCCTDP funds (after adjustment) and the amount available for each solicitation. Additional activities fundedby CCTDP appropriations are the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) Program, the Small BusinessTechnology Transfer (STTR) Program, and programdirection. The SBIR Program implements the SmallBusiness Innovation Development Act of 1982 andprovides a role for small, innovative firms in selectedresearch and development (R&D) areas. The STTRProgram implements the Small Business TechnologyTransfer Act of 1992 that establishes a pilot programand funding for small business concerns performingcooperative R&D efforts.

The program direction bment and administrative cludes federal employeesite support services, and laboratories and private Availability of FundiAlthough all funds necesCCTDP were appropriatFY1990, the legislation be made available (i.e., atime-phased basis. Exhiment of funding to DOEprogram’s yearly fundinand by subprogram. Funsubprogram budgets to mneeds.Use of Appropriated There are five key financment to track the status a(1) budget authority, (2) (4) costs, and (5) expendof these terms is given b• Budget Authority. Th

created by legislation that permits the federfunds.

• Commitments. Withi

commitment is establproject for negotiatioequal to DOE’s share in the cooperative agr

• Obligations. The coo

project establishes fuas budget periods. Thdefines the tasks to be period. An obligation each budget period anamount of federal fun

Exhibit 3-2

Relationship Between Appropriations and Subprogram Budgets for

the CCTDP

(Dollars in Thousands)

SBIR Program

Appropriation Adjusted & STTR Direction Projects

Enacted Subprogram Appropriations Budgetsa Budget Budget

P.L. 99-190 CCTDP-I 380,590 4,902 144,757 230,931P.L. 100-202 CCTDP-II 473,939 6,781 32,512 434,646

P.L. 100-446 CCTDP-III 541,298 6,906 22,548 511,844

P.L. 101-121b CCTDP-IV 332,000 7,065 25,000 299,935

P.L. 101-121b CCTDP-V 450,000 5,427 25,000 419,573 Total 2,177,827 31,081 249,817 1,896,929

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, and 108-7.
Exhibit 3-3

Annual CCTDP Funding by Appropriations and Subprogram Budge

(Dollars in Thousands)

Fiscal Year 1986–94 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 Adjusted AppropriationsaP.L. 99-190 397,600 (17,000) 

P.L. 100-202 574,997 (101,000) (40,000) 9,962 14,980 15,000 P.L. 100-446 574,998 (156,000) 156,000 (33,700) P.L. 101-121b 450,000 18,000 50,000 (91,000) (162,000) 26,990 (4

P.L. 101-121b 225,000 19,121 100,000 105,879 

 Total 2,222,595 37,121 150,000 (2,121) (101,000) (40,000) (146,038) 8,980 8,290 (4

Subprogram BudgetsCCTDP-I Projects 387,231 (18,000) (18,000) (33,000) (15,000) (14,900) (14,400) (14,000) (14,000) (CCTDP-II Projects 535,704 (101,000) (40,000) 9,962 14,980 15,000 CCTDP-III Projects 545,544 (156,000) 156,000 (33,700) CCTDP-IV Projects 419,388 17,622 48,925 (91,000) (162,000) 27,000 CCTDP-V Projects 197,125 18,719 97,850 105,879 (8 Projects Subtotal 2,084,992 18,341 128,775 (18,121) (116,000) (54,900) (160,438) (5,020) (5,700) (6

Program Direction 110,527 18,000 18,000 16,000 15,000 14,900 14,400 14,000 13,990  Fossil Energy Subtotal 2,195,519 36,341 146,775 (2,121) (101,000) (40,000) (146,038) 8,980 8,290 (4SBIR & STTRc 27,076 779 3,225 

 Totald 2,222,595 37,121 150,000 (2,121) (101,000) (40,000) (146,038) 8,980 8,290 (4

a Shown are appropriations less amounts sequestered under the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Deficit Reduction Act.b Shown is the fiscal 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

106-291, 107-63, and 108-7.

c Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) Programs.d Totals may not appear to add due to rounding.
3-4 Program Update 2003

for use in performing tasks as defined in the cooperative agreement.

• Costs. A request for payment submitted by the

project participant to the federal government forreimbursement of tasks performed under the termsof the cooperative agreement is considered a cost.Costs are equivalent to a bill for payment or invoice.

• Expenditures. Expenditures represent payment

amounts to the project participant from checksdrawn upon the U.S. Treasury.

The full government cost-share specified in the cooperative agreement is considered committed to eachproject. However, DOE obligates funds for the projectin increments. Most projects are subdivided into several time and funding intervals, or budget periods. Thenumber of budget periods is determined during negotiations and is incorporated into the cooperative agreement. DOE obligates sufficient funds at the beginningof each budget period to cover the government’s costshare for that period. This procedure limits thegovernment’s financial exposure and assures that DOEfully participates in the decision to proceed with eachmajor phase of project implementation.The overall financial profile for the CCTDP is presented in Exhibit 3-4. The graph shows actualperformance for FY1986 through May 31, 2003, andDOE estimates for the remainder of the Program. Excluded from the graph are SBIR and STTR funds, asthese are used and tracked separately from the CCTDP.The financial projections presented in Exhibit 3-4 arebased on individual project schedules and budget periods as defined in the cooperative agreements and modifications. The negative Budget Authority values shownin Exhibit 3-4 result from the rescission or deferral offunds as required by the annual appropriations bills.The financial status of the CCTDP through May 31,2003, is presented by subprogram in Exhibit 3-5.SBIR and STTR funds are included in this exhibit toaccount for all funding. Exhibit 3-5 also indicates theapportionment sequence as modified by Public Law

108-7. These values represent the amount of budgetauthority available for the CCTDP.Project Funding, Costs, and SchedulesInformation for individual projects, including fundingand the status of key milestones, is provided in Section 5. An overview of project schedules and fundingis presented in Exhibits 3-6 and 3-7.CCTDP Cost-SharingA characteristic feature of the CCTDP is the cooperative funding agreement between the participant and thefederal government referred to as cost-sharing. Thiscost-sharing approach, as implemented in the CCTDP,was introduced in Public Law 99-190, An Act MakingAppropriations for the Department of the Interior andRelated Agencies for the Fiscal Year Ending September30, 1986, and for Other Purposes. General concepts

and requirements of the plied to the CCTDP incl• The federal governme

50 percent of the tota

• Cost-sharing by the p

throughout the projecoperation);

• The federal governme

growth (within the scoriginal cooperative athe originally negotiaproject;

• The participant’s cost

occur as project expebe offset or delayed brevenues, proceeds, o

• Investment in existing 

viously expended R&the purpose of cost-shExhibit 3-4

CCTDP Financial Projections as 
Exhibit 3-5

Financial Status of the CCTDP as of May 31, 2003

(Dollars in Thousands)

Appropriations

Allocated to Apportioned Committed Obligated Cost

Subprogram Subprogramb to Date to Date to Date to Date

CCTDP-I 230,931 230,931 257,124 257,124 254,142CCTDP-II 434,646 434,646 165,369 165,369 165,320CCTDP-III 511,844 511,844 510,507 510,507 505,964CCTDP-IV 299,935 299,935 478,018 478,018 476,770CCTDP-V 419,573 332,573 259,654 60,982 38,414 Projects Subtotal 1,896,929 1,809,929 1,670,672 1,472,000 1,440,610SBIR & STTRa 31,081 31,081 31,081 31,081 31,081

Program Direction 249,817 249,817 249,817 246,948 243,158 Total 2,177,827 2,090,827 1,951,570 1,750,029 1,714,849

a Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) Programsb Totals may not appear to add due to rounding

Apportionment SeqFY A1986 91987 141988 191989 191990 551991 391992 411993 1994 221995 31996 151997 (1998 (101999 (42000 (142001 2002 2003 (42004 8
3-6 Program Update 2003

1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 

180-MWe Demonstration of Advanced Tangentially Fired Combustion Techniques for Fired Boilersthe Reduction of NOx Emissions from CoalAdvanced Flue Gas Desulfurization 

Demonstration Project

10-MWe Demonstration of Gas Suspension Absorption

Demonstration of Innovative Applications of Technology for the CT-121 FGD Process

Demonstration of Advanced Combustion Techniques for a Wall-Fired Boiler

Enhancing the Use of Coals by Gas Reburning and Sorbent Injection

Demonstration of Coal Reburning for Cyclone Boiler NOx Control

Confined Zone Dispersion Flue Gas Desulfurization Demonstration

Demonstration of Selective Catalytic Reduction Technology for the Control of NOxEmissions from High-Sulfur, Coal-Fired Boilers

Evaluation of Gas Reburning and Low-NOxBurners on a Wall-Fired BoilerFull-Scale Demonstration of Low-NOx Cell

Burner Retrofit

LIFAC Sorbent Injection Desulfurization Demonstration Project

Integrated Dry NOx/SO2 Emissions ControlSystem

LIMB Demonstration Project Extension and Coolside DemonstrationMicronized Coal Reburning Demonstration for NOx ControlMilliken Clean Coal Technology Demonstration ProjectSNOXTM Flue Gas Cleaning Demonstration Project

SOx-NOx-Rox BoxTM Flue Gas Cleanup Demonstration Project

Environmental Contr

PreOpDe

Exhibit 3-6

CCTDP Schedules by Application Category

Calendar Year
Exhibit 3-6 (continued)

CCTDP Schedules by Application Category

Calendar Year

Tidd PFBC Demonstration Project

Wabash River Coal Gasification Repowering Project joint Venture

Nucla CFB Demonstration Project

Clean Coal Diesel Demonstration Project

Piñon Pine IGCC Power ProjectKentucky Pioneer IGCC Demonstration Project

Healy Clean Coal Project

Tampa Electric Integrated Gasification 

Combined-Cycle ProjectJEA Large-Scale CFB Combustion Demonstration Project

Advanced Coal Conversion Process Demonstration

Development of the Coal Quality ExpertTM

ENCOAL® Mild Coal Gasification Project

Commercial-Scale Demonstration of the Liquid Phase Methanol (LPMEOHTM) ProcessAdvanced Cyclone Combustor with Internal Sulfur, Nitrogen, and Ash Control

Cement Kiln Flue Gas Recovery Scrubber

Blast Furnace Granular-Coal Injection System Demonstration Project

Pulse Combustor Design Qualification Test

Clean Power from Integrated Coal/Ore Reduction (CPICORTM)

Advanced Electr

Coal Processing 

Industrial Applic

1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 

1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 

To Be Dete
3-8 Program Update 2003

Exhibit 3-7

CCTDP Funding by Application Category

Project DOE % Participant Environmental Control DevicesSO2 Control Technologies

10-MWe Demonstration of Gas Suspension Absorption 2,315,259 30.0 5,401,930 

Confined Zone Dispersion Flue Gas Desulfurization Demonstration 5,205,800 50.0 5,205,800 LIFAC Sorbent Injection Desulfurization Demonstration Project 10,636,864 49.7 10,756,908 Advanced Flue Gas Desulfurization Demonstration Project 63,913,200 42.1 87,794,698 Demonstration of Innovative Applications of Technology for the CT-121 FGD Process 21,085,211 49.0 21,989,785 

Subtotal SO2 Control Technology 103,156,334 44.0 131,149,121 

NO

x Control Technologies

Demonstration of Advanced Combustion Techniques for a Wall-Fired Boiler 6,553,526 41.3 9,300,374 

Demonstration of Coal Reburning for Cyclone Boiler NOx Control 6,340,787 46.5 7,305,822 

Full-Scale Demonstration of Low-NO

x

 Cell Burner Retrofit 5,442,800 48.5 5,790,592 

Evaluation of Gas Reburning and Low-NOx Burners on a Wall-Fired Boiler 8,895,790 50.0 8,911,468 

Micronized Coal Reburning Demonstration for NOx Control 2,701,011 29.7 6,395,475 

Demonstration of Selective Catalytic Reduction Technology 9,406,673 40.5 13,823,056 

for the Control of NO

x Emissions from High-Sulfur, Coal-Fired Boilers

180-MWe Demonstration of Advanced Tangentially Fired Combustion 4,149,383 48.5 4,404,282 

Techniques for the Reduction of NOx Emissions from Coal-Fired Boilers

Subtotal NO

x

 Control Technology 43,489,970 43.7 55,931,069 

Combined SO2/NOx Control Technologies

SNOXTM Flue Gas Cleaning Demonstration Project 15,719,200 50.0 15,719,208 

LIMB Demonstration Project Extension and Coolside Demonstration 7,591,655 39.3 11,719,378 SOx-NOx-Rox BoxTM Flue Gas Cleanup Demonstration Project 6,078,402 45.8 7,193,219 Enhancing the Use of Coals by Gas Reburning and Sorbent Injection 18,747,816 49.9 18,841,139 Milliken Clean Coal Technology Demonstration Project 45,000,000 28.4 113,607,807 Integrated Dry NOx/SO2 Emissions Control System 13,082,653 50.0 13,082,653 

Subtotal Combined SO2/NOx Control Technologies 106,219,726 37.1 180,163,404 

Total Environmental Controls 252,866,030 40.8 367,243,594 
Exhibit 3-7 (continued)

CCTDP Funding by Application Category

Project DOE % Participant Advanced Electric Power GenerationFluidized-Bed CombustionJEA Large-Scale CFB Combustion Demonstration Project 74,733,833 24.2 234,362,679 Tidd PFBC Demonstration Project 66,956,993 35.3 122,929,346 Nucla CFB Demonstration Project 17,130,411 10.7 142,919,538 

Subtotal Fluidized-Bed Combustion 158,821,237 24.1 500,211,563 

Integrated Gasification Combined-CycleKentucky Pioneer Energy IGCC Demonstration Project 78,086,357 18.1 353,846,225 Piñon Pine IGCC Power Project 167,956,500 50.0 167,956,500 Tampa Electric Integrated Gasification Combined-Cycle Project 150,894,223 49.8 152,394,223 

Wabash River Coal Gasification Repowering Project 219,100,000 50.0 219,100,000 

Subtotal Integrated Gasification Combined-Cycle 616,037,080 40.8 893,296,948 

Advanced Combustion/Heat EnginesClean Coal Diesel Demonstration Project 23,818,000 50.0 23,818,000 Healy Clean Coal Project 117,327,000 48.5 124,731,000 

Subtotal Advanced Combustion/Heat Engines 141,145,000 48.7 148,549,000 

Total Advanced Electric Power Generation 916,003,317 37.3 1,542,057,511 

Coal Processing for Clean FuelsCommercial-Scale Demonstration of the Liquid Phase Methanol (LPMEOHTM) Process 92,708,370 43.4 120,991,630 Advanced Coal Conversion Process Demonstration 43,125,000 40.8 62,575,000 Development of the Coal Quality ExpertTM 10,863,911 50.0 10,882,093 ENCOAL® Mild Coal Gasification Project 45,332,000 50.0 45,332,000 

Total Coal Processing for Clean Fuels 192,029,281 44.5 239,780,723 

Industrial ApplicationsClean Power from Integrated Coal/Ore Reduction (CPICORTM) 149,469,242 14.0 916,335,758 

Pulse Combustor Design Qualification Test 4,306,027 50.0 4,306,027 Blast Furnace Granular-Coal Injection System Demonstration Project 31,824,118 16.4 162,477,672 Advanced Cyclone Combustor with Internal Sulfur, Nitrogen, and Ash Control 490,122 49.8 494,272 

Cement Kiln Flue Gas Recovery Scrubber 5,982,592 33.6 11,817,408 

Total Industrial Applications 192,072,101 14.9 1,095,431,137 Grand Total 1,552,970,729 32.4 3,244,512,965 
3-10 Program Update 2003

As previously discussed, Exhibit 3-1 summarizes thecost-sharing status by subprogram and by applicationcategory for the active or completed projects. In theadvanced electric power generation category, whichaccounts for 51 percent of total project costs, participants are contributing 63 percent of the funds. Costsharing by participants for environmental controldevices, coal processing for clean fuels, and industrialapplications categories is 59 percent, 56 percent, and 85percent, respectively. For the overall program, participants are contributing 68 percent of the total funding,or nearly $1.7 billion more than the federal government.Recovery of Government Outlays(Recoupment)The policy objective of DOE is to recover an amountup to the government’s financial contribution to eachproject. Participants are required to submit a plan outlining a proposed schedule for recovering thegovernment’s financial contribution. The solicitationshave featured different sets of recoupment rules.Under the first solicitation, CCTDP-I, repayment wasderived from revenue streams that include net revenuefrom operation of the demonstration plant beyond thedemonstration phase and the commercial sale, lease,manufacture, licensing, or use of the demonstrated technology. In the second solicitation, CCTDP-II, repayment was limited to revenues realized from the futurecommercialization of the demonstrated technology. Thegovernment’s share would be 2 percent of gross equipment sales and 3 percent of the royalties realized on thetechnology subsequent to the demonstration.The third solicitation, CCTDP-III, repayment formulawas adjusted to 0.5 percent of equipment sales and 5percent of royalties. Limited grace periods were allowed on a project-by-project basis. A waiver on repayment may be sought from the Secretary of Energy ifthe project participant determines that a competitivedisadvantage would result in either the domestic or

international marketplace. The recoupment provisionsfor the fourth, CCTDP-IV, and the fifth, CCTDP-V,solicitations were identical to those in CCTDP-III.As of May 31, 2003, six participants have made$1,866,675 in payments to the federal governmentunder the terms of the repayment agreements: NuclaCFB Demonstration Project (Tri-State Generation andTransmission Association, Inc.); Full-Scale Demonstration of Low-NOx Cell Burner Retrofit (The Babcock &Wilcox Company); Development of the Coal QualityExpertTM (ABB Combustion Engineering, Inc. and CQInc.); 10-MWe Demonstration of Gas Suspension Absorption (AirPol, Inc.); Advanced Flue Gas Desulfurization Demonstration Project (Pure Air on the Lake,L.P.); and Wabash River Coal Gasification RepoweringProject.In September 1997, the CCTDP office issued a reportentitled Recoupment Lessons Learned—Clean CoalTechnology Demonstration Program. The report: (1)reviewed the lessons learned on recoupment during theimplementation of the CCTDP; (2) addressed recommended actions set forth in General Accounting Office(GAO) Report RCED-92-17, GAO Report RCED-96-141, and Inspector General Audit Report IG-0391 relative to recoupment; and (3) provided input into DOEdeliberations on recoupment policy.PPIIThe Power Plant Improvement Initiative (PPII) wasestablished by appropriations made for Fiscal Year2001 (Public Law 106-291) through a transfer of $95million in previously appropriated funding for theCCTDP. Funds were committed to demonstrationprojects from a single solicitation issued February 6,2001. From twenty-four applications, eight projectswere selected for negotiation on September 26, 2001.

As of May 31, 2003, two negotiations, four projecagreements, and two protiations. No additional sunused funds are intendePower Initiative (CCPI).The DOE funding communder contract total $17.projects in negotiation, tmitment is nearly $47 mprojects, participants havpercent of the $104.5 mihibit 3-8 summarizes the PPII as of May 31, 2003funding commitments foThe PPII funds are subjesions governing the use ence is the inclusion of reign sales and licenses in ment agreement. For the ment amount is determinof gross equipment sales royalty and licensing feetic sales. A grace period cent of sales and licensepants can propose alternbut those approaches muamounts than the model example, a participant corevenues from continued completion of the demonwith congressional direcpayment provisions will activities.
Exhibit 3-8

Financial Status of PPII and CCPI as of May 31, 2003

(Dollars in Thousands)

a Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) Programs.b General Rescission under P.L. 106–291.

2001 2002 2003 Total

Available Funding

Committed Obliga

to Date to Da

Fiscal Year

PPII Projects 93,843 93,834CCPI Projects 144,565 144,565 289,130Program Support 948 1,500 1,500 3,948SBIR & STTRa 3,935 3,935 7,870Other Adjustments 209b 209Total 95,000 150,000 150,000 395,000

46,874 15,14

317,229 

3,948 2,027,870 7,87

375,921 25,03
3-12 Program Update 2003

CCPIThe CCPI supports the National Energy Policy (NEP)recommendation to increase investment in clean coaltechnology. The CCPI is a cost-shared partnershipbetween government and industry to demonstrateadvanced coal-based technologies with the goal ofaccelerating commercial deployment of promisingtechnologies to ensure the nation has clean, reliable,and affordable electricity.Funding provided by appropriations for Fiscal Year2002 and 2003, along with additional funds available from the PPII, served as the basis for the firstCCPI solicitation. On March 4, 2002, the CCPIsolicitation was issued and was open to any technology advancement related to coal-based powergeneration that resulted in efficiency, environmental,and economic improvement compared to currentlyavailable state-of-the-art alternatives. The solicitationwas also open to technologies capable of producingany combination of heat, fuels, chemicals or other useful byproducts with power generation. On January 15,2003, DOE announced the selection of eight projectsfrom thirty-six proposals. The selected projects arevalued at more than $1.3 billion with a governmentcommitment of approximately $317 million. Subsequently, one CCPI was withdrawn by the participant.The remaining projects are in negotiation, and the firstawards are anticipated in summer 2003.The DOE funding commitments for the selected CCPIprojects represent less than 25 percent of the total estimated costs for the eight projects, while participantcommitments exceed $1 billion. The two largestprojects in terms of total costs have proposed 84 and90 percent participant funding levels, showing thatproject participants are willing to be substantial partners in the demonstration of clean coal technologies.

Exhibit 3-8 summarizes the overall financial status ofthe CCPI as of May 31, 2003. Provided negotiationslead to award of the remaining seven projects, surplusfunds from the PPII will be used to fulfill the government’s financial commitment to the projects. Exhibit3-9 summarizes the proposed funding commitments forthe individual projects.CCPI funds are subject to similar general provisionsgoverning the use of CCTDP funds. For repayment,the first CCPI solicitation did not designate explicitvalues or terms in the model repayment agreement, butinstead left the details to be defined by the applicant.The applicant-proposed repayment provisions wereconsidered as one of five factors under the commercialpotential evaluation criteria used to make project selections. In accordance with congressional direction,funds obtained from repayment provisions will be retained by DOE for future activities.
Exhibit 3-9

PPII and CCPI Project Fundinga

Project DOE % Participant Power Plant Improvement Initiative

Development of Hybrid FLGR/SNCR/SCR Advanced NOx

Control 14,957,658 49.0 15,556,053 Greenidge Multi-Pollutant Control Project 14,500,000 44.2 18,300,000 Demonstration of a Full-Scale Retrofit of the AdvancedHybrid Particulate Collector Technology 6,490,585 48.6 6,862,703 Achieving NSPS Through Integration of Low-NOxBurners with an Optimized Plan for Boiler Combustion 2,796,326 48.0 3,085,349 Big Bend Power Station Neural Network-Sootblower Optimization 905,013 38.0 1,476,601 

Commercial Demonstration of the Manufactured AggregateProcessing Technology Utilizing Spray Dryer Ash 7,224,000 36.9 12,357,734 Total PPII 46,873,582 44.8 57,638,440 

Clean Coal Power Initiative 17,415,924

Next Generation CFB Coal Generating Unit 30,000,000 10.0 271,504,011 Lignite Fuel Enhancement 11,000,000 50.0 11,000,000 Commercial Demonstration of the Airborne Processb 31,122,268 25.9 89,004,301 

Demonstration of Integrated Optimization Software at theBaldwin Energy Complex 8,388,104 45.0 10,252,127 Advanced Multi-Product Coal Utilization By-Product Processing Plant 4,450,163 49.9 4,466,576 Western Greenbrier Co-Production Demonstration Project 107,499,859 50.0 107,499,861 TOXECON Retrofit for Mercury and Multi-Pollutant Control on Three90 MW Coal-Fired Boilers 24,768,312 50.0 24,768,312 Gilberton Coal-to-Clean Fuels and Power Co-Production Project 100,000,000 16.3 512,000,000 Total CCPI 317,228,706 23.5 1,030,495,188 

a Projects shown in italics are in negotiation.b Project has been withdrawn by the participant after May 31, 2003.
3-14 Program Update 2003
4. AccomplishmentsIntroductionSince the start of fiscal year (FY) 2002, there has beena great deal of activity within the Department ofEnergy’s (DOE) clean coal technology (CCT) programs. Within the Clean Coal Technology Demonstration Program (CCTDP), two projects have completedoperations, one project started operations, and twoprojects were terminated. Within the Power Plant Improvement Initiative (PPII), four projects have beenawarded cooperative agreements and one project waswithdrawn (another project had been withdrawn inFY2001). And within the Clean Coal Power Initiative(CCPI), eight projects were selected for award and oneproject was withdrawn.CCTDPOverview of EventsSince the beginning of FY 2002, the following majorevents occurred:• Demonstration of Advanced Combustion Techniques

for a Wall-Fired Boiler completeddemonstration operation;

• Commercial-Scale Demonstration of the Liquid

Phase Methanol (LPMEOHTM) Process completeddemonstration operation;

• JEA Large-Scale CFB Combustion Demonstration

Project started operations;

• McIntosh Unit 4A PCFB Demonstration Project was

terminated; and

• McIntosh Unit 4B Topped PCFB Demonstration

Project was terminated.

Overview of OutreachThe success of the CCTDP ultimately will be measuredby the contribution the technologies make to the resolution of energy, economic, and environmental issues.These contributions can only be achieved if the publicand private sectors understand that clean coal technologies can increase the efficiency of energy use and enhance environmental quality at costs that are competitivewith other energy options.The CCTDP has continued efforts to define and understand the potential domestic and internationalmarkets for clean coal technologies. Domestically,this activity requires a continuing dialogue withelectric utility executives, public utility commissioners, and financial institutions. Also required areanalyses of the effect that regional electric capacityrequirements, environmental compliance strategies,and electric utility restructuring have on the demandfor clean coal technologies. Internationally, activitiesinclude participating in international conferences andworkshops, furnishing information on clean coal technologies, and providing technical support to tradeagencies, trade missions, and financial organizations.Since the beginning of FY 2002, the CCTDP staffparticipated in over 30 domestic and internationalevents involving users and vendors of clean coal technologies, regulators, financiers, environmental groups,and other public and private institutions. Five issues ofthe Clean Coal Today newsletter were published in thesame period, along with the seventh annual edition ofthe Clean Coal Today Index, which cross-references all Some new publications p
4-2 Program Update 2003

articles published in the newsletter. Five Project Performance Summary documents were issued—theWabash River Coal Gasification Repowering Project;Integrated Dry NOx/SO2 Emissions Control System;Demonstration of Innovative Applications of Technologyfor the CT-121 FGD Process; Milliken Clean Coal Technology Demonstration Project; and Demonstration ofSelective Catalytic Reduction for the Control of NOxEmissions From High-Sulfur, Coal-Fired Boilers.Also, two Clean Coal Technology Topical Reportdocuments were issued: The JEA Large-Scale CFBCombustion Demonstration Project and Software Systems in Clean Coal Demonstration Projects. The Department of Energy also continued coverage of theprogram by publishing the Clean Coal TechnologyDemonstration Program: Program Update 2001.Accomplishments—EnvironmentalControl DevicesAll environmental control device projects are now completed. The completed demonstrations proved commercial viability of a suite of cost-effective SO2 and NOxcontrol options for the full range of coal-fired boilertypes. Risk was significantly mitigated in successfullyapplying the technologies commercially, because of theextensive databases and attendant predictive modelsdeveloped through the demonstrations. Also, projectswere leveraged to provide input in formulating NOxcontrol requirements under the CAAA and to evaluatethe impact of emerging issues, such as air toxics, on theexisting boiler population and control options. Extensiveair toxics testing was performed in conjunction with 10of the environmental control projects. To a great extent,the technologies were retained for commercial service atthe demonstration sites, and many technology suppliershave realized commercial sales.SO2 Control Technologies. All five SO2 control technology demonstrations are completed, evaluating threebasic approaches to address the diverse coal-fired boiler

population: (1) sorbent injection, (2) gas-suspensionabsorption, and (3) advanced flue gas desulfurization.• Two low-capital-cost sorbent injection systems,

sponsored by LIFAC–North America and BechtelCorporation, demonstrated SO2 capture efficienciesin the range of 50 to 70 percent. These systems holdparticular promise for the older, smaller units, particularly those with space constraints.

• A moderate-capital-cost gas-suspension-absorption

system, sponsored by AirPol, Inc., demonstrated SO2capture efficiencies in the range of 60 to 90 percent.The system has particular applicability to the smallto mid-range units with some space limitations.

• Two advanced flue gas desulfurization (AFGD) systems, sponsored by Pure Air on the Lake, L.P. and

Southern Company Services, having somewhathigher capital costs than the other approaches, demonstrated SO2 capture efficiencies in the range of 90to 95 percent. These systems are primarily applicableto the larger, newer units that have space available.

The AFGD projects redefined the state-of-the-art inscrubber technology by proving that a single absorbermodule of advanced design could process large volumes of flue gas and provide the required availabilityand reliability. This single-module design, without theusual spares, combined with integration of functionswithin the absorber module and use of high-throughputdesigns, nearly halved capital cost and space requirements. The AFGD testing also established that wallboard-grade gypsum could be produced in lieu of solidwaste; wastewater discharge could be eliminated; and,by mitigating corrosion, fiberglass-reinforced-plasticfabrication could eliminate process steps (e.g., prequenching for chloride removal and flue gas reheat).The AFGD demonstration by Southern Company Services using Chiyoda CT-121 showed that the systemcould significantly enhance particulate control. PureAir on the Lake, L.P. introduced an innovative businessconcept whereby the company builds, owns, and operates scrubbers as a contracted service to a utility. The

arrangement relieves utiship and operation.NOx Control Technolognology demonstrations aconducted on the four mtangentially fired, cycloners), representing over 9boiler population; howevboiler types.Typically, NOx emission various approaches were• Low-NOx burners and • Reburning systems: 2• SNCR systems: 30 to • SCR systems: 80 to 9• Advanced controls: 1The Tampa IGCC plant at n
The database developed during Southern CompanyServices’ evaluation of NOx control on wall-fired andtangentially fired boilers at Plant Smith and PlantHammond, respectively, was used by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in formulating

NOx provisions under the CAAA. ABB Combustion

Engineering’s LNCFSTM proved effective for tangentially fired boilers and realized commercial acceptance, as did Foster Wheeler’s Controlled Flow/SplitFlame and Babcock & Wilcox’s DRB-XCL® low-NOx

burners for wall-fired boilers. The Babcock & WilcoxCompany’s low-NOx cell burner, LNCB®, provided aneffective low-cost plug-in NOx control system for

cell-burner boilers, which are known for their inherently high NOx emissions.

Integration of neural-network systems into digitalboiler controls, such as the Generic NOx Control Intelligent System (GNOCIS) installed at Plant Hammond,

demonstrated effective optimization of parameters forNOx control and boiler performance under load-following operations.

The Babcock & Wilcox Company’s coal reburningtechnology proved not only to be an effective way tocontrol NOx on cyclone boilers, but a means to avoid

derating cyclone boilers when switching to low-sulfur,low-rank western coals. Energy and EnvironmentalResearch Corporation’s use of gas reburning, applicable to all boiler types, introduced an alternative toSCR for high NOx emission reduction, particularly

when used with low-NOx burners.In another project, comparative analyses were conductedon a range of SCR catalysts using high-sulfur U.S. coals,providing needed insight into the environmental andeconomic performance potential of SCR. Other SCRsystems and selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR)systems were demonstrated in conjunction with combined SO2/NOx control technologies.Multi-Pollutant Control Technologies. All seven of themulti-pollutant control technology demonstrations arecompleted. The demonstrations evaluated a multiplicity of

complementary and synergistic control methods toachieve cost-effective SO2 and NOx emissions reductions.A catalytic process developed by Haldor Topsoe a/s,SNOXTM, consistently achieved 95 and 94 percent SO2and NOx reductions, respectively. The process alsodemonstrated excellent particulate control, while producing a salable by-product in lieu of a solid waste.In a project sponsored by Public Service Company ofColorado, the complementary use of low-NOx burners

with SNCR resulted in NOx emission reductions of

greater than 80 percent. The SNCR process interactedsynergistically with sorbent injection to reduce ammonia slip and lower NOx emissions. Sodium-based sorbent injection achieved 70 percent SO2 removal at highsorbent utilization rates.New York State Electric & Gas Corporation (NYSEG)evaluated an advanced flue gas desulfurization system,the S-H-U scrubber process. The S-H-U process, anadvanced formic acid-enhanced wet limestone scrubbing process, demonstrated a 98 percent SO2 captureefficiency. In conjunction with the S-H-U- process,NYSEG also evaluated micronized coal as a reburnfuel using close-coupled reburning techniques anddeep-staged combustion incorporated into ABB Combustion Engineering, Inc.’s LNCFSTM burners. DHRTechnologies supplied a plant optimization controlsystem known as the Plant Emission Optimization Advisor or PEOATM, which has been sold to a number ofusers in the power industry.The Babcock & Wilcox Company’s SOx-NOx-RoxBoxTM, an integration of a newly developed high-temperature fabric-filter bag (for baghouse installations)with SCR and sorbent injection, proved to be an easilyinstalled, highly efficient control system for SO2, NOx

,

and particulates. Typical performance was 80–90 percent SO2 removal, 90 percent NOx removal, and 99.9percent particulate removal.Limestone injection multistage burner (LIMB) andcoolside demonstrations proved that sorbent injectionmethods could achieve up to 70 percent SO2 reduction.

The Babcock & Wilcox NOx burners reduced N

Energy and Environmedemonstration of gas reshowed that: (1) NOx r

cent could be achieved heat input, and (2) SO2 

could be achieved by u

AccomplishmentsPower GeneratioPollution control was tThis program emphasicould effectively repowneed to both control empower demands. Repowbecause existing power cant value and warrant structure is in place, anmajor undertaking. Thiof three key repowerinand a PFBC project.As the CCTDP unfoldenvironmental issues csis toward seeking highpower generation techMilliken Station served as demonstrating advanced 
4-4 Program Update 2003

and new power generation. This emphasis wasdeemed essential to enable coal to fulfill its projectedcontribution to the nation’s energy mix well into the21st century. Environmental issues included a growingconcern over greenhouse gas emissions, capping ofSO2 emissions, increasing attention to NOx in ozone

nonattainment areas, and recognizing fine particulateemissions (respirable particulates) as a significanthealth threat. These issues prompted follow-onprojects in PFBC, initiation of projects in IGCC, andprojects in advanced combustion and heat engines.Fluidized-Bed Combustion. The Tri-State Generationand Transmission Association, Inc.’s Nucla Stationrepowering project provided the database and operating experience requisite to making ACFB a commercialtechnology option at utility scale. At 110 MWe, theNucla ACFB unit was more than 40 percent larger thanany other ACFB at that time. Up to 95 percent SO2

removal was achieved during the 15,700 hours of demonstration, and NOx emissions averaged a very low

0.18 lb/106 Btu. The thrust of this effort was to fully

evaluate the environmental, operational, and economicperformance of ACFB. As a result, the most comprehensive database on ACFB technology available at thetime was developed. Based on this knowledge, commercial units were offered and built.While the Nucla project established commercial acceptance of ACFB at moderate utility capacities, a secondCCT demonstration project, located in Jacksonville,Florida, is carrying on where Nucla left off. JEA (formerlyJacksonville Electric Authority) has built and is operatinga 300-MWe plant, which has the distinction of being thelargest ACFB in the world, as well as one of the cleanest.Today, every major U.S. boiler manufacturer offers anACFB in its product line. There are now more than 120fluidized-bed combustion boilers of varying capacitiesoperating in the United States, and the technology hasmade significant market penetration abroad.Through the Ohio Power Company’s repowering of theTidd Plant (70 MWe), the potential of pressurized fluidized-bed combustion (PFBC) as a high-efficiency, low-emission technology was established, and the foun- dation was laid for commercialization. This was the first utility-scale PFBC system in the United States. Efforts were focused on fully evaluating the performance poten- tial. Over 11,400 hours of operation, the technology successfully demonstrated SO2 removal efficiencies up to 95 percent with very high sorbent utilization (calcium- to-sulfur molar ratio of 1.5), and NOx emissions in the range of 0.15 to 0.33 lb/106 Btu. The Tidd Plant PFBC was one of the first-generation 70-MWe P200 units installed in the early 1990s. Others were built and operated in Sweden, Spain, and Japan. ABB Stal, the technology supplier, uses a “bubbling” fluidized-bed design, which is characterized by low fluidization velocities and use of an in-bed heat ex- changer. And, a “second generation” P200 PFBC with freeboard-firing is operating in Cottbus, Germany. Integrated Gasification Combined-Cycle. Three of four IGCC projects are completed. They represent a diversity of gasifier types, cleanup systems, and applica- tions. PSI Energy’s 262-MWe Wabash River Coal Gasification Repowering Project began operation in November 1995, completed demonstration operations in December 1999, and now operates in commercial service. The unit, which is the world’s largest single-train IGCC, operated on coal for over 15,000 hours and pro- cessed more than 1.5 million tons of coal to produce over 23 trillion Btu of syngas and 4 million MWh of electricity. The unit has achieved monthly production levels of one trillion Btu of syngas on several occasions. The 250-MWe Tampa Electric Integrated Gasification Combined-Cycle Project began commercial operation in September 1996, completed demonstration operations in September 2001, and now operates in commercial service. The gasifier has accumulated over 29,000 hours of operation and produced over 8.6 million MWh of electricity on syngas. Tests have included evaluation of various coal types on system performance. The Sierra Pacific Powe

Piñon Pine IGCC Power tion began operations in demonstration operationbined-cycle continues in Frame 6FA, the first of iwell. The system achievtion for short periods, busustained operations. The Kentucky Pioneer EProject, which is in the dother gasifier design and cell operated on syngas fprovide valuable data focation fuel cell (IGFC) sto achieve efficiencies uschedule, the fuel cell porelocated to the Wabash Commercial configuratioIGCC demonstrations wileast 20 percent greater thsystems (with like CO2 emto 99 percent of the SO2, NSPS, reduce particulate and produce salable by-popposed to waste. Advanced Combustion/are demonstrating advanctechnology. The completdemonstrated TRW’s entcombined with Babcock sorber using sorbent recytal compliance testing sh0.245 lb/106 Btu for NO

0.0047 lb/106 Btu for p

0.35 lb/106 Btu for NOx, 0.02 lb/106 Btu for particproximity to a national pThe Clean Coal Diesel Ding a heavy duty diesel en
coal-water fuel. The demonstration plant is expected toachieve 41 percent efficiency, and future commercialdesigns are expected to reach 48 percent efficiency.Accomplishments—Coal Processing forClean FuelsAll four projects in the coal processing for clean fuelscategory completed operations and three have submittedfinal reports. Projects in this category include physicaland chemical processes that can be used to transform theabundant U.S. coal reserves into economic, environmentally compliant solid and liquid fuels and feedstocks.The solid products from coal processing are largelydesigned to be readily transportable; high in energy density; and low in sulfur, ash, and moisture. The liquidproducts are designed to be suitable as transportationand stationary power generation fuels, or as chemicalfeedstocks. Both solid and liquid products, and theprocesses that produce them, have substantial marketpotential both domestically and internationally.The ENCOAL and Western SynCoal LLC projects arebreaking down the barrier to using the nation’s vastlow-sulfur but low-energy-density western coal resources. The resultant fuels have particular applicationdomestically for CAAA compliance and internationallyfor Pacific Rim energy markets.ENCOAL’s solid fuel product has an energy density ofabout 11,000 Btu per pound, and the sulfur contentaverages 0.36 percent. ENCOAL’s liquid fuel productcan substitute for No. 6 fuel oil or serve as a chemicalfeedstock. During the demonstration, over 83,500 tonsof solid fuel was shipped to seven customers in sixstates, as well as 203 tank cars of liquid product toeight customers in seven states. Five commercial feasibility studies have been completed—two for Indonesia,one for Russia, and two for U.S. projects.The Western SynCoal LLC project demonstrated anotherroute to producing high-quality fuel from low-rank coals.The advanced coal conversion process (ACCP) upgradeslow-rank coal to produce a low-sulfur (as low as 0.3 percent sulfur) SynCoal® product having a heating value of about 12,000 Btu per pound. During the demonstration, over 2.8 million tons of raw coal were processed to pro- duce almost 1.9 million tons of SynCoal® product. Six agreements were in place to purchase the product. Air Products Liquid Phase Conversion Company, L.P. demonstrated the LPMEOHTM process to pro- duce methanol from coal-derived synthesis gas. The LPMEOHTM process has been developed to enhance integrated gasification combined-cycle power gen- eration facilities by co-producing a clean-burning storable liquid fuel from coal-derived synthesis gas. The production of dimethyl ether (DME) as a mixed co-product with methanol was also demonstrated. Methanol and DME may be used as a low-SO2

,

low-NOx alternative liquid fuel, a feedstock for thesynthesis of chemicals, or as a new oxygenate fuel

additive. Since startuption unit produced ovmethanol, all of which Chemical Company foprocessing. During thavailability of the uniABB Combustion Engdeveloped the PC-baseExpertTM (CQETM), to environmental and opesystems for the availabmine the least-cost optbeen distributed to oveand is being marketed cU.S. utilities also have the CQETM stand-alone AccomplishmentsApplicationsThe CCTDP is addressbarriers associated with tions. Four of five projHistorically, productioupon coke. Coke makilarge producer of hazacement production oftproduction costs are laBecause of its stable losubstitute for oil and gconcerns over increaseboiler tube fouling havUnder a project with Beish Steel’s blast furnace technology demonstratebe substituted for every into a blast furnace whetion are effectively contCPICORTM Managemesign stage for demonstr

Three IGCC plants have completed operations: TampaElectric (top), Piñon Pine (middle), and Wabash River(bottom).
4-6 Program Update 2003

and smelting of iron oxides using coal in lieu of coke.This would reduce the need for coke, which results inlarge amounts of pollutants during its production.The Passamaquoddy Tribe successfully demonstrated aunique recovery scrubber that uses cement kiln dust,otherwise disposed of as waste, to remove 90 percent ofthe SO2, produce fertilizer and distilled water, and convert the kiln dust to feedstock with no waste generated.Coal Tech Corporation moved closer to commercializing a combustor for industrial boilers that slags theash in the combustor to prevent boiler tube fouling,controls NOx (70 to 80 percent reduction) through

staged combustion, and controls SO2 (90 percent) with

sorbent injection.ThermoChem, Inc. has recently completed demonstration of its multiple resonance tube pulse combustor.Accomplishments—GeneralAfter 15 years, the CCTDP is nearing completion, butseveral important ongoing projects have yet to make theircontribution. There are also a number of institutionalsuccesses associated with the CCTDP. For example, theGeneral Accounting Office has described the CCTDP asone of the most successful government/industry partnerships. Congress has recognized the success of theCCTDP and has adapted the program’s general principlesto the PPII and CCPI. The Department of Energy hasadapted the same principles to other programs.Commensurate with CCTDP commercialization goals, themajority of the projects involve demonstrations at commercial scale, providing the opportunity for the participants tocontinue operation of the demonstrated technologies as partof their strategy to comply with the Clean Air Act.With government serving as a risk-sharing partner,industry funding has been leveraged to:• Create jobs,• Improve the environment,

• Reduce the cost of compliance with environmental

regulations,

• Reduce the cost of electricity generation,• Improve power generation efficiencies, and• Position U.S.-based industry to export innovative

services and equipment.

Reflecting the marketplace commitment, the CCTDPprojects are organized within four major productlines—environmental control devices, advanced electric power generation, coal processing for clean fuels,and industrial applications.CommercializationThe domestic market for advanced SO2 control technology is not yet fully developed. To date, domesticutilities have largely invested in fuel switching for SO2control and procuring and banking SO2 allowances,rather than making capital investments in SO2 controltechnologies. Also, the utilities are awaiting the outcome of fine particulate matter 2.5 microns and smaller(PM2.5) and other regulatory actions that may significantly impact SO2 compliance requirements. Similarly,

there has been no domestic market for advanced technologies that combine high capture efficiency for SO2

,

NOx, and particulate matter (PM).

After being proven as a CCTDP projects, low-N

to meet the January 2000 emission requirements fo

more aggressive, deeper and gas reburning, and Sonly sparingly, but are coforced to comply with nements. The U.S. Energy (EIA) estimates that 23 gwill be in place by 2020The domestic market has troduction of advanced ctechnologies. Uncertainty due to utility restructurinemission standards have natural gas prices to discoplants. Successfully demIGCC and PFBC have remostly overseas.The market is changingtric power generation, rthe increasing importansity are placing a premiufired electric capacity angeneration a solid optio

SO2 control technologies: AirPol (left), CT-121 (center), and LIFAC (right).
the existing plants, investments will likely be madein the control measures needed to meet emissionscompliance requirements.For capacity additions, only advanced coal-based powergeneration systems, such as IGCC, PFBC, and derivativetechnologies, can meet projected emission standards andaddress concerns over global climate change.There have been commercialization successes to date inthe CCTDP. The commercial sales status for CCTDPtechnologies by functional application are presented inExhibits 4–1 to 4–6.SummaryCombined, the technologies associated with the CCTDPhave already yielded sales totaling over $24.3 billion.Additional sales of these and other technologies arebeing actively pursued, with a pending sales value of$11.4 billion.AwardsThe projects in the CCTDP have won numerous awardsfrom news, professional, and non-profit organizations.A listing of those awards is contained in Exhibit 4-7. Inaddition, the CCT Compendium has been awarded theAPEX2003 Award for Excellence and featured in theJuly 2002 National Science Digital Library Scout Report for Math, Engineering, and Technology.PPIIIn 2001, the coal-fueled power industry responded enthusiastically to the first new government competitionfor clean coal technology projects in more than eightyears. In a limited competition to advanced clean coaltechnologies that was the precursor to the new CCPI,DOE received 24 proposals for projects totaling nearly

$535 million, $251 million of which was requested fromthe federal government. The Department of Energy offered $95 million for the initial competition called thePower Plant Improvement Initiative. The private sectormust at least match the government’s share. Proposedprojects would be sited in at least 15 states (some proposers did not designate a site). The Secretary of Energy proclaimed that “[t]his country will have a muchstronger, more reliable electric industry if we keep coalin the power mix. New technology is the way to do that,and these proposals tell us that the power industryagrees.” The initiative is intended to share the risks ofthese unproven technologies with the expectation thatthe first-of-a-kind demonstrations will spur other powercompanies to replicate the new technologies. The initiative was included by Congress in DOE’s fiscal year 2001appropriations bill.The PPII focus is on technologies to enable coal-basedplants to meet tougher environmental standards andimprove efficiency and reliability. Mercury control isan area of environmental emphasis in PPII, added sinceimplementation of CCTDP.A panel of technical, procurement and legal experts atNETL evaluated the candidate projects using criteriasuch as the proposed technology’s readiness, the management approach, cost considerations, environment,health and safety benefits, and the technology’s potential for being replicated in commercial markets. Theselections were announced in September 2001. Fourawards have been made to date.CCPIThe Clean Coal Power Initiative builds on the accomplishments of the CCTDP and PPII. Much haschanged since the last CCTDP projects were selectedin 1993; in particular tighter air emission standards,

growth in electricity cotechnologies.The CCTDP was put inresponse to increasing especially the impact ointo the Northeast and Canada. Midway throupassed the CAAA, whdards for SO2 and NOx 

was enacted, even mordards have emerged—coal-burning power plfor ozone, particulate mThe United States is becDuring the coming yearin the demand for electrall expectations. Todayover the next 20 years, States will increase by 4rate will require the equ1,300 new power plantstion has not experiencethe last 15 years. Moreoestimate. The rise of the creases in power demanexample, actual electricithe best projections—drinformation economy.The computer revolutioplayed an important rolpower plant technologiesystems, running off neligence, could make it pprocesses to their peak the amount of electricitbut also helping it to redNew technologies are bants like mercury and ulWhen CCTDP projects quirement to reduce the
4-8 Program Update 2003

Exhibit 4-1

Commercial Activity—SO2 Control Technology

Project Commercial Use10-MWe Demonstration of Gas Suspension Absorption Sold domestically and internationally. GSA market entry was significantly enhanced (AirPol, Inc.) unit, worth $12.5 million, to the city of Hamilton, Ohio, subsidized by the Ohio Coal D

worth $1.3 million has been made to the U.S. Army for hazardous waste disposal. A Ga Swedish iron ore sinter plant. Two GSA systems valued at $1.8 million have been soration for their oil-fired cogeneration plant. Airpol sold a GSA system valued at $1.5 mcalciner in India. Other units include a $300,000 GSA system at a municipal waste incGSA system at a waste incinerator in Holland, and a $500,000 GSA system at a municMinnesota.

Confined Zone Dispersion Flue Gas Desulfurization No sales reported. CZD/FGD can be used to retrofit existing plants or for new installa

Demonstration (Bechtel Corporation) one-tenth that of a commercial wet scrubber.LIFAC Sorbent Injection Desulfurization Sold domestically and internationally. The LIFAC system at Richmond Power & Lig

Demonstration Project (LIFAC–North America) a power plant using high-sulfur (2.0-2.9%) coal. The LIFAC system has been retained 

Richmond Power & Light at Whitewater Valley Station, Unit No. 2. There are 10 full-sCanada,China, Finland, Russia, Japan, and the United States, including 5 projects startsales in China, the estimated value is $44.6 million.

Advanced Flue Gas Desulfurization Demonstration Project No sales reported. The AFGD continues in commercial service at Northern Indiana Pu

(Pure Air on the Lake, L.P.) Bailly Generating Station. Gypsum produced by the PowerChip® process is being sold 

value for 17 years of continued scrubber operations is $154 million. FLS miljo, a Copecurrently working on a potential $60 million project in Kentucky using the next genera

Demonstration of Innovative Applications of Sold internationally. Plant Yates continues to operate with the CT-121 scrubber as an 

Technology for the CT-121 FGD Process CAAA compliance strategy. There are now 22 CT-121 plants in the planning, construc(Southern Company Services, Inc.) worldwide. There are 17 CT-121 plants (10 operating on coal) operating in Japan, Aus

Republic, Korea, Denmark, Malaysia, and Kuwait. The value of these 17 plants is estimprojects in the planning stage, the value is estimated at $880 million.
Exhibit 4-2

Commercial Activity—NOx Control Technology

Project Commercial UseMicronized Coal Reburning Demonstration for NOx Control No sales reported. Technology retained for commercial use at Kodak Park Power 

(New York State Electric & Gas Corporation)Demonstration of Coal Reburning for Cyclone Boiler NOx Control No sales reported. Technology retained for commercial use at Wisconsin Power a

(The Babcock & Wilcox Company) Dewey Station.Full-Scale Demonstration of Low-NO

x

 Cell Burner Retrofit Sold domestically. Dayton Power & Light has retained the LNCB® for use in com

(The Babcock & Wilcox Company) commercial contracts have been awarded for 196 burners or 5,475 MWe of capaciEvaluation of Gas Reburning and Low-NOx Burners on a Sold domestically and internationally. Public Service Company of Colorado, the 

Wall-Fired Boiler (Energy and Environmental Research retain the low-NOx burners and the gas-reburning system for immediate use; howe

Corporation) to remove the flue gas recirculation system. Since the CCTDP, the participant has 

of installing the gas reburning or the gas reburning-low-NOx burner technology on 

2,310 MWe of capacity. Estimated value is over $50 million.

Demonstration of Selective Catalytic Reduction Technology Sold domestically and internationally. Since the project was initiated, revenues ffor the Control of NO

x Emissions from High-Sulfur, $7.1 billion through 2002.

Coal-Fired Boilers (Southern Company Services, Inc.)180-MWe Demonstration of Advanced Tangentially Fired Sold domestically and internationally. LNCFSTM has been retained at the host si

Combustion Techniques for the Reduction of NOx Emissions from Power has sold about 67 GWe of LNCFSTM burners. Of this amount, about 49 GW

Coal-Fired Boilers (Southern Company Services, Inc.) and 18 GWe are without overfire air. Total sales are estimated at $1.35 billion.

Demonstration of Advanced Combustion Techniques Sold domestically and internationally. The host has retained the technologies for for a Wall-Fired Boiler (Southern Company Services, Inc.) Wheeler has equipped 83 boilers with low-NOx burner technology—a total of ove

over 26,635 MWe capacity valued at $86 million. Foreign sales make up 35 percenTwenty-six commercial installations of GNOCIS, the associated artificial intelligenor planned. This represents over 12,000 MWe of capacity.
4-10 Program Update 2003

Exhibit 4-3

Commercial Activity—Multi-Pollutant Control Technology

Project Commercial UseSNOXTM Flue Gas Cleaning Demonstration Project (ABB International use. The host utility, Ohio Edison, is retaining the SNOXTM technology 

Environmental Systems) pollution control system at Niles Station to help meet its overall SO2 and NOx reduction 

SNOXTM plants are also operating in Japan, Russia, Denmark, The Czech Republic, an

LIMB Demonstration Project Extension and Coolside Sold domestically and internationally. LIMB has been sold to an independent power Demonstration (The Babcock & Wilcox Company) & Wilcox has sales of 2,805 DRB-XCL® burners for 38,284 MWe of capacity (20,291 

17,993 MW domestically). The low-NOx burners have an estimated value of $388 mill

SOx-NOx-Rox BoxTM Flue Gas Cleanup No sales reported. Commercialization of the technology is expected to develop with aDemonstration Project (The Babcock & Wilcox Company) equivalent to 50-100 MWe. The focus of marketing efforts is being tailored to match th

industrial, utility, and independent power producers for both retrofit and new plant contechnology that can be tailored to maximize control of SO2, NOx, particulate, or combinperformance requirements while providing flexibility to address future needs.

Enhancing the Use of Coals by Gas Reburning and No sales reported. Illinois Power has retained the gas-reburning system and City Wate

Sorbent Injection (Energy and Environmental Research the full technology for commercial use. (See Evaluation of Gas Reburning and Low-NO

Corporation) Boiler project for a complete understanding of commercial success of the technology.)Milliken Clean Coal Technology Demonstration Project Sold domestically. Eight modules of DHR Technologies’ Plant Emissions Optimization (New York State Electric & Gas Corporation) estimated value of $280,000, have been sold. DHR Technologies, Inc., is no longer in b

Electric & Gas Corporation owns the PEOA software. ABB Combustion Engineering hrepresenting over 25,000 MWe with LNCFSTM or its derivative TFS 2000TM.

Integrated Dry NOx/SO2 Emissions Control System Sold domestically. The technology was retained by Public Service Company of Colora

(Public Service Company of Colorado) Arapahoe Station. Babcock & Wilcox has sales of 2,805 DRB-XCL® burners for 38,28

domestically). The low-NOx burners have an estimated value of $388 million.
Exhibit 4-4

Commercial Activity—Advanced Electric Power Generation

Project Commercial UseTidd PFBC Demonstration Project Sold internationally. The project’s success has led Babcock & Wilcox to invest in th

(The Ohio Power Company) and acquire domestic licensing rights.

Commercial coal-fired ventures abroad include the following:– Vartan in Sweden is operating two P200 units to produce 135 MWe and 224 MWt– Escatron in Spain is operating one P200 unit producing 80 MWe*;– Wakamatsu in Japan has retired one P200 unit that produced 71 MWe;– Cottbus in Germany is operating one P200 unit to produce 71 MWe and 40 MWt;– Karita in Japan operates one P800 unit to produce 360 MWe;– Chuoku in Japan to produce 250 MWe; and– Tomato-Atswo plant in Japan to produce 80 MWe.The value of these projects is estimated at $1.35 billion.

Nucla CFB Demonstration Project (Tri-State Generation Sold domestically and internationally. Since the demonstration, Foster Wheeler En

and Transmission Association, Inc.) supplier for the demonstration effort, made sales in Germany, Italy, Poland, Taiwan, C

Indonesia, Finland, The Czech Republic, Denmark, Sweden, Austria, Spain, France, Domestic sales constitute almost 2 GW and international sales over 6 GW.

Tampa Electric Integrated Gasification Combined-Cycle Sold domestically and internationally. First greenfield IGCC unit in commercial ser

Project (Tampa Electric Company) Brown Boveri signed an agreement forming an alliance to market IGCC technology i

gasifiers representing 3,871 MW in the development or operation phase at an estimat14 Texaco gasifiers representing 7,246 MWe in the planning phase at an estimated co

Wabash River Coal Gasification Repowering Project No sales reported. First repowered IGCC unit in commercial service and is the world(Wabash River Coal Gasification Repowering Joint Project in commercial service.Venture)Healy Clean Coal Project (Alaska Industrial Development No sales reported. TRW is offering licensing of combustor worldwide. Commercial and Export Authority)

* Parallel project with Tidd.
4-12 Program Update 2003

Exhibit 4-5

Commercial Activity—Coal Processing for Clean Fuels

Project Commercial UseDevelopment of the Coal Quality ExpertTM (ABB Combustion Sold domestically and internationally. The Electric Power Research Institute (EPREngineering and CQ, Inc.) Engineering software and distributes it to EPRI members for their use. CQ Inc. and B

commercialization agreements that give both companies nonexclusive worldwide rigconsulting services that include use of CQE®. More than 22 U.S. utilities, two United 

utility in France have received CQE® through EPRI membership. Two modules of th$6,000 have been sold. EPRI estimated that the Acid Rain Advisor has saved one U.more than the total cost of the demonstration project. There have also been two sales software (Vista) at an estimated value of $180,000.

ENCOAL® Mild Coal Gasification Project (ENCOAL Domestic and international sales pending. In order to determine the viability of po

Corporation) plants, five detailed commercial feasibility studies—two Indonesian, one Russian, an

completed.

Commercial-Scale Demonstration of the Liquid Phase No sales reported. Nominal 80,000 gallon/day methanol production being used by E

Methanol (LPMEOHTM) Process (Air Products LiquidPhase Conversion Company, L.P.)Advanced Coal Conversion Process Demonstration No sales reported. Total sales of SynCoal® product exceed 1.9 million tons. Six long

(Western SynCoal LLC) place to purchase the product. One domestic and five international projects have bee

SynCoal LLC has a joint marketing agreement with Ube Industries of Japan providinrights outside of the United States. Ube is pursuing several projects in Asia.

Exhibit 4-6

Commercial Activity—Industrial Applications

Project Commercial UseCement Kiln Flue Gas Recovery Scrubber No sales reported. The scrubber became a permanent part of the cement plant at the end of the dem

(Passamaquoddy Tribe) study has been completed for a Taiwanese cement plant.Blast Furnace Granular-Coal Injection System No sales reported. Technology remains in commercial service at demonstration site.

Demonstration Project (Bethlehem SteelCorporation)Advanced Cyclone Combustor with Internal Sulfur, No sales reported. While the combustor is not yet fully ready for sale with commercial guarantees

Nitrogen, and Ash Control (Coal Tech Corporation) commercial potential. Follow-on work to the CCTDP demonstration was undertaken, which has br

close to commercial introduction.
Exhibit 4-7

Award-Winning CCTDP Projects

Project and Participant AwardFull-Scale Demonstration of Low-NO

x Cell Burner 1994 R&D 100 Award presented by R&D magazine to the U.S. Department of Energy for 

Retrofit (The Babcock & Wilcox Company) burner.Evaluation of Gas Reburning and Low-NOx Burners on 1997 J. Deane Sensenbaugh Award presented by the Air and Waste Management Associati

a Wall-Fired Boiler; Enhancing the Use of Coals by Gas Energy, Gas Research Institute, and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for the develo

Reburning and Sorbent Injection (Energy and gas-reburning technology.Environmental Research Corporation)Advanced Flue Gas Desulfurization Demonstration 1993 Powerplant Award presented by Power magazine to Northern Indiana Public Service Com

Project (Pure Air on the Lake, L.P.)

1992 Outstanding Engineering Achievement Award presented by the National Society of P

Demonstration of Innovative Applications of Technology 1995 Design Award presented by the Society of Plastics Industries in recognition of the m

for the CT-121 FGD Process (Southern CompanyServices, Inc.) 1994 Powerplant Award presented by Power magazine to Georgia Power’s Plant Yates. Co

Department of Energy.1994 Outstanding Achievement Award presented by the Georgia Chapter of the Air and W1993 Environmental Award presented by the Georgia Chamber of Commerce.

Tidd PFBC Demonstration Project (The Ohio Power 1992 National Energy Resource Organization award for demonstration of energy-efficient Company)

1991 Powerplant Award presented by Power magazine to American Electric Power Comp

was The Babcock & Wilcox Company.

Tampa Electric Integrated Gasification Combined-Cycle 1997 Powerplant Award presented by Power magazine to Tampa Electric’s Polk Power St

Project (Tampa Electric Company)

1996 Association of Builders and Contractors Award presented to Tampa Electric for qual1993 Ecological Society of America Corporate Award presented to Tampa Electric for its i1993 Timer Powers Conflict Resolution Award presented to Tampa Electric by the state of Florid1991 Florida Audubon Society Corporate Award presented to Tampa Electric for the innov

Wabash River Coal Gasification Repowering Project 1996 Powerplant Award presented by Power magazine to CINergy Corp./PSI Energy, Inc.

(Wabash River Coal Gasification Repowering ProjectJoint Venture) 1996 Engineering Excellence Award presented to Sargent & Lundy upon winning the 199

Council competition.

Development of the Coal Quality ExpertTM (ABB In 1996 recognized by then Secretary of Energy Hazel O’Leary and EPRI President Richa

Combustion Engineering, Inc. and CQ Inc.) DOE/EPRI cost-shared utility R&D projects under the Sustainable Electric Partnership PrJEA Large-Scale CFB Combustion Demonstration Project 2002 Powerplant Award presented by Power magazine to JEA.
4-14 Program Update 2003

NOx emission requirements were far less stringent thanthose resulting from revised NAAQS for ozone; and utilization of coal wastes was not a CCTDP emphasis.To meet these new challenges, a new suite of technologies are needed. On January 15, 2003, DOE announced the selection of eight projects under CCPI-I.Three of the projects are directed at new ways to comply with the President’s Clear Skies Initiative (CSI),which calls for dramatic reductions in air pollutantsfrom power plants over the next decade-and-a-half.Three other projects are expected to contribute toPresident Bush’s Climate Change initiative to reducegreenhouse gases. The remaining two projects willreduce air pollution through coal gasification andmulti-pollutant control systems. Subsequent to the selection, one CCPI project related to CSI was withdrawn by the participant.Market Communications—OutreachOutreach has been a hallmark of the CCTDP since itsinception. The Department of Energy recognizedearly on that commercialization of technology requires acceptance by a range of interests including:technology users; equipment manufacturers; suppliersand users of raw materials and products; financialinstitutions and insurance underwriters; governmentpolicy makers, legislators, and regulators; and publicinterest groups. Requisite to acceptance is an outreach program to provide these customers and stakeholders with both program and project informationand to seek, on a continuing basis, feedback on program direction and information requirements. An ongoing outreach program has aggressively sought todisseminate key information to the full range of customers and stakeholders and to obtain feedback on

changing needs. The effort has recognized the needto highlight environmental, operational, and economicperformance characteristics of clean coal technologiesand to redesign information packages as customersand stakeholders, and their respective needs, changewith the market. Specific objectives of the outreachprogram include the following:• Achieving public and government awareness of

advanced coal-using technologies as viable energyoptions;

• Providing potential technology users, both foreign

and domestic, with information that is timely andrelevant to their decision making process;

• Providing policy makers, legislators, and regulators

with information about the advantages of clean coaltechnologies;

• Informing financial institutions and insurance underwriters that clean coal technologies are viable options; and• Providing forums and opportunities for feedback on

program direction and information requirements.

Information SourcesA variety of publications and information access mediaexist and are being improved upon as program and marketplace events unfold. Information is currently distributed toover 4,000 customers and stakeholders. The followingprovides a brief synopsis of the publications and information transfer mechanisms currently in place.Clean Coal Technology Programs: Program Updateprovides an annual summary of program and projectprogress, accomplishments, and financial status alongwith a historical backdrop and program role relative tocurrent policy.Clean Coal Technology Demonstration Program:Completed Projects provides a summary of completedprojects in the CCTDP.

Clean Coal Today newsterly look at clean coal thighlighting key events, listing the latest publicaProject Performance Sumopses of completed projeoperational, environmentEighteen have been publTopical Report documenjunctures and highlight ptages, project plans, and one have been published The National Technical Inserves as the federal govesale of scientific, technicaness information produceThe NTIS has many of thCCTDP Bibliography of Psentations periodically upon the technologies demoThe Investment Pays Off based view of the succesvirtue of commercial salactivities to projected mCCTDP—Lessons Learnlearned in soliciting, seleand implementing the prCCT Compendium is an eclean coal technology puon the Internet (http://wwwExhibits provide a meanbroadcast videos, and inprogram messages at a vfocal points for distributof the program and inforrently four exhibits of vaare updated and modifieappropriate message for 
The Home Page of DOE’s Office of Fossil Energy (FE)provides the primary Internet gateway to extensive information on DOE’s Fossil Energy Program and to relevantWorld Wide Web links (http://www.fe.doe.gov). TheNETL Home Page has information on the laboratory’sresearch efforts (http://www.netl.doe.gov/).Exhibit 4-8 summarizes how the above publications canbe obtained and information sources can be accessed.PublicationsThe following publications were issued since the startof fiscal year 2002 by the CCTDP.• Clean Coal Technology Demonstration Program:

Program Update 2001

• Clean Coal Today: Winter 2001, Spring 2002,

Summer 2002, Fall/Winter 2002, and Spring 2003.

• Clean Coal Today Index• Project Performance Summary—Demonstration of

Innovative Applications of Technology for the CT121 FGD Process

• Project Performance Summary—Integrated Dry

NO

x 

/SO2 Emissions Control System

• Project Performance Summary—Milliken Clean

Coal Technology Demonstration Project

• Project Performance Summary—Wabash River Coal

Gasification Repowering Project

• Project Performance Summary—Demonstration of

Selective Catalytic Reduction for the Control of NOxEmissions from High-Sulfur, Coal-Fired Boilers

• Topical Report—The JEA Large-Scale CFB Combustion Demonstration Project• Topical Report—Software Systems in Clean Coal

Demonstration Projects

Information AccessThe Department of Energy continues to expand itsWeb site to provide information on federal fossil energy programs and serve as a gateway to other related information throughout the United States and the world. Once into the DOE Web site, users can obtain general information and follow links to increasingly detailed information, ultimately accessing specific data on individual projects and facilities. Hyperlinks allow users to move seamlessly between DOE head- quarters and field sites. Users can also access technical abstracts and reports maintained by DOE’s Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI) at Oak Ridge, Tennessee. The gateway links to more than a hundred energy-related Web sites operated by private companies, trade associations, and other agencies worldwide. Furthermore, the Fossil Energy International Activities site on the World Wide Web has been expanded with the addition of new country pages. Many of the existing country pages have also been upgraded, with new hyperlinks to business- or energy-related information sources. An innovation at the Fossil Energy Interna- tional Activities Web site is a series of newly created Country Energy Overvi

ized for a particular couof that country’s energy ronmental policies, and country pages are now aLocator (URL) for the Fpage is http://www.fe.daccessed via the “Internergy Home Page (http://In February 1998, DOE resource on the InternCompendium, sponsorergy and the National (NETL), is dedicated tof information derived programs. The compenease of use, and contaient types of data and incable to the needs of bFor example, one can Technology Demonstra

Exhibit 4-8 How to Obtain CCTDP Informati

Media Description and Action Clean Coal Today Subscription to quarterly newsletter

Department of Energy, FE-24, Wash

Fossil Energy Home Page Primary gateway to extensive inform

Program and to relevant Web links—http://www.fe.doe.gov and use men

National Energy Technology Laboratory Information on NETL’s research is aCCT Compendium On the Internet, access http://www.lClean Coal Technology Programs: U.S. Department of Energy, FE-20 Program Update and other publications Washington, DC 20585 National Technical Information Service U.S. Department of Commerce 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161
4-16 Program Update 2003

The CCT Compendium is a new source of information on theCCTDP.

date and Topical Reports published periodically on

individual CCT projects. The CCT Compendium isaccessible via the Internet at http://www.lanl.gov/projects/cctc/.

Information Dissemination andFeedbackA number of mechanisms are used to disseminate program information to customers and stakeholders andobtain feedback from them on specific issues, programdirection, and information requirements. The followingprovides a brief outline of the mechanisms.Public Meetings were routinely held over the course ofthe acquisition phase of the Clean Coal TechnologyPrograms to solicit input on procurement actions. Subsequently, project participants have been holding openhouses for the public, providing tours of demonstrationfacilities, and publicizing projects throughgroundbreaking and dedication ceremonies.Stakeholder Meetings bring together key stakeholderorganizations for the purpose of coordinating programs,where appropriate, and discussing pertinent issues andimplementation strategies to address issues and outreachneeds. Such stakeholder organizations include the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), Gas ResearchInstitute (GRI), Coal Utilization Research Council(CURC), Center for Energy & Economic Development(CEED), Council of Industrial Boiler Owners (CIBO),Clean Coal Technology Coalition, and National MiningAssociation (NMA).Conferences and Workshops bring together targetedaudiences to review and discuss topics of interest, document discussions and findings, and provide recommendations, as appropriate. Trade Missions are a subset ofthese and differ only in that the thrust is international incharacter with the purpose of promoting the export ofU.S. technology and services. The outreach program hasparticipated in over 250 technical conferences, workshops, and trade missions since 1991.

Conferences, Workshops,and Trade Missions—FY 2002The following highlights some of the conferences, workshops, and trade missions supported by FE’s Office ofCoal and Power Systems (OC&PS) and National EnergyTechnology Laboratory (NETL) during FY 2002. Moreinformation on these events can be found in the CleanCoal Today newsletters, which are posted on the CCTCompendium listed in Exhibit 4-8. References to thespecific edition of the Clean Coal Today are containedin a parenthetical at the end of each discussion.ConferencesConference on Zero Emissions Technologies forPower Generation. The Conference on Zero EmissionsTechnologies for Power Generation was held in NewOrleans, Louisiana, in October 2001, and was sponsored by DOE, International Energy Agency (IEA)Working Party on Fossil Fuels (WPFF), and the U.K.

Department of Trade andevelopment of zero emFE’s Vision 21 concept a21 would provide the tecultra-clean plants for pronity products including cvalue chemicals, syngastechnologies, which apprange from industrial clufrom one system as inpusion below on Thailand advanced clean coal proand enhanced oil recoveversion processes. (CleaClean Coal and Power Coal and Power Conferenon November 19–20, 200providing domestic energelectrification in developprogress could be expectcal stability. Attendees streliance on natural gas anfuel mix. They emphasizenvironmental performanstabilizer and vital baseloabout its prospects. The cClean Coal Conference, wDOE, CEED, NMA, EPRIn his introductory remarkfor FE (ASFE) traced the role towards acceptance oprivate funding often excenoted the President’s statetechnologies will be baseachievements under the Chis belief that future RD&duce even more advanced removing mercury and ulria pollutants; CO2 seques

energy cycle; and liquid fvalue-added products. (C
The Vice Chairman of the World Energy Council gavethe keynote speech noting that two billion people worldwide lack access to commercial energy and that a“Marshall Plan” is needed to transfer energy technologyto poor countries. (Clean Coal Today, Winter 2001.)

International Committee on Coal Research. Representatives from FE participated in the 26th meeting of

the International Committee on Coal Research (ICCR)in October 2001 in Strasbourg, France. Representativesfrom 14 countries meet annually to determine the current status of coal research and development (R&D)activities, and to identify promising areas for researchcollaboration.The U.S. delegation proposed use of DOE’s PowerSystems Development Facility (PSDF), in Wilsonville,Alabama, to sponsor international tests of instrumentsand sensors for measuring particulate loading. PSDFwould also host an on-site workshop on computationalfluid dynamics (CFD) and operational issues related togas filtration.New Zealand is looking into hydrogen from coal for usein fuel cells, microturbines and other engines. Researchinvolves hydrogen as a transportation fuel, resolvinginfrastructure and gas storage issues, perfecting fuel celltechnology and developing distributed generation models. Increased use of hydrogen is seen as a way to reducegreenhouse gas emissions. In New Zealand, industry isrequired to negotiate with the government to achievespecific emissions reductions. If these are not effective,New Zealand indicated it would impose carbon taxes.Japan has a four-phase energy strategy, with the lastphase (2020–2030) assumed to be a zero-emission,hydrogen era based on coal. Japan sees promise indimethyl ether (DME) synthesis technology as a sourceof clean hydrogen from coal. Another method wouldproduce hydrogen via a reaction between coal and supercritical water. (Clean Coal Today, Winter 2001.)Unburned Carbon (UBC) on Utility Fly Ash Conference. On May 14–16, 2002, NETL sponsored two specialty conferences in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, focusing on reducing pollution generated by electric power plants. The conferences featured “Unburned Carbon (UBC) on Utility Fly Ash,” and “Selective Catalytic Reduction and Selective Non-Catalytic Reduction for NOx Control.” This marked the eighth year for the UBC Conference and it was successful in bringing together a wide range of representatives from industry and gov- ernment. The UBC Conference drew 155 registrants. The two conferences drew 60 international attendees, representing 14 countries. The NOx reduction required to meet Title IV require- ments of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (CAAA) is being achieved through widespread use of low-NOx burners (LNBs). However, use of these burners results in the production of excess UBC, which is also referred to as loss-on-ignition (LOI). This high level of UBC reduces boiler efficiency and can render fly ash unsalable. The issue of UBC mitigation continues to be an issue addressed by the annual conferences. A vice-president for EP

facing the electric powehancing the basic powerobust generation portfoor sequestering carbon tomer-managed service global energy strategy. The results of a study on specific, indicated that a proximately 50 percent to 4.1 percent in UBC) cmodification. Other highincluded the results of stat coal-fired power plananalysis of carbon burnoCFD; use of high-LOI fUBC) to replace shale in clinker (raw cement) prosumption; use of CFD to coal combustion; and thelectrostatic precipitatorprocess is producing 18month while recovering equivalent to 1.5 tons of cation of a combination SNCR has reduced NOx 

mal effect on carbon moshown that high-LOI fly iron ore pelletization, stefoundry molds. (Clean CSelective Catalytic Redulytic Reduction for NO

SCR/SNCR conference SNCR conference incluposter presentations, adeconomics of NOx emis

risk issues in commercia

technologies, non-coal amentation of SCR and Sreagent considerations. NOx control technologie

The Deputy Secretary of DOE, Francis Blake, addressed the Clean Coal and Power Conference plenary session.
4-18 Program Update 2003

lytic reduction, integration of coal gasification and reburning, and oxygen enhanced combustion for NOx control. Ofgreat interest to power generators is the potential of multipollutant emission controls, including not only NOx andSO2, but also mercury and CO2.

Several power generating companies reported successful operation of SCR and SNCR units, including meeting performance targets for at least one year’s service.Special attention to design details is required to insureproper mixing of chemical reagents with the flue gas.Of particular concern is maintaining the correct balanceof reagent to NOx in the flue gas to minimize formation

of ammonium bisulfate, a sticky substance that canplug downstream heat exchangers. It has also beenfound that traces of sulfur trioxide, formed by oxidation of SO2 in the flue gas, can lead to visible plumes

from the stacks. In some cases, this problem is alleviated by injection of magnesium oxide into the flue gas.Several speakers reported that certain components incoal feeds, especially calcium, arsenic and mercury,have significant effects on SCR catalyst performance,requiring careful testing and selection of catalysts forparticular coals. A number of companies have developed sophisticated strategies for catalyst regenerationand replacement to minimize overall operating costs.(Clean Coal Today, Summer 2002.)Working Party on Fossil Fuels Meeting. The WPFF met

in Paris on May 6–7, 2002 and was chaired by FE’s Director of Coal and Power Import and Export. A majorobjective of the WPFF is to implement a new strategicplan—Vision for the 21st Century: Zero EmissionsTechnologies for Energy Security, Environmental Protection, and Economic Development—that was designedto raise the profile of this important R&D area. TheWPFF completed a technology status report on zeroemissions technologies in May 2002.The strategic plan focuses on communications, collaboration in development and deployment, cooperation to improve existing power plants, and energysafety and security. The strategy also incorporatescooperation with non-member nations such as China

and India that have an extensive base of low-performing fossil fuel plants.The Office of Fossil Energy has been an active memberof WPFF since it was founded in 1974. The WPFF advises the IEA Committee on Energy Research andTechnology on technology issues, trends, and R&Dprograms in fossil fuels and electricity system issues,and has grown to a membership of 25 industrializedcountries. The WPFF administers seven implementingagreements, which facilitate cooperation among IEAmembers in specific fossil energy R&D areas. (CleanCoal Today, Summer 2002.)WorkshopsEvolution of Combustion Technology to Support National Energy Needs Workshop. On January14–16, 2002, in Orlando, Florida, NETL organized aworkshop, “Evolution of Combustion Technology to

Support National Energa consensus on the engicome various barriers to that can provide the natsuperior, affordable, and based electric power.Equipment suppliers, arcutilities, universities, and attended. Facilitated groholder input to NETL’s pvanced Combustion TechThe group did a survey acombustion today, using group at a 1992 conferencenvironmental issues are today than they were 10 more stringent regulation being voted the most sign

The Coal & Power Systems exhibit at the Clean Coal and Power Conference in Washington, 
Following the survey, breakout sessions were organized to address:• R&D needs for advanced combustion systems including circulating fluidized-bed, cyclones, other

slagging furnaces, and oxygen-enhanced combustion modes.

• R&D needs to meet the DOE Vision 21 goals of 60

percent efficiency of coal-fired power plants andnear-zero emissions of stack gas pollutants, andspecific R&D needs to support CCPI.

• R&D needs for pressurized hot gas clean-up, materials issues and risks for supercritical and ultra-supercritical steam cycles, and design improvements

needed for the balance-of-plant of advanced combustion systems.

Workshop participants were supportive of the currentNETL combustion program, agreed on the importanceof the planned CCPI demonstrations, and hoped that

projects would be funded for supercritical andultra-supercritical cycles for atmospheric circulating

fluidized-bed combustion, pressurized and hybridsystems, and pulverized coal combustion systems.Attendees also stressed the importance of R&D in oxygen and oxygen-enhanced combustion, and the development of a multi-pollutant collection device for hot gasfiltration and cleanup. They also recommended investigating various system options and assessing the economicand market opportunities for coal-fired peaking units.(Clean Coal Today, Spring 2002.)

Clean Coal Technology Forum: Roadmap to the Future. This Capitol Hill workshop was held on May 20,

2002, to provide up-to-the-minute information regarding congressional and DOE support of the federal cleancoal programs. The workshop coincided with the release of the CURC Clean Coal Technology Roadmap,which provides a basis for discussion of coal-firedpower generation research and development needs.

The workshop was co-hEPRI, NMA, National Rciation, American Publitric Institute (EEI), and U(Clean Coal Today, Sum

Clean Energy OpportSeptember 2002, the Umental Technology Cenand plant tours, both in of promoting informatiChinese coal researchevendors. The EETC wajointly by Tsinghua and ing from DOE. The EEcompetitiveness of U.Sment and services.The “Clean Energy Opwas held on September U.S. presentations incdesulfurization (FGD)cessing, CFB combustiinterest were the issueChina’s coal-fired gening the emissions perfosatisfying the Beijing GChina will likely invesBeijing’s air quality in 

Attendees at the UBC spe

Exhibit 4-9

Perceptions of Barriers to Coal Combustion Have Changed—

Ranked from High to Low

Kentucky Workshop, August 1992– Capital Cost– Recent Oil and Gas Prices– Operating Costs– Possibility of More Stringent Regulation– Space Limitations– Gas Cleanup Equipment Costs– Solid Waste Disposal– Flexibility (fuel, operational)– Automation & Controls Cost– Time for Environmental Permitting– Lack of Experienced Operators

HIGH

LOW

Orlando Workshop, January 2002– Capital Cost– Possibility of More Stringent Regulation– Financial Risk (new)– Time for Environmental Permitting– Recent Oil and Gas Prices– Cost of Obtaining Environmental Permits– Gas Cleanup Equipment Costs– Operating Costs– Solid Waste Disposal– Flexibility (fuel, operational)– Transportation Costs
4-20 Program Update 2003

Chinese participants discussed the overall need to restructure the country’s utility industry in the wake ofthe dismantling of the China State Power Corporation.Ultimately, generators may have to compete in thepower market. Necessary investment in the power sector and coal preparation could total some tens of billions of dollars, representing a significant potential U.S.export market.In a separate activity, EETC hosted plant tours for representatives of the Zhejiang Provincial Energy Group(ZPEG) and the China Coal Research Institute (CCRI) topromote U.S. technologies and explain business practices and eco-industrial development with clean coaltechnologies.The group visited the Homer City Coal Cleaning Plantto view a facility using dense medium cyclones, and theGreystone Materials processing plant to show the processing of limestone for desulfurization and discuss theAmerican practice of identifying resources of stonesfor cost-effective operation.The group also toured the eco-industrial complex ofWaste Management Processors, Inc. (WMPI) and itsaffiliates, Gilberton Power Company (GPC)—host sitefor a CCPI project—and Schuylkill Energy Resources(SER). Both of these facilities serve as hosts for aunique set of eco-industrial businesses, which produceuseful materials from coal by-products.The WMPI presentation included developments in theproduction of concrete products from CFB ash andpreparation plant refuse. The group also discussed theutilization of CFB ash and bio-solids to re-vegetateenvironmentally damaged land.The group was hosted by the Hunlock Station of UGICorporation, a Pennsylvania-based electric and gas utility. Hunlock features a 50-MW pulverized coal plantdesigned for anthracite firing, as well as a recently installed combustion turbine plant. The Hunlock plant iscapable of firing a wide range of fuels, including bituminous coal and fuel recovered from anthracite coal waste.The UGI Corporation has developed an efficient lowcost fuels and operations management system capable of being responsive to increasingly stringent emissions regulations. Following the plant tours, the group was hosted by the UGI Electric Division for discussions on the business implications of a deregulated utility market. PJM Inter- connect LLC (the Mid-Atlantic Regional Independent System Operator (ISO)) discussed its evolution and ISO systems and the Pennsylvania Public Utility Com- mission gave a presentation on Pennsylvania’s success- ful electric utility deregulation program. (Clean Coal Today, Fall/Winter 2002.) Trade Missions IEAT “Eco-Industrial” Program. The Office of Fossil Energy, in cooperation with the Southern States Energy Board and the US-Asia Environmental Partnership, is working with the Industrial Estates Authority of Thai- land (IEAT) to include the unique environmental capa- bilities of U.S. clean coal technologies in the IEAT “Eco-Industrial” program. The IEAT operates 29 industrial estate complexes and five of these are involved in the IEAT pilot Eco-Industrial program. The complexes, which house a variety of tenant industries, are envisioned as a somewhat “closed loop” system, with wastes from one process used as input to another pro- cess, thus providing supplemental fuel and eliminating environmental liabilities associated with these materials. Thailand has expressed interest in maintaining fuel di- versity through coal use, and the use of clean coal tech- nologies can assist in this arena while creating unique opportunities in the IEAT Eco-Industrial program. There are several areas where U.S. practice can be adapted to the Thai situation. In the United States, both CFB and IGCC technologies have provided a low- cost method of recovering environmentally benign energy from refinery wastes. One particular opportu- nity could be offered by co-firing refinery waste gases and other refinery byproducts, such as petroleum coke, with coal in a CFB combustor. The Map Ta Phut refinery 

in Thailand is designated struction of 1,400 MW othe Map Ta Phut site is cumental concerns. Represethe complex and other sitnology opportunities. While coal-fired power pare subject to significant (and are difficult to permchased from U.S. vendoindustrial complexes. ThMap Ta Phut includes twpaper complex in Tha To(Clean Coal Today, SumCoal Advisory Group Mthe Coal Advisory Group Indo-U.S. Bilateral EnerKolkata, India, April 2–5lished to serve as a forum out collaborative projectsector. India has vast resseeks foreign R&D as wpromote cleaner use of cThe open round table disexperts, including represof Coal; Ministry of PoweCorporation; the ConfedeBharat Heavy Electric, Land government participarepresented by industrial academia. Areas of interecleaning, fly ash utilizatioassociated environmentainvestment decisions by The meeting included siPiparwar coal regions to coal beneficiation plant, an associated fly ash dis
As one meeting outcome, FE agreed to provide a modelbusiness plan for developing a coal washery project.(Clean Coal Today, Summer 2002.)IGCC Briefings Under U.S.-China Protocol. As aproject under the U.S.-China Protocol signed in August2001, IGCC briefings took place in summer 2002. TheTampa Electric IGCC Project and DOE’s PSDF Facilityin Wilsonville, Alabama hosted the 11-member Chinesedelegation, which included staff from the State PowerCorp., Shandong Power Group (SPG), Huabei DesignInstitute, Thermal Power Research Institute, the Ministry of Science and Technology, and the Yantai PowerGroup. The group viewed presentations by TampaElectric Company, Southern Company Services, Chevron/Texaco, and General Electric Company.The briefings were timely because China had issued asolicitation for bids for an IGCC unit for the 300- to400-MW Yantai project in Shandong Province, and thedelegation acquired information helpful in evaluatingU.S. technology bids. The Chinese government hasauthorized two IGCC operations, but a second woulddepend on the success of Yantai. Construction of theYantai IGCC is expected to begin in spring 2003 andshould be completed two years later. The Chinese visitors expressed particular interest in building their ownIGCC simulator, using U.S. technology, for trainingoperators on site.Following the DOE-sponsored briefings, the Chinesedelegation visited Bechtel Corp., in Houston, Texas,and EPRI in Palo Alto, California. (Clean Coal Today,Fall/Winter 2002.)Other EventsOther FY2002 events supported by DOE included:• The Turbine Power Systems Conference and Condition Monitoring Workshop held February 25–27,

2002, along with Short Course on Gas Turbine Technology (February 28–March 1), in Galveston, Texas,sponsored by NETL.

• The Clearwater Conference—the 27th International

Technical Conference on Coal Utilization & FuelSystems held March 4–7, 2002, in Clearwater,Florida, sponsored by the Coal Technology Association working closely with the American Society ofMechanical Engineers, DOE, and NETL.

• The PM2.5 and Electric Power Generation: Recent

Findings and Implications Conference held April 9–10, 2002, in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, sponsored byDOE and NETL.

• The 3rd Annual Small Business Conference held May

19–22, 2002, in Orlando, Florida, sponsored byNETL.

• The University Coal Research/Historically Black

Colleges and Universities & Other Minority Institutions Program Review Meeting held June 4–5, 2002,in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania sponsored by NETL.

• The Air Quality III: Mercury, Trace Elements and

Particulate Matter Conference held September 9–12, 2002, in Arlington, Virginia sponsored by DOE,EPRI, University of North Dakota’s Energy & Environmental Research Center, and others as collaborating sponsors.

• The 5th International Symposium on Gas Cleaning at

High Temperature held September 17–20, 2002, inMorgantown, West Virginia.

• The 19th Annual International Pittsburgh Coal Conference held September 23–27, 2002, in Pittsburgh,

Pennsylvania sponsored by the University of Pittsburgh, with participation of DOE among others.

Conferencesand Trade MFY 2003The following highlighworkshops, and trade mand NETL during FY 2ConferencesConference of Parties work on Climate ChaEfficiency and Environreceived the 2002 Climaccomplishments in prnologies in developing reducing greenhouse gpower generation in Inat the eighth session o(COP) of the United NaChange (COP 8), held iDelhi, India. The CenPNational Thermal Powment the Efficient PowGreenhouse Gas Pollutan initiative of the U.Svelopment. The CenPEclimate change mitigatUnder the GEP project, tance and training suppareas including mine-mfilling of coal-derived anology. (Clean Coal TodMultiphase Flow Execuing. DOE is a signatory ment on Multiphase Flotive Committee gathere
4-22 Program Update 2003

its annual meeting to exchange information and coordinate complementary research tasks. Australia, Canada,Mexico, Norway, and the United Kingdom are co-participants with the United States.Multiphase flow is any mass flow phenomenon associated with obtaining energy from fossil fuels whereinsome combination of solids, liquids, and gases is involved. Improved knowledge of MPF can lead to moreefficient and cost-effective energy production, transportation, and end-use technologies. Emphasis hasbeen on granular material flows, theory, and computercodes for modeling, and advanced instrumentation formeasuring and characterizing flow behavior.Delegates at the meeting had an opportunity to see ademonstration of the NETL-developed MFIX computational fluid dynamics code for the simulation ofheavily loaded gas-particle flows, and specificallyfluidized beds. The MFIX development also has beensupported by DOE’s Multiphase Fluid Dynamics Research Consortium, operating under the DOE Office ofEnergy Efficiency and Renewable Energy’s Office ofIndustrial Technology.Also of interest to the visitors was the Cold Flow CFBunit, where validation experiments are performed toimprove reliability and accuracy of computer modelsneeded for new fluid-bed process design and optimization. The cold flow unit is capable of simulating fullyintegrated operations common to many advanced coalfired power systems, such as advanced PFBC, and IGCCplants. NETL’s objective is to further the development ofCFB systems through validation of computational fluiddynamics models, analysis of existing plants, optimization of plant operations, and evaluation of new designs.(Clean Coal Today, Fall/Winter 2002.)International Conference on Air Quality—Mercury,Trace Elements, and Particulate Matter. This three-dayconference was spearheaded by the University of NorthDakota’s Energy and Environmental Research Center(UNDEERC), and provided 400 attendees with importantinformation on regulatory controls, and the state of science and control technology for these key pollutants. Co- sponsors were DOE, EPA, NETL, and EPRI. UNDEERC is a not-for-profit, “business within a university,” with expertise in advanced energy systems and prevention of air, water, and soil pollution. The conference featured much discussion on available mercury control technologies (no method is considered fully commercial). Most mercury control processes are “co-control,” where mercury is removed with other pol- lutants such as SO2 and NOx. A representative of EPA’s Clean Air Markets Division presented an overview of multi-pollutant technologies, including activated coke, SCR/wet flue gas desulfurization (FGD), and electro- catalytic oxidation. The EPA representative identified dry scrubbers, advanced dry FGD, wet FGD/wet electro- static precipitators (ESP), and combined mercury/SO2 sorbents, such as activated carbon injection, for SO2 and mercury removal. The NETL director cited various uncertainties in mer- cury control technology development. Emissions are influenced by a wide range of factors: coal type, mer- cury content and speciation of the coal, power plant configuration, and existing flue gas emissions controls. Studies have shown a wide variability in mercury emis- sions from plants that, on the surface, appear quite similar. The director noted that carbon injection into electrostatic precipitators (ESPs) (used in 80 percent of U.S. power plants versus the 20 percent using fabric filter baghouses) could cause overload problems be- cause most ESPs already operate at design limits. The director also noted that low-rank coals tend to emit flue gases with high concentrations of difficult-to-remove elemental mercury. She further spoke of the general need to resolve by-product mercury contamination issues and develop automated continuous emissions monitors to determine whether controls are working. The director outlined results of FE’s short-term field tests. The most promising for the short-term appears to be activated carbon injection into a fabric filter. NETL is planning a solicitation for longer-duration SCR testing to fully un- derstand the questions about SCR involving size of the vessel and age of the cat

issues, mercury speciatiocoals, and mercury captution of current and future configurations. In contra

were health effects and renology readiness. (Clean Workshops New Zealand’s National HFuel Cell Product Managin Wellington, New Zealamet with ministry officialsented a paper on the DONew Zealand is developa hydrogen economy anoutside experts. The preliminary results owith Stanford UniversityZealand to help develop The PSDF facility in Wilson
ernment to consider, are expected to show that NewZealand’s eight billion tons of known coal resources onthe South Island should couple with DOE’s FutureGenconcepts as key components of any New Zealand hydrogen economy. This coal resource could be used inpower plant configurations that use IGCC or solid oxide fuel cells (SOFCs) and other technologies to produce both hydrogen and electric power.The Unitec study will be examining present and advanced technologies to produce hydrogen from coal.The report is expected to rely on a study conducted forDOE by Mitretek. That report showed that hydrogencan be produced from coal with current gasificationtechnology at about 64 percent efficiency (HHV basis)for an estimated cost of production in the range $6.50–7.00/106 Btu. If hydrogen is produced in an advancedgasification coproduction facility that also generateselectric power, the production costs of the co-producedhydrogen can be reduced significantly depending onthe value of the power.

The Mitretek study concluded that the greatest potential for reducing the production cost of hydrogen fromcoal is in configurations that include SOFCs. (CleanCoal Today, Spring 2003.)Electric Utilities and Water Workshop. The overarching goal of the IEP program is to develop advanced technology to enhance the environmental performance of theexisting fleet of coal-fired power plants.The first large forum for stakeholder input on water issuesaffecting NETL’s Existing Plants (IEP) program was aworkshop held in July 2002, “Electric Utilities and Water:Emerging Issues and R&D Needs.” The workshop, cosponsored by NETL, Los Alamos National Laboratory,and Sandia National Laboratory, brought together 55 representatives from government, the electric utility and coalindustries, EPA, EPRI, academia, state agencies, energycommissions, and research organizations.A number of specific research opportunities were identified in breakout sessions as good candidates for concerted public/private research:• Advanced wet-cooling and dry-cooling systems,

including novel wet-dry hybrids and exotic systems(such as ocean cooling or cryogenic cooling);

• Improved intake structure protection equipment;• Improved and/or advanced water treatment technologies;• Data development and testing of nontraditional

sources of cooling water for power plants, includingunderground mine pools, industrial and municipalwastewater, and coalbed methane-produced water;

• Novel technology for treating/upgrading nontraditional water for use by power plants;• Pilot-scale projects demonstrating water-quality

trading and carbon capture/sequestration, coupledwith mine land reclamation;

• Watershed models to aid in water-use planning and

regulatory development; and

• Potential beneficial 

power plants, such process heating. (Cl

Trade MissionsPeople’s Republic of ASFE, together with a visit to the People’s Rmote activities under t2000 by FE and the PRTechnology (MOST). resulted in the ASFE sunder the protocol. Thnese leaders including Municipal Governmenclean coal technology objectives established will be held in that cityThe ASFE’s visit involvnew Annex II, for coopwhich includes coal conprocesses/innovative cochemicals and power, asuch as hydrogen. Four in the areas of power sytechnology, climate chaOne activity envisionepre-feasibility study foposed by the Yan Zhou produce power and cleproject proposed by the Ltd. is also in progressA new Annex III (oil anbed methane was signein the PRC, but technois lacking. Advanced tefor identifying the locaate interest.

Mark Williams, the FE Fuel Cell Product Manager at the NewZealand National Hydrogen Workshop.
4-24 Program Update 2003

In terms of protocol activities for the future, MOSTofficials suggested to the ASFE the drafting of aClean Energy Action Plan for developing clean technologies under Annex IV, Energy and EnvironmentalTechnologies. MOST also suggested discussing anEnergy Security Action Plan to be drafted under Annex III, Oil and Gas. China is particularly concernedabout the vulnerability of its liquid fuels supply andsees the importance of a synfuels and oil storagestrategy. (Clean Coal Today, Spring 2003.)Other EventsOther FY 2003 events supported by DOE include:• The International Conference on Clean Coal Technologies for Our Future held October 21–23, 2002, in

Sardinia, Italy, sponsored by DOE, Assessoratoall’Industria Regione Autonoma della Sardegna, andEnel Produzione.

Participants at the “Valuing Externalities Workshop” includedresearchers and policy makers from the private, academia,and government sectors.

• The 2002 Fuel Cell Seminar held November 18–21,

2002, in Palm Springs, California, sponsored byNETL.

• Valuing Externalities Workshop held February 20–21,

2003, in McLean, Virginia, sponsored by NETL.

• The Gas Turbines for a National Energy Infrastructure conference held February 26–27, 2003, in Arlington, Virginia, sponsored by NETL.• The 4th Annual Solid State Energy Conversion Alliance Workshop held April 15–16, 2003, in Seattle,

Washington, sponsored by NETL.

• The Second National Conference on Carbon Sequestration held May 5–8, 2003, in Alexandria,

Virginia, sponsored by DOE and NETL.

• The 3rd Annual DOE/U.N. Hybrid Conference and

Workshop held May 13–15, 2003, in NewportBeach, California, sponsored by DOE and NETL.
5. ProjectsIntroductionThis section provides fact sheets on active clean coaltechnology (CCT) projects in various stages of implementation. Also included are two recently terminatedClean Coal Technology Demonstration Program(CCTDP) projects, one withdrawn Power Plant Improvement Initiative (PPII) project, and one withdrawnClean Coal Power Initiative (CCPI) project to aid readers in following the status of the CCT programs.The CCTDP, PPII, and CCPI project fact sheets areorganized by market sector rather than program to better enable stakeholders to see the scope of activity inkey areas of interest. These market sectors are: (1)environmental control devices for existing and newpower plants; (2) advanced electric power generationfor repowering existing plants and providing new generation capacity; (3) coal processing for clean fuels toconvert the nation’s vast coal resources to clean fuels;and (4) industrial applications for coal and coal byproducts.All fact sheets but one present available project information in two pages. The two-page fact sheets are forprojects that have not completed operation. Theypresent information on project participants, describethe projects and technology, lay out planned schedules,characterize project status and accomplishments; andaddress potential commercial applications. Four-pagefact sheets are used for projects having completed operation, as in the case of one CCTDP project presentedin this section, but have not completed final reporting.In place of characterizing project status and accomplishments, four-page fact sheets provide key findingsand sufficient project discussion to establish a context

for the findings. Projects are not considered completeand information final, however, until issuance of thefinal technical report.All project fact sheets contain schematics of the demonstrated technology to help convey understanding.The portion of the process or facility central to thedemonstration is demarcated by a shaded area. Toprevent the release of project-specific information of aproprietary nature, the schematics are highly simplifiedto illustrate the concept only.Technology OverviewThe following overviews some of the major technologyareas and underlying drivers that are the current focusof CCPI and PPII, as well as the remaining CCTDPprojects.Environmental Control DevicesAdvanced NOx Controls. Advanced nitrogen oxide(NOx) controls provide the means to meet: NOx emission caps proposed under the Clear Skies Initiative(CSI); EPAs “SIP Call” source emission rates of 0.15lb/106 Btu for 22 states and the District of Columbia;and revised National Ambient Air Quality Standards(NAAQS) for ozone and fine particulate matter(PM2.5), which impacts NOx because it is a precursor toboth. Technologies include:• Low-NOx burners and reburning systems that limit

NOx formation by staging the introduction of air inthe combustion process (combustion modification);

• Selective catalytic r

non-catalytic reductprocesses that act upformed (post-combu

• Oxygen-enhanced c

tion of the air with o

Low-NOx burners (1) l

in the initial stages of cnitrogen is volatilized, hot spots, (3) are integrplete combustion in a cneural network controlperformance. Reburninbustion products to striand introduce overfire SCR and SNCR use aminto nitrogen and waterarray of catalysts in a rboiler application tempinvolves ammonia/urea gen-enhanced combustthrough increased comavailable nitrogen.Mercury Controls. Mposed CSI targets and agarding mercury emissgeneration, which reprmercury emissions. Te• Sorbents and oxidiz

to a solid for removstatic precipitators (tors (FFDC);

• Oxidizing agents in 

desulfurization (FGin the sulfate by-pro
5-2 Program Update 2003

• Real-time measurement of mercury species and total

mercury for mercury control and validation.

Solid sorbents adsorb the mercury and are then removed in either an electrostatic precipitator (ESP) orfabric filter dust collector (FFDC). Oxidizing agents ormechanisms convert vapor-state elemental mercury to asolid-state mercury oxide that can be captured in ESPs,FFDCs, or wet FGDs. For plants equipped with wetFGDs, the oxidizing agent can be incorporated with thescrubber slurry used for sulfur capture. The mercurycaptured in the FGD by-product, often wallboard, ischemically bound and precluded from re-release. Mercury instrumentation and controls measure the mercuryspecies (elemental and oxidized) entering the controldevice and the total mercury entering the stack.Particulate Matter Controls. Particulate-matter controls respond to revised NAAQS for PM2.5 for primary

particulate matter (fly ash) and acid aerosols that cancause localized plume opacity, visibility impairment,and have been linked to human health impacts. Acid

aerosols are required to be reported under the ToxicRelease Inventory. Secondary PM2.5 emissions, formed

chemically in the atmosphere by precursors such asNOx and SO2, are addressed under Advanced NOxControl. Technologies include:• ESP/FFDC hybrids to leverage the best features of

both;

• 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 oncollection plates. FFDCs use fabric filter bags that receive and collect particulate matter on the outside surfaceand are pulsed internally with jets of air to disengage the

collected particulate. Preconditioning agents either lowerresistivity or induce agglomeration of incoming particulate matter. Alkaline injection converts SO2 and SO3 acid

precursors into readily captured sulfate particulate andneutralizes other acid gases, such as hydrochloric andhydrofluoric acids. SO3 analyzers measure input and output levels for control and validation.

Advanced Electric Power GenerationAdvanced Power Systems. Advanced electric powergeneration addresses Global Climate Change, ClearSkies, and Hydrogen Fuel Initiatives by enhancingpower generation efficiency, producing near zero pollutant emissions, and providing for hydrogen separation and carbon dioxide (CO2) capture and sequestration. Technologies include:• Integrated gasification combined-cycle (IGCC) systems that: convert coal to a clean synthesis gas (syngas) amenable to use by gas turbines and advanced

fuel cells, conversion to chemicals and clean transportation fuels, and separation into hydrogen andCO2; and transform residual gases and solids intosalable by-products.

• Circulating fluidized-bed (CFB) combustion systems

that utilize low-grade fuels and waste materials togenerate power at high efficiency and with very lowemissions, without the parasitic power drain of addon environmental controls.

IGCC uses a gasifier to convert hydrocarbon feedstocks into largely gaseous components by applyingheat under pressure in the presence of steam. Partialoxidation of the feedstock, typically with pure oxygen,provides the heat. Together the heat and pressure breakthe bonds between feedstock constituents and precipitate chemical reactions, producing syngas — primarilyhydrogen and carbon monoxide. Minerals in the feedstock (ash), separated in the gasifier, are largely salable. Sulfur emerges from the gasifier primarily ashydrogen sulfide, which is easily converted to either apure sulfur or sulfuric acid by-product.

The CFBs use jets of air tively mix feedstocks wbents, and entrain the mis transported to a cyclofrom the flue gas. Hot sto the CFB combustor. to a heat exchanger to pbine. The mixing and reallows high combustion below the thermal NOx 

achieves high-efficiency 

and direct sorbent/SO2 cCoal Processing foCoal liquefaction. Coal security by converting ostable priced energy resofuels and chemicals. Coais converted into synthetcatalytic chemical proce(FT) synthesis. The FT Pproduce an array of prodsulfur and nitrogen polluIndustrial ApplicaCoal Utilization By-Proprovide the knowledge acrease utilization of CUBusage to 50 percent. Lanand mercury controls imquestions regarding envinology and knowledge ta• Characterizing the fat

metals in CUBs;

• Novel applications to • Separation technology 

ated mercury from CU

CUB characterization admercury and other trace e
when used in various applications (i.e., the potential forleaching or volatilization). Novel applications includeuse as construction and structural materials and agricultural supplements. Separation technologies use physicaland chemical processes adopted from coal beneficiationpractices.Project Fact SheetsAn index to project fact sheets by application categoryis provided in Exhibit 5-1. An index by participant isprovided in Exhibit 5-2. Ongoing projects in eachcategory appear first, followed by projects having completed operations. Within these breakdowns, projectsare listed alphabetically by participant. In addition,Exhibit 5-1 indicates the solicitation under which theproject was selected; its status as of May 31, 2003; andthe page number for each fact sheet. Exhibit 5-2 liststhe projects alphabetically by participant and providesproject location and page numbers. A map of the activeprojects is shown in Exhibit 5-3. A key to interpretingthe milestone charts is provided in Exhibit 5-4.An appendix containing contact information for all ofthe projects is provided as Appendix D. A list of acronyms used in this document is provided as Appendix E.
5-4 Program Update 2003

Project Participant Environmental Control DevicesCombustion Initiative for Innovative Cost-Effective NO

x Reduction Alliant Energy Corporate Services, Inc. 

Achieving NSPS Emission Standards Through Integration of Low-NOx Burners with an Optimization Sunflower Electric Power Corporation 

Plan for Boiler CombustionDevelopment of Hybrid FLGR/SNCR/SCR Advanced NOx Control TIAX, LLC 

Greenidge Multi-Pollutant Control Project CONSOL Energy, Inc. Demonstration of a Full-Scale Retrofit of the Advanced Hybrid Particulate Collector Technology Otter Tail Power Company 

Big Bend Power Station Neural Network-Sootblower Optimization Tampa Electric Company Commercial Demonstration of the Airborne Process LG&E Energy Corporation Demonstration of Integrated Optimization Software at the Baldwin Energy Complex NeuCo, Inc. TOXECON Retrofit for Mercury and Multi-Pollutant Control on Three 90 MW Coal-Fired Boilers Wisconsin Electric Power Company Advanced Electric Power GenerationMcIntosh Unit 4A PCFB Demonstration Project City of Lakeland, Lakeland Electric McIntosh Unit 4B Topped PCFB Demonstration Project City of Lakeland, Lakeland Electric JEA Large-Scale CFB Combustion Demonstration Project JEA Next Generation CFB Coal Generating Unit Colorado Springs Utilities Kentucky Pioneer Energy IGCC Demonstration Project Kentucky Pioneer Energy, LLC Clean Coal Diesel Demonstration Project TIAX, LLC Coal Processing for Clean FuelsLignite Fuel Enhancement Great River Energy Gilberton Coal-to-Clean Fuels and Power Co-Production Project WMPI PTY., LLC Advanced Coal Conversion Process Demonstration Western Syncoal LLC Industrial ApplicationsClean Power from Integrated Coal/Ore Reduction (CPICORTM) CPICORTM Management Company LLC Commercial Demonstration of the Manufactured Aggregate Processing Technology Utilizing Spray Dryer Ash Universal Aggregates, LLC 

Advanced Multi-Product Coal Utilization By-Product Processing Plant University of Kentucky Research FoundatiWestern Greenbrier Co-Production Demonstration Project Western Greenbrier Co-Generation, LLC 

Exhibit 5-1

Project Fact Sheets by Application Category
Alliant Energy Corporate Services, Inc. Combustion Initiative for Innovative Cost-Effective NOx Reduction S

Colorado Springs Utilities Next Generation CFB Coal Generating Unit F

CONSOL Energy, Inc. Greenidge Multi-Pollutant Control Project T

CPICORTM Management Company LLC Clean Power from Integrated Coal/Ore Reduction (CPICORTM) VGreat River Energy Lignite Fuel Enhancement U

JEA JEA Large-Scale CFB Combustion Demonstration Project JKentucky Pioneer Energy, LLC Kentucky Pioneer Energy IGCC Demonstration Project TLakeland, City of, Lakeland Electric McIntosh Unit 4A PCFB Demonstration Project LLakeland, City of, Lakeland Electric McIntosh Unit 4B Topped PCFB Demonstration Project L

LG&E Energy Corporation Commercial Demonstration of the Airborne Process C

NeuCo, Inc. Demonstration of Integrated Optimization Software at the Baldwin B

Energy Complex

Otter Tail Power Company Demonstration of a Full-Scale Retrofit of the Advanced Hybrid Particulate B

Collector Technology

Sunflower Electric Power Corporation Achieving NSPS Emission Standards Through Integration of Low-NOx Burners G

with an Optimization Plan for Boiler Combustion

Tampa Electric Company Big Bend Power Station Neural Network-Sootblower Optimization ATIAX, LLC Clean Coal Diesel Demonstration Project F

TIAX, LLC Development of Hybrid FLGR/SNCR/SCR Advanced NOx Control T

Universal Aggregates, LLC Commercial Demonstration of the Manufactured Aggregate Processing K

Technology Utilizing Spray Dryer Ash

University of Kentucky Research Foundation Advanced Multi-Product Coal Utilization By-Product Processing Plant G

Western Greenbrier Co-Generation, LLC Western Greenbrier Co-Production Demonstration Project R

Western SynCoal LLC Advanced Coal Conversion Process Demonstration C

Wisconsin Electric Power Company TOXECON Retrofit for Mercury and Multi-Pollutant Control on Three 90 MW M

Coal-Fired Boilers

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

Exhibit 5-2

Project Fact Sheets by Participant

Participant Project L
5-6 Program Update 2003

Exhibit 5-3

Geographic Locations of Active CCT Projects
Exhibit 5-4

Key to Milestone Charts in Fact Sheets

Each fact sheet contains a bar chart that highlights major milestones—past and planned. The bar chart shows a project’s duration and indicates the time pof project activities—preaward, design and construction, and operation and reporting. The key provided below explains what is included in each of these 

PreawardIncludes preaward briefings, negotiations, and other activities conducted during the period between DOE’s selection of the project and award of tDesign and ConstructionIncludes the NEPA process, permitting, design, procurement, construction, preoperational testing, and other activities conducted prior to the begidemonstration.MTF Memo-to-fileCX Categorical exclusionEA Environmental assessmentEIS Environmental impact statementOperation and ReportingBegins with startup and includes operational testing, data collection, analysis, evaluation, reporting, and other activities to complete the demonstr
5-8 Program Update 2003
Environmental Control Devi
5-10 Program Update 2003

Combustion Initiative forInnovative Cost-Effective NO

x

ReductionProject WithdrawnParticipantAlliant Energy Corporate Services, Inc.Additional Team MembersWisconsin Power & Light Co.—HostReaction Engineering International—modelingElectric Power Research Institute—technology supplierLocationsSheboygan, Sheboygan County, WI (Wisconsin Power& Light’s Edgewater Generating Station, Unit No. 4)TechnologyCombustion Initiative modifications for cyclone coalfired boiler technology using a Computational Fluid Dynamic (CFD) System Model to reduce NOx emissions,

which include a redesign of the cyclone re-entry throats,an upgrade of the gravimetric feeder controls, and chemical reagent injection.Plant Capacity/Production330 MWCoalPowder River Basin coal (85%) and Kicker coal (15%)Project FundingTotal $7,397,718 100%DOE 3,698,859 50Participant 3,698,859 50Project ObjectiveTo achieve the same, stringent nitrogen-oxide-emissionsreductions as selective catalytic reduction (SCR) at afraction of the capital cost and with drastically lower

operation and maintenance costs. Participant uses a computational modeling approach, its Combustion Initiative,to optimize overall power plant NOx performance. The

Combustion Initiative will attempt to hold NOx emissions

to 0.15 lb/106 Btu from a 340-MW cyclone boiler. Cyclone boilers are especially prone to high NOx emissions;

this demonstration could help establish a target baselinefor combustion-stage NOx reductions on cyclone boilers.

Technology/Project DescriptionThe Combustion Initiative is a method that starts withdeveloping a deep understanding of the combustion andrelated processes in each piece of equipment and in thepower plant as a whole. The second step is to push theenvelope for existing NOx control technologies throughre-engineering and modeling. The use of computationalmodeling as a tool is key to optimizing the system perforPower Plant Improvement Initiative Environmental Control Devices NOx Control Technologies mance and maximizing th

technologies. The Combuthe potential to reduce NO

or below, without the use 
Calendar Year

Project Status/AccomplishmentsThe project was selected for award on September 26, 2001.The Department of Energy selected this project for a partialaward for demonstration on a cyclone boiler only. OnOctober 30, 2002, Alliant Energy withdrew its proposaldue to a re-evaluation of its NO

x reduction program.

Alliant Energy had proposed, through its WisconsinPower & Light Company subsidiary, to demonstrate thereduction of NO

x emissions using the Combustion Initiative method on three of the main coal-fired boiler types in

the United States: tangentially fired, cyclone-fired, andwall-fired units. The three units included EdgewaterGenerating Station Unit No. 4 (cyclone) and Unit No. 5(wall-fired) in Sheboygan, Wisconsin, and ColumbiaGenerating Station Unit No. 2 (tangentially fired) in Portage, Wisconsin. Better thermal efficiency means that lessfuel will be needed to produce energy, which saves moneyand reduces stress on equipment. Improved reliabilityhelps keep customers’ lights on, even as demand growsthroughout the region. Finally, when costs are minimized,shareowners experience increased earnings.

The ability to reach these low NOx emission levels has

been demonstrated in the pilot-scale work that Alliant Energy has conducted at its M.L. Kapp Station in Iowa. Thisfacility lowered its NOx emissions from 0.35 lb/106 Btu to

0.15 lb/106 Btu using the Combustion Initiative Method.

Commercial ApplicationsAlliant Energy’s Combustion Initiative is a science- andtechnology-driven approach to lowering emissions andimproving the performance of coal-fired power plants.Through research and development, the company is finding innovative ways to reduce emissions, increase thermalefficiency, and improve plant reliability. This technologyhas potential application to all 89 cyclone-fired boilers,having an installed capacity of 27,600 MWe. If successfully demonstrated, the relatively low capital cost of theCFD-based technology and the high potential NOx reduction should result in significant market penetration.

The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources(WDNR) has designated Sheboygan as a “Primary OzoneControl Region.” The Edgewater site is located withinthis region. The WDNR regulations call for reduction of

Project selected 9/26/01

Project withdrawn

9/01

 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 

2001 2002 2005 2003 2004 2006 2007 2008 2009 

NO

x emissions from util

through September “ozotions, the Edgewater sit

emissions to 0.33 lb/106 

progressively reduce em

10/02

Project withdrawn 10/31/02

Preaward
5-12 Program Update 2003

Achieving NSPS EmissionStandards ThroughIntegration of Low-NOxBurners with an OptimizationPlan for Boiler CombustionParticipantSunflower Electric Power CorporationAdditional Team MembersElectric Power Research Institute—cofunderFoster Wheeler Energy Corporation—technology supplierGE Energy and Environmental Research Corp.—

technology supplier

LocationGarden City, Finney County, KS (Sunflower Electric’sHolcomb Station, Unit No. 1)TechnologyUltra-low NO

x burners with other combustion-stage

controlsPlant Capacity/Production360 MWCoalSubbituminous coalsProject FundingTotal $5,881,675 100%DOE 2,796,326 48Participant 3,085,349 52

Project ObjectiveTo demonstrate low-NO

x

 burners with other combustionstage controls with the goal to reduce NOx emissions to

0.15–0.22 lb/106 Btu and simultaneously increase poweroutput by 7 MW, demonstrating a concept that has neverbeen illustrated in plants using subbituminous coals, including those from the Powder River Basin (PRB).Technology/Project DescriptionLow-NO

x Burners (LNB) have been in development

since the late 1970s and are in general use on manysteam-electric generating units. Increasing demands foroverall reductions in NO

x

 emissions have continued to

put pressure on manufacturers to improve burner design.The existing low-NOx burners were modified. When used

with separated overfire air (SOFA) they have been foundcapable of reducing emission rates to very near the current New Source Perform

0.15 lb/106 Btu. To further reduce NOx em

employ five elements: (1

rated overfire air, (3) fueers, (4) fuel/air balancingcontrols.

Power Plant Improvement InitiativeEnvironmental ControlsNO

x Control Technologies
Calendar Year

Project Status/AccomplishmentsThe project was selected for award on September 26,2001. The cooperative agreement was awarded onDecember 17, 2002. DOE issued the Environmental Assessment in March 2003 and signed the Finding of NoSignificant Impact (FONSI) on March 11, 2003. Construction began immediately and some of the equipment isalready in place.The full application of the five elements proposed hereinhave never been demonstrated in plants firing subbituminous coals, especially those from Wyoming’s PRB. Likewise, there are no other wall-fired units on which ownershave sought to fully explore the technology proposed toits fullest potential. The inclusion of the very latest indistributed control systems, proposed for this unit in2003, make this location ideal for integration with theproposed elements. The unit on which this technologywill be applied has among the very best availabilities andperformance histories for boilers of its type. It was placedin commercial operation in 1983 and is equipped with thelatest SO2 scrubber and fabric filter for particulate matter.

When completed, this will be among the cleanest nonSCR-equipped coal-fired units in the United States. The Sunflower LNB/SOFA integrated system would be in- stalled in three distinct phases to demonstrate the syner- gistic effect of layering NOx control technologies. Phase I, Advanced Monitoring/Coal Flow Measurement, would demonstrate the effectiveness of control upgrades with respect to NOx control and thermal efficiency, with minimal impact from physical modification of the boiler. During this phase, instruments capable of measuring coal flow within individual coal conduits would be installed. Limited changes would be made to the plants' computing and control systems. Phase II, Low-NOx Burner Modifications/Coal Flow Con- trol, would demonstrate the effectiveness of low-cost modifications to the existing, first-generation low-NOx burners for the reduction of NOx emissions. Modifica- tions to the existing pulverizer classifiers would permit automated fuel balancing among all burners and would include the installation of new burner tips and a better means of controlling air flow on individual burners. Phase III, Advanced Overfire Air/DCS Integration, would demonstrate deeper NOx control competitive to SCR inProject selected 9/26/01 Cooperative agreement awarded 12/02

Project complete/final report issued 11/04*

9/01 11/04

stallation with the additiwould be coupled with tcations to optimize systetion control integration system (a contemporanea part of this project) woreductions.Commercial ApplicaThere are as many as 30 can be deployed that wiNSPS level. A further 6significant reductions, t

This choice of equipmenwill allow a reduction in stalled, thereby reducing reduce the outage duratithereby improving the econserve the critical poocomplish this work.

 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 

2001 2002 2005 2003 2004 2006 2007 2008 2009 

12/02 5/04

NEPA process completed 3/11/03 (FONSI)Construction commenced 3/03

Operation

initiated 5/04*

Design and

Construction

Operation and Reporting

Preaward
5-14 Program Update 2003

Development of Hybrid FLGR/SNCR/SCR Advanced NO

x

ControlParticipantTIAX, LLC (acquired the research contracts ofArthur D. Little, Inc.)Additional Team MembersFuel Tech—equipment supplierLocationTo be determinedTechnologyA hybrid of Fuel-Lean Gas Reburn/Selective Non-Catalytic Reduction, and Selective Catalytic ReductionPlant Capacity/ProductionTo be determinedCoalEastern Bituminous CoalProject FundingTotal $30,513,711 100%DOE 14,957,658 49Participant 15,556,053 51Project ObjectiveTo develop and demonstrate a hybrid system composedof lower-cost components from three established NOxreduction systems that can function as stand-alone units

or as an integrated, optimized, single-control system.Using Fuel-Lean Gas Reburn/Selective Non-CatalyticReduction (FLGR/SNCR), Selective Non-Catalytic Reduction (SNCR), and Selective Catalytic Reduction(SCR) systems, the hybrid seeks to lower NOx emissions

to 0.15 lb/106 Btu at lower costs than conventional SCR,

a comparatively expensive, effective way to curb NOx.

Technology/Project DescriptionThe three components in the hybrid system are FLGR/SNCR, SNCR, and compact SCR. They have been developed individually, but have not been developed and optimized as a hybrid control system. The objectives of thisproject are to demonstrate the hybrid system as a lower costalternative to SCR to achieve 0.15 lb/106 Btu emission

levels, and to operate the hybrid system to improve performance and reduce compliance costs to enhance operationin system-wide dispatch in the deregulated market.

Power Plant Improvement InitiativeEnvironmental ControlsMulti-Pollutant Control Technologies
Calendar Year

Project Status/AccomplishmentsThe project was selected for award on September 26,2001. Originally, Orion Power’s Avon Lake Unit No. 9near Cleveland, Ohio, was to be the host site. However,in February 2002, Orion Power was bought out by ReliantEnergy, which decided in April 2002 not to pursue theproject. TIAX, LLC, which acquired the research contracts of Arthur D. Little, Inc. (ADL) during ADL’s bankruptcy proceedings in early 2002, has identified otherpotential sites and is proceeding to develop revised costestimates. The schedule will be finalized when a new siteis selected and the cooperative agreement is signed.Commercial ApplicationsCoal-fired power boiler operators are facing a dual challenge to remain competitive while adapting to deregulation and to impending stringent NOx controls. The NOxcontrol technologies available to coal-fired operators arenot optimized for this new set of challenges. Under deregulation, the optimum control techniques need to havea low capital cost and cost-effective NOx reduction over a

wide operational range so that the performance of eachunit in the system can be optimized to allow maximum

Project selected 9/26/01

9/01

revenue dispatch. The increased flexibility is needed toallow each boiler and the integrated system to respondcompetitively to market conditions. Current reliance onselective catalytic reduction, with the associated highcapital cost, will not typically give a utility sufficientdispatch flexibility to maximize competitiveness. Projections indicate that 30% of coal-fired boilers are going tobe retrofitted with SCR. For the balance of units, powergenerators are looking for lower cost, more flexiblemeans to design their units for competitive dispatch dictated by regional cost and environmental criteria.

 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 

2001 2002 2005 2003 2004 2006 2007 2008 2009 

To be determined
5-16 Program Update 2003

Power Plant Improvement InitiativeEnvironmental ControlsMulti-Pollutant Control TechnologiesGreenidge Multi-PollutantControl ProjectParticipantCONSOL Energy, Inc.Additional Team MembersAES Greenidge, LLC—hostEnvironmental Elements Corporation (EEC)—technology

supplier

Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation (FWEC)—technology

supplier

AEP Pro Serv—construction coordinatorLocationTorrey, Yates County, NY (AES’ Greenidge Unit No. 4)TechnologySingle-bed Selective Catalytic Reduction in combinationwith low-NO

x combustion technology to control NOx and

a circulating dry scrubber with carbon injection to controlSO2, mercury, and acid gases

Plant Capacity/Production104 MWCoalBituminous coal (<2% sulfur) co-fired with up to 10%biomassProject FundingTotal $32,800,000 100%

DOE 14,500,000 44Participant 18,300,000 56Project ObjectiveTo demonstrate a multi-pollutant-control system that cancost effectively reduce NOx, SO2, acidic gas, and mercury

from smaller coal plants. This project would be the first todemonstrate (1) NOx reductions to 0.122 lb/106 Btu using

single bed, in-duct Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR)

combined with a low-NO

x combustion technology on a

unit burning coal and biomass, (2) 95% SO2 removal

using a Circulating Dry Scrubber (CDS) from Environmental Elements Corp. on a coal-fired boiler, (3) 90%mercury reduction in the CDS, and (4) more than 95%acid gas (sulfur trioxide (SO3), hydrochloric (HCl), andhydrofluoric (HF) acids) removal in the CDS.Technology/Project DescriptionThe single-bed, in-duct SCR, in combination withlow-NO

x combustion technology, can achieve 60% NOx

reduction for about one-third the capital cost and onefourth the operating and maintenance cost of a full SCR orSelective Non-Catalytic Reduction (SNCR) system on a104-MW unit. The capital cost of the CDS system is projected to be less than half that of a conventional flue gasdesulfurization (FGD) system. Operating and maintenancecosts are less for the CDS system. Activated carbon injection into the CDS unit is p

carbon than direct injectiogiven level of mercury congreater average contact timflue gas duct. Reducing thstantial mercury control coreduce acid gases (SO3, H

the additional benefits of rsecondary particulate formported to EPA as part of thThe project will also inclubiomass co-firing (5–10% mance of the SCR and CD
Calendar Year

 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 

2001 2002 2005 2003 2004 2006 2007 2008 2009 

Project Status/AccomplishmentsThe project was selected for award on September 26,2001. Contract negotiations are continuing. The schedulewill be finalized when contract negotiations are complete.The goal of the proposed project is to demonstrate substantial improvements in mercury, SO3 and fine particulate control, and substantial reductions in the cost for NOxand SO2 control, compared to conventional technologies

when applied to the large number of smaller coal-firedgenerating units in the U.S. This project will produceoperating and maintenance cost data, reliability andavailability data, and process performance data so thatgenerators will accept the risk of installing multi-pollutantcontrol on smaller coal-fired units. Ultimately, the successful demonstration of these technologies will help toensure the future availability of low-cost electricity from asignificant fraction of the U.S. coal-fired generating fleet.Commercial ApplicationsGreenidge Unit No. 4 is representative of 492 coal-firedelectricity generating units in the United States with capacities of 50–300 MWe. These smaller units, almost one

Project selected 9/26/01

9/01

quarter of the U.S. coal-fired generating capacity, areincreasingly vulnerable to fuel switching or retirement asa result of more stringent state and federal environmentalregulations. The proposed project will demonstrate thecommercial readiness of an emissions control system thatis particularly suited, because of its low capital and maintenance costs, to meet the requirements of this large groupof smaller existing electricity generating units.

To be determined
5-18 Program Update 2003

Power Plant Improvement InitiativeEnvironmental ControlsMulti-Pollutant Control TechnologiesDemonstration of a Full-ScaleRetrofit of the AdvancedHybrid Particulate CollectorTechnologyParticipantOtter Tail Power CompanyAdditional Team MembersMontana-Dakota Utilities—co-hostNorthWestern Public Service—co-hostW.L. Gore & Associates, Inc.—licensee and filter bag

provider

Energy and Environmental Research Center (University

of North Dakota)—concept developer

LocationBig Stone City, Grant County, SD (Montana-Dakota Utilities and NorthWestern Public Service’s Big Stone PowerPlant)TechnologyAdvanced HybridTM (formerly known as Advanced Hybrid Particulate Collector)Plant Capacity/Production450 MWCoalLow-sulfur coalProject FundingTotal $13,353,288 100%DOE 6,490,585 49Participant 6,862,703 51

Project ObjectiveTo demonstrate, in a full-scale application, a hybrid technology that raises the particulate matter capture of coalplants up to 99.99% by integrating fabric filtration andelectrostatic precipitation (ESP) in a single unit. The Advanced HybridTM overcomes the problem of excessivefine particle emissions that escape collection in ESPs andthe reentrainment of dust in baghouses. The overall goalof the project is to demonstrate the Advanced HybridTMconcept in a full-scale application. Specific objectives areto demonstrate ultra-low fine particulate emissions, lowpressure drop, overall reliability of the technology and,eventually, long-term bag life.Technology/Project DescriptionThe Advanced HybridTM combines the best features ofESPs and baghouses in an entirely novel manner. The

Advanced HybridTM conand electrostatic precipitaviding major synergism bthe particulate collection the hopper. The Advanced collection efficiency, oversive fine-particle emissionsolves the problem of reedust in conventional bagh
Calendar Year

 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 

2001 2002 2005 2003 2004 2006 2007 2008 2009 

Project Status/AccomplishmentsThe project was selected for award on September 26,2001. A cooperative agreement was awarded July 2,2002. The NEPA process was completed with the issuance of the Environmental Assessment in June 2002 andthe FONSI on June 11, 2002. Construction commencedin July 2002 and was completed in October 2002. Startup was completed on October 25, 2002.The first six months of operation showed very good particulate removal efficiency, but at a higher than anticipated pressure drop. Performance testing has shown thatthe average collection efficiency of the Advanced HybridTM is 99.997%. The outlet dust loading is almost twoorders of magnitude lower than the guarantee limit of0.002 grains per actual cubic feet. Operations are continuing with the goal of reducing the overall operatingcost, including pressure drop.

Project selected 9/26/01

Project complete/final report issued 11/04*

Cooperative agreementawarded 7/02

11/04

Commercial ApplicationsWith new requirements to control respirable particulatematter (less than 2.5 microns in diameter; PM2.5), the

Advanced HybridTM is a superior technology not only fornew installations but as a retrofit technology as well. TheAdvanced HybridTM combines a high particulate collection efficiency, with a small footprint and potential economic advantages. Given the age and performance levelof many existing ESPs, there is a great and immediateneed for this type of retrofit technology. This technologyhas potential application to all of the more than 1,000 coalfired units. However, space and other site-specific constraints come in to play to preclude 100% applicability.The Advanced HybridTM is economically competitivewith ESPs and baghouses for meeting current standards.For meeting a possible stricter fine-particle standard or99.99% control of total particulates, the Advanced HybridTM is the economic choice over either ESPs orbaghouses by a wide margin.

9/01

NEPA Process completed(FONSI) 6/02

Construction started 4/02

Construction completed/operations started 10/02

10/02

Design and

Construction

Operation and

Reporting

Preaward

4/02
5-20 Program Update 2003

Power Plant Improvement InitiativeEnvironmental ControlsMulti-Pollutant Control TechnologiesBig Bend Power StationNeural Network-SootblowerOptimizationParticipantTampa Electric CompanyAdditional Team MembersPegasus Technology, Inc.—technology supplierLocationApollo Beach, Hillsborough County, FL (Tampa Electric’sBig Bend Power Station)TechnologyNeural-network sootblowing system in conjunction withadvanced controls and instrumentsPlant Capacity/Production445 MWCoalUnknownProject FundingTotal $2,381,614 100%DOE 905,013 38Participant 1,476,601 62Project ObjectiveTo control boiler fouling on a 445-MWe unit by using aneural-network sootblowing system in conjunction withadvanced controls and instruments. Ash and slag deposition compromise plant efficiency by impeding the transferof heat to the working fluid. This leads to higher fuelconsumption and higher air emissions, especially NOx.

This project is expected to reduce NOx by 30%, improve

heat rate by 2% and reduce particulate matter (PM) emissions by 5%.

Technology/Project DescriptionThe intent of this project is to apply a neural networkintelligent sootblowing system in conjunction withstate-of-the-art controls and instruments to optimize theoperation of a utility boiler and systematically controlboiler fouling. This optimization process is targeted toreduce total NO

x generation by up to 30%, improve heat

rate by up to 2%, and reduce PM emissions by up to 5%.As compared to competing technologies, this could be anextremely cost-effective technology, which has the abilityto be readily and easily adapted to virtually any pulverized coal boiler.
Calendar Year

 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 

2001 2002 2005 2003 2004 2006 2007 2008 2009 

Project Status/AccomplishmentsThe project was selected for award on September 26,2001. The cooperative agreement was awarded July 9,2002 and the NEPA process was completed with a categorical exclusion issued on June 21, 2002. Constructionstarted in November 2002 and operation is projected tostart in January 2004.Commercial ApplicationsOne problem that exists with the combustion of coal isthe formation and deposition of ash and slag within theboilers which adversely affects the rate at which heat istransferred to the working fluid, which in the case ofelectric generators is water/steam. The fouling of theboiler leads to poor efficiencies because heat which couldnormally be transferred to the working fluid remains inthe flue gas stream and exits to the environment withoutbeneficial use. This loss in efficiency translates to higherconsumption of fuel for equivalent levels of electric generation, hence more gaseous emissions are also produced.Another less obvious problem exists with fouling of various sections of the boiler relating to the intensity of peaktemperatures within and around the combustion zone.

Total NO

x generation is primarily a function of both fueland thermal-NO

x production. Fuel-NOx, which generally

comprises 20–40% of the total NOx generated, is predominantly influenced by the levels of oxygen present,

while thermal-NO

x, which comprises the balance, is a

function of temperature. As the fouling of the boiler increases and the rate of heat transfer decreases, peak temperatures increase as does thermal NOx production.

Due to the composition of coal, particulate matter is alsoa by-product of coal combustion. Modern day utility boilers are usually fitted with electrostatic precipitators to aidin the collection of PM. Although extremely efficient,these devices are sensitive to rapid changes in inlet massconcentration as well as total mass loading. Traditionally,utility boilers are equipped with devices known as sootblowers, that use steam, water, or air to dislodge particulates and clean the surfaces within the boiler and areoperated based upon established rules or the operator’sjudgment. Without extreme care and due diligence, excessive soot can overload an ESP resulting in high levels ofPM being released. This technology has potential application to all of the more than 1,000 coal-fired units.

Project selected 9/26/01

Cooperative agreement awarded 7/02

Project complete/final report issued 3/05*

9/01 7/02 3/05 Design and

Construction

NEPA processcompleted (cx) 6/21/02

1/04

Constructionstarted 11/02

Operation initiated 1/04*

Preaward

Operation and

Reporting
5-22 Program Update 2003

Clean Coal Power InitiativeEnvironmental ControlsMulti-Pollutant Control TechnologiesCommercial Demonstration ofthe Airborne ProcessProject withdrawnParticipantLG&E Energy CorporationAdditional Team MembersKentucky Utilities—hostBabcock & Wilcox Company—technology supplierUSFilter—technology supplierAirborne Pollution Control—technology supplierLocationCarrollton, Carroll County, Kentucky (LG&E’s GhentUnit No. 2)Technology“Airborne Process” integrated environmental controltechnologiesPlant Capacity/Production524 MWCoalEastern Kentucky Bituminous (3.6% sulfur)Project FundingTotal $120,126,569 100%DOE Share $ 31,122,268 26Participant $ 89,004,301 74Project ObjectiveTo demonstrate cost-effective, advanced emission controltechnologies integrated with existing emissions controlequipment for multi-pollutant emissions abatement whileproviding a highly desired, valuable fertilizer by-product.The goal of the “Airborne Process” is to remove 99.5% ofthe sulfur dioxide (SO2), 90% of the sulfur trioxide (SO3),

90% of the nitrogen oxides (NOx), and 90% of the mercury (Hg) across the total system, while turning the by- products into a high-quality, valuable granular fertilizer that will produce a revenue stream while yielding stack emissions that will be lower than other coal-fired units currently in service. Technology/Project Description The Airborne Process employs a proprietary method of sodium bicarbonate (NaHCO3) regeneration. The sodium sulfate (Na2SO4) by-product (the end product after scrub- bing of flue gas emissions has occurred) is regenerated into two end products. The first product is sodium bicar- bonate for re-use in the scrubbing process, with the second being fertilizer which can be sold, therefore elimi- nating disposal costs and producing a revenue source.
Calendar Year

Project selected 1/8/03

Project withdrawn

 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 

2002 2003 2006 2004 2005 2007 2008 2009 2010 

Project Status/AccomplishmentsThe project was selected for award on January 8, 2003and the cooperative agreement was under negotiation.However, LG&E Energy Corporation decided to withdraw the project.LG&E Energy was to host this project as well as serve as

the prime contractor. The Babcock & Wilcox Company(B&W), USFilter, and Airborne Pollution Control were to

provide the technical and project management resourcesthroughout the four-year project, including design, installation, start-up and testing. Airborne Pollution Control holdsthe patents for the granulation process. B&W, USFilter, andAirborne Pollution Control were to provide the hardwarefor the dry sorbent injection and sodium-based scrubbingsystem, regeneration system, and fertilizer production system respectively.Installation and start-up was to be followed by a threemonth field test phase. This test program was to focus onmulti-pollution emission reductions and production of thevaluable fertilizer. The test program was also supposed todemonstrate the availability of the Airborne Process with

the objective of achieving a commercial level of availability beginning with the first year of commercial operation.Commercial ApplicationsThe Airborne Process can be widely applied in the nearterm to satisfy the emissions reduction needs for retrofitsinto existing plants that are currently unscrubbed as wellas for new coal-based installations. Compared to othercleaning solutions, this regeneration process reduces operating costs, reduces waste, eliminates landfill use andgenerates a profit for the utility. A patented granulationprocess is the method by which the ammonium sulfate byproduct is turned into a high-quality fertilizer.

1/03
5-24 Program Update 2003

Clean Coal Power InitiativeEnvironmental ControlsMulti-Pollutant Control TechnologiesDemonstration of IntegratedOptimization Software at theBaldwin Energy ComplexParticipantNeuCo, Inc.Additional Team MembersDynegy Midwest Generation—hostLocationBaldwin, Randolph County, Illinois (Dynegy MidwestGeneration’s Baldwin Energy Complex)TechnologyAdvanced optimization software, building on NeuCo’sProcessLinkTM technologyProject Capacity/Production1,768 MWCoalPowder River BasinProject FundingTotal $18,640,231 100%DOE Share $ 8,388,104 45Participant $10,252,127 55Project ObjectiveTo design, develop, and demonstrate integrated on-lineoptimization systems that will address combustion, sootblowing, selective catalytic reduction (SCR) operations,overall unit thermal performance, and plant-wide profitoptimization in order to reduce nitrogen oxides (NOx) by

5%, increase efficiency by 1.5%, and improve reliabilityand availability to boost production by 1.5%.

Technology/Project DescriptionThe ProcessLinkTM technology platform includes neuralnetworks, genetic algorithms, and fuzzy logic techniquesfrom which to comprehensively apply optimization techniques to a variety of systems within coal power plantsthrough existing control technologies and then link thesesystems to each other. It also supports the development ofintegrative optimization solutions, which use systemspecific optimization applications as data sources andactuators.
Calendar Year

 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 

2002 2003 2006 2004 2005 2007 2008 2009 2010 

Project selected 1/8/03

To be determined

1/03

Project Status/AccomplishmentsThe project was selected for award on January 8, 2003.Negotiations are underway and a cooperative agreementis expected by mid- to late-2003. The project duration isexpected to be four years.The increases in fuel efficiency (heat rate reduction) will alsoprovide commensurate reductions in greenhouse gases, mercury, and particulates. These solutions will build on NeuCo’sProcessLinkTM technology platform. The proposed work willdemonstrate closed-loop combustion optimization for cyclone boilers and integrate the newly developed solutionswith combustion optimization at all three of the plant’snominal 600-MW coal-fired units (two cyclone-fired unitswith selective catalytic reduction and one tangentially firedunit with low-NO

x burners).

Commercial ApplicationsWhen completed, this project will demonstrate the applicability of integrating an on-line optimization system withpower plant operations to increase the thermal efficiency ofthe plant, hence reducing emissions of CO2, increasing fuel

efficiency, and increasing overall reliability while achievinga corresponding reduction of airborne emissions. Theincreases in fuel efficiency will also provide commensuratereductions in mercury and particulates. As plant complexity increases through retrofit and repowering applications,the introduction of new technologies, and plant modifications, this integrated process optimization approach can bean important tool that supports a plant operator’s controlobjectives and links them to corporate objectives of increased efficiency and lower emissions.
5-26 Program Update 2003

Clean Coal Power InitiativeEnvironmental ControlsMulti-Pollutant Control TechnologiesTOXECON Retrofit forMercury and Multi-PollutantControl on Three 90 MW CoalFired BoilersParticipantWisconsin Electric Power CompanyAdditional Team MembersADA-ES—collaboratorCummins & Barnard—collaboratorElectric Power Research Institute (EPRI)—technology

supplier

Environmental Elements Corp.—collaboratorLocationMarquette, Marquette County, Michigan (WisconsinElectric’s Presque Isle Power Plant Unit Nos. 7, 8, and 9)TechnologyEPRI’s patented TOXECON sorbent injection processProject Capacity/Production3 x 90 MWCoalPowder River BasinProject FundingTotal $49,536,624 100%DOE Share $24,768,312 50Participant $24,768,312 50

Project ObjectiveTo demonstrate EPRI’s patented TOXECON process,which injects sorbents into a pulse-jet baghouse installeddownstream of the existing particulate matter (PM) control device for mercury (Hg), other air toxics, sulfur dioxide (SO2), and nitrogen oxides (NOx) control. Specific

objectives are to achieve 90% Hg removal through injection of activated carbon into the flue gas stream, increasePM collection efficiency, determine the viability of sorbent injection for up to 70% SO2 control and trim control

of NO

x, recover 90% of Hg captured in the sorbent,

achieve 100% fly ash utilization, advance reliability ofHg continuous emission monitors, and successfully integrate the entire system.

Technology / Project DThe activated carbon and into the flue gases between and the new baghouse. Inmanner has distinct advanactivated carbon into an elwhich depends on in-flighbent particles, whereas in fixed-bed capture occur as filter cake on the fabric fillower carbon injection ratciencies in some cases thaaddition, injection downstdevice does not contaminafor sale and use of the fly 

SORBEN

INJECTIO
Calendar Year

1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 

2002 2003 2006 2004 2005 2007 2008 2009 2010 

Project selected 1/8/03

To be determined

1/03

 3 4 1 2 3 

Project Status/AccomplishmentsThis project was selected for award on January 8, 2003.Negotiations are underway, and a cooperative agreementis expected in mid- to late-2003.The TOXECON configuration allows for separate treatment, disposal, or sale of ash collected in the primary PMcontrol device. It is expected that when completed in2008, this technology demonstration project will reduceHg emissions by 90% and result in capture of about 97pounds of mercury per year that would otherwise havebeen emitted to the environment from the three unitscombined. The multi-pollutant control strategy could beexpected to reduce the already low SO2 and NOx emissions at the plant by an additional 70% and 30%, respectively, resulting in capture of 4,020 tons per year of SO2and 1,470 tons per year of NOx. In addition, emission of

PM would be reduced by 32 tons per year.Short-term, large-scale testing of activated carbon injection in flue gases has shown that Hg capture results averaged from 87–90% with a carbon injection rate of 1.5pounds per million cubic feet of flue gas. Additionaltesting over longer periods is needed to determine the

impact of carbon injection on fabric filter bag life, cleaning frequency, and particulate collection efficiency. Powder River Basin (PRB) coal, like that fired at the PresqueIsle plant, has a high percentage of elemental, as opposedto oxidized, mercury. Activated carbon is known to capture elemental mercury, the most challenging species ofmercury to capture. Other test results have shown thatsodium-based products can achieve 30% to 70% reduction in SO2 emissions, but at normal flue gas temperatures

calcium-based products are not effective. Sodium basedsorbents have also reduced NO

x by 10% to 20%. A HCl

removal efficiency of 50% has been documented withinjection of sodium-based sorbents.Commercial ApplicationsThe technology can be incorporated into systems thatcurrently employ cold-side ESPs, as well as hot-side ESPsas primary PM control devices. Injection of sorbents willtake place downstream of the air heater in systems employing hot-side ESPs, such as the Presque Isle Plant,where relatively cool temperatures below 350 °F allowabsorption of Hg by activated carbon. TOXECON is oneof the few mercury control technologies that can be applied to systems employ

peratures are generally tabsorption upstream or A primary benefit of thilow-cost option for dramemissions, especially thsuccessful implementatifor segments of the powtimely compliance with This technology may prchoice for western coals burning any coal type wTOXECON process has plants burning coals witburning western, sub-biESPs (68 GW), and plancold-side ESPs (81 GWSO2 and NOx further enh

proved environmental c
5-28 Program Update 2003
Advanced Electric Power Gene
5-30 Program Update 2003

McIntosh Unit 4A PCFBDemonstration ProjectProject TerminatedParticipantCity of Lakeland, Lakeland ElectricAdditional Team MembersFoster Wheeler Corporation—supplier of pressurized

circulating fluidized-bed (PCFB) combustor and heatexchanger; engineer

Siemens Westinghouse Power Corporation—supplier of

hot gas filter, gas turbine, and steam turbine

LocationLakeland, Polk County, FL (Lakeland Electric’s McIntoshPower Station, Unit No. 4)TechnologyFoster Wheeler’s PCFB technology integrated withSiemens Westinghouse’s hot gas particulate filter system(HGPFS) and power generation technologiesPlant Capacity/Production137 MWe (net)CoalEastern Kentucky and high-ash, high-sulfur bituminouscoalsProject FundingTotal $186,588,000 100%DOE 93,252,864 50Participant 93,335,136 50Project ObjectiveTo demonstrate Foster Wheeler’s PCFB technologycoupled with Siemens Westinghouse’s ceramic candletype HGPFS and power generation technologies, whichrepresent a cost-effective, high-efficiency, low-emissionsmeans of adding generating capacity at greenfield sites orin repowering applications.Clean Coal Technology Demonstration ProgramAdvanced Electric Power GenerationFluidized-Bed Combustion

Technology/Project DescriptionIn the first of the two Lakeland Electric projects, McIntosh Unit No. 4A would have been constructed with aPCFB combustor adjacent to the existing Unit No. 3 (seealso McIntosh Unit 4B Topped PCFB DemonstrationProject).Coal and limestone are mixed and fed into the combustion chamber. Combustion takes place at a temperature ofapproximately 1,560–1,600 °F and a pressure of about200 psig. The resulting flue gas and fly ash leaving thecombustor pass through a cyclone and ceramic candletype HGPFS where the particulates are removed. The hotgas leaving the HGPFS is expanded through a SiemensV64.3 gas turbine. The gas inlet temperature of less than1,650 °F allows for a simplified turbine shaft and bladecooling system. The hot gas leaving the gas turbine passesthrough a heat recovery steam generator (HRSG). Heat

recovered from both the cgenerate steam to power a mately 5–10% of the powbine, with the steam turbiproject also includes an athat can be fired on coal owill replace the PCFB unability, allowing various mThe projected net heat ratmately 9,480 Btu/kWh (Hefficiency greater than 36include in-situ sulfur rem

than 0.3 lb/106 Btu, and p

than 0.03 lb/106 Btu. Solicompared to conventionareadily disposable or pote
Calendar Year

Project Status/AccomplishmentsThe project resulted from a restructuring of the DMEC-1PCFB Demonstration Project awarded under CCTDP-III.On December 19, 1997, a Cooperative Agreement modification was signed implementing the project restructuringfrom DMEC-1 to the City of Lakeland. The Lakeland CityCouncil gave approval in April 1998 for the 10-year planof Lakeland Electric (formerly Department of Electric &Water Utilities), which included this project. However,the project was on hold while technical and economicissues were resolved. The issues could not be resolvedand this project was terminated.Commercial ApplicationsThe project would have served to demonstrate the PCFBtechnology for widespread commercial deployment andwould have included the first commercial application ofhot gas particulate cleanup and would have been one ofthe first to use a non-ruggedized gas turbine in a pressurized fluidized-bed application.

The combined-cycle PCFB system permits the combustion of a wide range of coals, including high-sulfur coals,and would compete with the pressurized bubbling-bedfluidized-bed system. The PCFB technology can be usedto repower or replace conventional power plants. Becauseof modular construction capability, PCFB generatingplants permit utilities to add economical increments ofcapacity to match load growth or to repower plants usingexisting coal- and waste-handling equipment and steamturbines. Another advantage for repowering applicationsis the compactness of the equipment due to pressurizedoperation, which reduces space requirements per unit ofenergy generated.

1989 1996 1997 1990 1991 1998 1999 2000 2002 

12/89

DOE selected project(CCTDP-III) 12/19/89

Cooperative agreement

awarded 8/1/91

Design and Construction

8/91

Site change approved(Lakeland) 10/29/96

Preaward

Cooperative agreement

signed 12/19/97

NEPA process started 3/99

**

 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 

**
5-32 Program Update 2003

Clean Coal Technology Demonstration ProgramAdvanced Electric Power GenerationFluidized-Bed CombustionMcIntosh Unit 4B ToppedPCFB Demonstration ProjectProtect TerminatedParticipantCity of Lakeland, Lakeland ElectricAdditional Team MembersFoster Wheeler Corporation—supplier of carbonizer;

engineer

Siemens Westinghouse Power Corporation—supplier of

topping combustor and high-temperature filter

LocationLakeland, Polk County, FL (Lakeland Electric’s McIntoshPower Station, Unit No. 4)TechnologyFully integrated second-generation PCFB technology withthe addition of a carbonizer island that includes SiemensWestinghouse’s multi-annular swirl burner (MASB) topping combustorPlant Capacity/Production103-MWe (net) addition to the 137-MWe (net) McIntosh4A projectCoalEastern Kentucky and high-ash, high-sulfur bituminouscoalsProject FundingTotal $219,635,546 100%DOE 109,608,507 50Participant 110,027,039 50Project ObjectiveTo demonstrate topped PCFB technology in a fully commercial power generation setting, thereby advancing thetechnology for future plants that will operate at higher gasturbine inlet temperatures and will be expected to achievecycle efficiencies in excess of 45%.

Technology/Project DescriptionThe project involved the addition of a carbonizer island tothe PCFB demonstrated in the McIntosh 4A project.Dried coal and limestone are fed via a lock hopper systemto the carbonizer with part of the gas turbine dischargeair. The coal is partially gasified at about 1,750–1,800 oFto produce syngas and char solids streams. The limestoneis used to absorb sulfur compounds generated during themild gasification process. After cooling the syngas toabout 1,200 oF, the char and limestone entrained with thesyngas are removed by a hot gas particulate filter system(HGPFS). The char and limestone are then transferred tothe PCFB combustor for complete carbon combustion andlimestone utilization. The hot, cleaned, filtered syngas isthen fired in the MASB topping combustor to raise theturbine inlet temperature to approximately 2,350 °F. Thegas is expanded through the turbine, cooled in a heat

recovery steam generatornet impact of the addition crease in both power outplimestone used in McIntoin McIntosh 4A.The 240-MWe (net) plant of 8,406 Btu/kWh (40.6% SO2 capture efficiency rat

emissions were expected 

lb/106 Btu, respectively. I

turbine would have produturbine would have produiliaries would have consu
Calendar Year

Project Status/AccomplishmentsThe project resulted from a restructuring of the Four Rivers Energy Modernization Project awarded under the fifthCCTDP solicitation. The Four Rivers project was to demonstrate the integration of a carbonizer (gasifier) andtopping combustor (topping cycle) with the PCFB technology. By using a phased approach, Lakeland Electricwould be able to demonstrate both PCFB (McIntosh 4A)and topped PCFB (McIntosh 4B) technologies at oneplant site.On January 29, 1998, a Cooperative Agreement modification was signed implementing the project restructuringfrom Four Rivers Energy Partners to the City of Lakeland.The Lakeland City Council gave approval in April 1998for the 10-year plan of Lakeland Electric (formerly Department of Electric & Water Utilities), which includedthis project. However, the project was on hold while technical and economic issues were resolved. The issuescould not be resolved and this project was terminated.

Commercial ApplicationsThe commercial version of the topped PCFB technologywould have a greenfield net plant efficiency of 45%(which equates to a heat rate approaching 7,500 Btu/kWh,HHV). In addition to higher plant efficiencies, the plantwould (1) have a cost of electricity that was projectedto be 20% lower than that of a conventional pulverizedcoal-fired plant with flue gas desulfurization, (2) meetemission limits allowed by the New Source PerformanceStandard (NSPS), (3) operate economically on a widerange of coals, and (4) be amenable to shop fabrication.The benefits of improved efficiency included reducedcost for fuels and a reduction in CO2 emissions.

The commercial version of the topped PCFB technologyhas other environmental attributes, which include in-situsulfur retention that can meet 95% removal requirements,NO

x emissions that will meet or exceed NSPS, and particulate matter discharge of approximately 0.03 lb/106 Btu.

Although the system will generate a slight increase in solidwaste compared to conventional systems, the material is adry, readily disposable, and potentially usable material.

1993 1996 1997 1994 1995 1998 1999 2000

5/93

DOE selected project(CCTDP-V) 5/4/93

Cooperative agreement awarded 7/28/94; effective 8/1/94

Design and Construction

Site change approved

(Lakeland) 10/29/96

8/94 

Preaward

Cooperative agreementsigned 1/29/98

NEPA processstarted 3/99

 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4

2002 

1 2 3 

**

Project Ter
5-34 Program Update 2003

Clean Coal Technology Demonstration ProgramAdvanced Electric Power GenerationFluidized-Bed CombustionJEA Large-Scale CFBCombustion DemonstrationProjectParticipantJEA (formerly Jacksonville Electric Authority)Additional Team MembersFoster Wheeler Energy Corporation—technology supplierLocationJacksonville, Duval County, FL (JEA’s Northside Station,Unit No. 2)TechnologyFoster Wheeler’s atmospheric circulating fluidized-bed(ACFB) combustorPlant Capacity/Production297.5 MWe (gross), 265 MWe (net)CoalEastern bituminous, 3.39% sulfur (design)Project FundingTotal $309,096,512 100%DOE 74,733,633 24Participant 234,362,679 76Project ObjectiveTo demonstrate ACFB at 297.5 MWe gross (265 MWenet) representing a scale-up from previously constructedfacilities; to verify expectations of the technology’s economic, environmental, and technical performance; toprovide potential users with the data necessary for evaluating a large-scale ACFB as a commercial alternative; toaccomplish greater than 90% SO2 removal; and to reduce

NO

x emissions by 60% when compared with conventional

technology.

Technology/Project DescriptionA circulating fluidized-bed combustor, operating at atmospheric pressure, will be retrofitted into Unit No. 2 of theNorthside Station. In this process coal or the secondaryfuel (petroleum coke), primary air, and a solid sorbent(such as limestone), are introduced into the lower part ofthe combustor where initial combustion occurs. As thecoal particles decrease in size due to combustion, they arecarried higher in the combustor when secondary air isintroduced. As the coal particles continue to be reduced insize, the coal, along with some of the sorbent, is carriedout of the combustor, collected in a cyclone separator, andrecycled to the lower portion of the combustor. Primarysulfur capture is achieved by the sorbent in the bed. However, additional SO2 capture is achieved through the use

of a polishing scrubber to be installed ahead of the particulate control equipment.

Steam is generated in tubwalls and superheated in of the particulate separatosystem will produce appr

steam at about 2,500 psig 

lb/hr of reheat steam at 60will be used in an existing turbine.The heat rate for the retroproximately 9,950 Btu/kWExpected environmental p

for SO2 (98% reduction), 

0.011 lb/106 Btu for total 

for PM10).
Calendar Year

Project Status/AccomplishmentsThe project was successfully resited to Jacksonville,Florida after York County Energy Partners and Metropolitan Edison Company terminated activities on the ACFBproject in September 1996. On August 26, 1997, DOEapproved the transfer of the ACFB Clean Coal Project fromYork, Pennsylvania to Jacksonville, Florida. On September29, 1997, DOE signed a modified cooperative agreementwith JEA to cost-share refurbishment of the first (Unit No.2) of two units at Northside Generating Station.The National Environmental Policy Act process was completed when the Record of Decision was issued on December 7, 2000. The facility was dedicated on October14, 2002. The operation and reporting period has beendelayed and a new scheduled has not been set.Following a two-week unscheduled outage, Unit No. 2was returned to service on January 8, 2003. The unit wastaken offline on January 28, 2003, to repair external tubeleaks on one of the cyclones. On February 11, 2003, thefuel was switched to an 80/20 blend of petcoke/coal. Theunit operated on the 80/20 blend for six weeks withoutexperiencing an unscheduled outage. A planned 22-day

outage started on April 1, 2003, to incorporate modifications and upgrades necessary to prepare the unit for thesummer peak period. The work items included the repairof the INTREXTM inlet expansion joint from the cycloneand the INTREXTM outlet refractory shielding pillows.The schedule for the demonstration operations is yet to bedetermined.The project moves atmospheric fluidized-bed combustion technology to the larger sizes of utility boilerstypically considered in capacity additions and replacements. The nominal 300-MWe demonstration unit inthe JEA project will be more than double the size ofthe Nucla unit (110-MWe). Features include anINTREXTM integrated recycle heat exchanger in thefurnace, steam-cooled cyclones, a parallel pass reheatcontrol, an SO2 polishing scrubber, and a fabric filter

for particulate control.The project received Power magazine’s 2002 Power PlantAward. The Florida Engineering Society awarded JEA’sproject manager the Technical Achievement Award 2002for his work on the project.

Commercial ApplicaThe ACFB technology hin both the industrial anin repowering existing pACFB is attractive for bpower applications becadown to 25% of full loais on par with conventiothe advantage of ACFB content can be used, and powered. In repowering area is used, and coal- awell as steam turbine eqtending the life of the plIn its commercial configseveral potential benefittional pulverized coal-fireduced SO2 and NOx em

combustion efficiency; a (including use of renewby-product material that tially salable.

1989 1990 1992 1993 1995 1997 2000 2001 2002 

Preaward

6/89 11/90

DOE selected project(CCTDP-I) 6/23/89

 

Cooperative agreementawarded 11/30/90

Project restructured 6/92

Project sited

(York) 6/93

Project restructured and resited

(Jacksonville) 8/26/97

**  **

Design and Construction

NEPA process completed

(EIS York site) 8/11/95

Cooperative agreement modified 9/29/97

Project co

NEPA process completed (EIS Jacksonville site);

design completed; construction started 12/00 

Environmental monitoring completed; preoperationastarted 7/01

Construction com

 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 
5-36 Program Update 2003

Clean Coal Power InitiativeAdvanced Electric Power GenerationFluidized-Bed CombustionNext Generation CFB CoalGenerating UnitParticipantColorado Springs Utilities, an enterprise of the City ofColorado SpringsAdditional Team MembersFoster Wheeler Power Group, Inc.—technology supplierLocationFountain, El Paso County, Colorado (Colorado SpringsUtilities’ Ray D. Nixon Power Plant)TechnologyFoster Wheeler circulating fluidized-bed (CFB) combustion system and advanced selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR)Plant Capacity/Production150 MWCoalSub-Bituminous Powder River Basin (PRB)PRB blended with coal waste, biomass, petroleum cokeProject FundingTotal $301,504,011 100%DOE Share $ 30,000,000 10Participant $271,504,011 90Project ObjectiveTo demonstrate an advanced low-emission CFB combustion system that is expected to achieve 96–98% sulfurremoval, while reducing limestone consumption to lessthan half of conventional CFB systems. The system alsofeatures an integrated trace metal control system that canremove up to 90% of mercury, lead, and other metals, aswell as virtually all acid gases in the flue gas.

Technology/Project DescriptionFor nitrogen oxides (NOx), the system features an advanced staged-combustion process coupled with an advanced SNCR system that can reduce stack NOx levels to

those achievable only with higher cost selective catalyticreduction (SCR) technology. For sulfur oxides (SOx), the

design features a three-stage approach to achieve thehighest sulfur capture with the lowest limestone consumption. Unlike other processes, the limestone fed tothe furnace is the only source of reagent added for sulfurremoval. To improve reliability and lower cost, the design features an advanced integrated solids separatorsystem integrated into the traditional furnace structureinstead of traditional cyclones.
Calendar Year

 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 

2002 2003 2006 2004 2005 2007 2008 2009 2010 

Project selected 1/8/03

1/03

Project Status/AccomplishmentsThe project was selected for award on January 8, 2003.Negotiations are underway and the cooperative agreementis expected to be awarded mid- to late-2003. The projectis expected to last about six years.Commercial ApplicationsThis demonstration project offers the opportunity for alow-cost advanced emissions control system applicable toa variety of coals and other fuels for CFBs. The system ispredicted to achieve low levels of NOx (0.04 lb/106 Btu

with Powder River Basin coal) using an advanced selective non-catalytic reduction system, very-high sulfurcontrol at 96–98 percent reductions using a three-stagecollection system to substantially reduce limestone ascompared to more conventional CFBs, and a trace metalemissions control system with potential to remove up to90 percent of mercury contained in the fuel feed. Thisdemonstration project will also use a suite of fuels including Powder River Basin subbituminous, Illinois and Pittsburgh eastern bituminous, waste coal and biomass/woodwaste while achieving high levels of emissions control. If successful, this unit would become the cleanest

To Be Determined

coal-fired electric power plant in the country and couldeliminate hazardous forest deadwood biomass (importantto local efforts in wildfire management). The plant includes a dry cooling tower to minimize water use (anincreasingly important consideration in power plant design). Colorado Springs is one of the fastest growingcities in the region and will benefit by lower power costsfrom using clean coal technology. The project incorporates an advanced control system (including mercurycontrol) that will be applicable to new and some existingCFB units and will demonstrate fuel flexibility for western and eastern coals as well as waste coals. Co-firingwith biomass supports effective carbon management objectives as well.
5-38 Program Update 2003

Kentucky Pioneer EnergyIGCC Demonstration ProjectParticipantKentucky Pioneer Energy, LLCAdditional Team MembersFuel Cell Energy, Inc. (formerly Energy Research

Corporation)—molten carbonate fuel cell designer andsupplier, and cofunder

LocationTrapp, Clark County, KY (East Kentucky PowerCooperative’s Smith site)TechnologyIntegrated gasification combined-cycle (IGCC) using aBG/L (formerly British Gas/Lurgi) slagging fixed-bedgasification system coupled with Fuel Cell Energy’s molten carbonate fuel cell (MCFC)Plant Capacity/Production580 MWe (gross); 540 MWe (net) IGCC; 2.0 MWeMCFCCoalHigh-sulfur Kentucky bituminous coal and pelletizedrefuse-derived fuel (RDF)Project FundingTotal $431,932,714 100%DOE 78,086,357 18Participant 353,846,225 82Project ObjectiveTo demonstrate and assess the reliability, availability, andmaintainability of a utility-scale IGCC system using ahigh-sulfur bituminous coal and refuse-derived fuel(RDF) blend in an oxygen-blown, fixed-bed, slagginggasifier and the operability of a molten carbonate fuel cellfueled by coal gas.Clean Coal Technology Demonstration ProgramAdvanced Electric Power GenerationIntegrated Gasification Combined-Cycle

Technology/Project DescriptionThe four BG/L gasifiers are supplied with steam, oxygen,limestone flux, and a coal and pelletized RDF. Duringgasification, the oxygen and steam react with the coal andlimestone flux to produce a coal-derived fuel gas rich inhydrogen and carbon monoxide. Raw fuel gas exiting thegasifier is washed and cooled. Hydrogen sulfide and othersulfur compounds are removed. Elemental sulfur is reclaimed and sold as a by-product. Tars, oils, and dust arerecycled to the gasifier. Instead of ash, the inorganic components in the feedstock are reduced to a non-leachingsilica matrix that will be used as a synthetic aggregate. Theresulting clean, medium-Btu fuel gas fires two gas turbines.Operation will commence on 100% coal with slowly increasing levels of RDF throughout the demonstration. Thismethod will allow the development of a database of plantperformance at various levels of RDF feed.

The MCFC, which has becomposed of a molten carbetween porous anode anized, heated medium-Btu continuously into the ano

the cathode. Chemical reacurrent, which is converteinverter.
Calendar Year

Project Status/AccomplishmentsOn May 8, 1998, DOE conditionally approved AmerenServices Company (merger of Union Electric Co. andCentral Illinois Public Service Co.) as an equity partnerand host site provider subject to completing specific business and teaming milestones. The new project site to beprovided by Ameren was at its Venice Station Plant inVenice, Illinois. On April 30, 1999, Ameren ServicesCompany withdrew from the project for economic andbusiness reasons.In May 1999, Global Energy USA Limited (Global), soleowner of Kentucky Pioneer Energy, LLC (KPE), expressed interest in acquiring the project and providing ahost site at East Kentucky Power Cooperative’s SmithSite in Clark County, Kentucky. Subsequently, Globalnegotiated all the necessary documents with DOE andClean Energy Partners, L.P. (CEP) to acquire the project.In November 1999, the cooperative agreement was novated and the new site was approved.The NEPA process for the IGCC plant was completed withthe Record of Decision being issued on January 29, 2003.The NEPA process for the fuel cell was completed with theissue of a categorical exclusion on September 30, 2002.

The heat rate of the IGCC demonstration facility is projected to be 8,560 Btu/kWh (40% efficiency) and thecommercial embodiment of the system has a projectedheat rate of 8,035 Btu/kWh (42.5% efficiency). Theseefficiencies represent a greater than 20% reduction inemissions of CO2 when compared with a conventional

pulverized coal plant equipped with a scrubber. The SO2

emissions from the IGCC system are expected to be lessthan 0.1 lb/106 Btu (99% reduction); and NOx emissions

less than 0.15 lb/106 Btu (90% reduction).

The fuel cell portion of the project has been relocated toGlobal Energy’s Wabash site and was dedicated in August2003. The fuel cell will be operated on coal-derived syngas. The move will advance the MCFC demonstration bytwo years.Commercial ApplicationsThe IGCC system being demonstrated in this project issuitable for both repowering applications and new powerplants. The technology is expected to be adaptable to awide variety of potential market applications because ofseveral factors. First, the BG/L gasification technologyhas successfully used a wide variety of U.S. coals. Also,

the highly modular apprBG/L-based IGCC and range of plant sizes. In aexcellent environmental competitive with or suppower generation techno

1992 1998 1999 1993 1994 2000 2003 2004 2005 

Preaward

5/93

DOE selected project

(CCTDP-V) 5/4/93

Cooperative agreement

awarded 12/2/94

Design and Construction

12/94

Operation and Re

IGCC o

Novation of cooperative

agreement; New site

approved 11/99

New site approved 5/98

NEPA process completed(EIS and CX) 1/03

Site withdrawn

4/99

NEPA processinitiated 5/00 

**

IGCC constructionstarted 6/04*

MCFC operationinitiated 10/03*

10/03

 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 

**

MCFC operation com
5-40 Program Update 2003

Clean Coal DieselDemonstration ProjectParticipantTIAX, LLC (acquired the research contracts of Arthur D.Little, Inc.)Additional Team MembersUniversity of Alaska at Fairbanks (UAF)—host and

cofunder

Fairbanks Morse Engine—diesel engine technology

vendor

Gatliff Coal Company—coal supplierUsibelli Coal Mine, Inc.—coal supplierLocationFairbanks, AK (University of Alaska facility)TechnologyFairbanks Morse coal-fueled diesel enginePlant Capacity/Production6.4 MWe (net)CoalKentucky bituminous and Alaskan subbituminousProject FundingTotal $47,636,000 100%DOE 23,818,000 50Participant 23,818,000 50Project ObjectiveTo prove the design, operability, durability of a coal dieselengine during 1,000 hours of operation on coal water fuel.Technology/Project DescriptionThe Clean Coal Diesel Demonstration Project, as originally conceived, was to use a coal-water-fuel (CWF)slurry to operate an 18-cylinder diesel engine at the University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF). Primarily because nocoal slurry processor could be identified in Alaska to

provide the necessary fuel to operate the UAF 18-cylinderengine, the scope of the project was modified. The newproject scope includes 1,000 hours of testing on a twocylinder engine in Wisconsin using a Kentucky coalsource for slurry fuel. The two-cylinder engine in Wisconsin is identical to the 18-cylinder engine in Alaska innearly every respect except for the number of cylinders.The two engines have identical horsepower per cylinder,emissions per cylinder, fueling rate per cylinder, wearrates, exhaust flow per cylinder, etc.Initial tests will be conducted primarily on Kentuckybituminous CWF from the Gatliff Coal Company and onAlaskan subbituminous CWF from Usibelli Coal Mine,Inc. The clean coal diesel technology is expected to havevery low NOx and SO2 emission levels. The 2-cylinder

engine will first operate without hardened parts as anacceptance test for the CWF formulation and special fuel

Clean Coal Technology Demonstration ProgramAdvanced Electric Power GenerationAdvanced Combustion/Heat Engines

injectors. This initial operoperation parameters, sucsize of injector tip holes, amount of diesel fuel piloAfter initial testing, the 2fied to add hardened parts bituminous CWF for 12 hhours. The testing will be 250-hour tests, between wwill inspect engine parts. pare the 18-cylinder diesetion by modifying the coojectors, adding selective cinstalling hardened parts. testing will establish a ba

emissions on diesel fuel aoperation with hardened p
Calendar Year

Project Status/AccomplishmentsOverall project system design was completed in early1999. The 18-cylinder diesel engine arrived on site atUAF in January 1999 and was mounted in the enginehouse in late February. In October 1999, the engine, afterbeing connected to the generator, was operated on dieselfuel to ensure it would function coupled with the generator. In May 2000, total system startup was attempted ondiesel fuel. The SCR system for the diesel was tested inAugust 2000 and achieved 90% reduction in NOx emissions, which was within contract specifications. Since

August 15, 2000, the diesel has been supplying all of theuniversity’s power requirements on fuel oil.Testing was temporarily halted because the GoodrichCorp. division that operates the test facility, EngineeredIndustrial Products (which included Fairbanks MorseEngine), was spun off as a separate business now ownedby EnPro Industries. As a result, the scope of the projectwas revised and the focus shifted to the 2-cylinder dieselengine as the optimal way to meet the demonstrationproject’s objectives.

Preaward

5/93 7/94

DOE selected project(CCTDP-V) 5/4/93

Cooperative agreementawarded 7/12/94

Design and Construction

NEPA processcompleted (EA)6/2/97

Construction started 6/98

Environmental monitoringplan completed 2/99

Project

restructured

8/96

Design completed 1/99

1992 1996 1997 1993 1994 1998 1999 2003 2004 

** **

 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 

Commercial ApplicationsThe U.S. diesel market is projected to exceed 60,000MWe (over 7,000 engines) through 2020. The worldwidemarket is 70 times the U.S. market. The technology isparticularly applicable to distributed power generation inthe 5- to 20-MWe range, using indigenous coal in developing countries.The net effective heat rate for the mature diesel system isexpected to be 6,830 Btu/kWh (48% efficiency), whichmakes it very competitive with similarly sized coal- andfuel oil-fired installations. Environmental emissions fromcommercial diesel systems should be reduced to levelsbetween 50% and 70% below NSPS. The estimated installation cost of a mature commercial unit is approximately $1,300/kW.

7/03 

Operation and R

Initiate 2-cylinder testing

without hardened

parts 7/03*

Prepare Kentucky

coal-water-fuel 3/04*

2-c

co

Coop

c
5-42 Program Update 2003
Coal Processing for Clean Fu
5-44 Program Update 2003

Clean Coal Power InitiativeCoal Processing for Clean FuelsCoal Preparation TechnologiesLignite Fuel EnhancementParticipantGreat River Energy (GRE)Additional Team MembersElectric Power Research Institute—collaboratorLehigh University—collaboratorBarr Engineering—collaboratorFalkirk Mining and Couteau Properties—collaboratorLocationUnderwood, McLean County, North Dakota (GRE’s CoalCreek Station)TechnologyHigh-moisture coal enhancement by incrementally dryingusing waste heatPlant Capacity/Production546 MWCoalLigniteProject FundingTotal $22,000,000 100%DOE Share $11,000,000 50Participant $11,000,000 50Project ObjectiveTo demonstrate a 5 to 15 percentage point reduction inlignite moisture content (about 1/4 the total moisturecontent) by incremental drying using waste heat from thepower plant in order to significantly enhance the value oflignite as a fuel in electrical generation power plantswithin the next five years.

Technology/Project DescriptionAlthough current lignite power plants are designed toburn high-moisture coals, a 5 to 15 percentage point reduction in moisture content will result in significant improvements. The benefits of reduced-moisture-contentlignite will be demonstrated at the GRE Coal Creek Station. A phased approach will be used. In the first phase, afull-scale prototype dryer module will be designed andbuilt to support operation of a single pulverizer on one ofthe 546-MW units at the Coal Creek Station. Followingsuccessful demonstration of the dryer and the performance improvements as a result of the dryer, GRE willdesign, construct, and perform full-scale, long-term operational testing of a full suite of dryer modules for fulloperation of the unit on incrementally dried coal.
Calendar Year

 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 

2002 2003 2006 2004 2005 2007 2008 2009 2010 

Project selected 1/8/03

1/03

Project Status/AccomplishmentsThis project was selected for award on January 8, 2003.Negotiations are currently in progress. The cooperativeagreement is expected to be issued in late-2003. Theproject duration is expected to be slightly over three years.Commercial ApplicationsThis project offers a novel concept for using low-value,often underutilized heat normally available in powerplants, to increase the plant’s efficiency, reduce pollution,and improve economics. When demonstrated, this technology could be applied to increase the generating capacity, efficiency, and cost-effectiveness of other units thatburn high-moisture coal. Currently in the United States,there are 29 operating plants using lignite coal (15.3 GW)and more than 150 plants burning Powder River Basin(PRB) coals (more than 150 GW), both with inherentlyhigh moisture content. Application of this technologycould result in a reduction in the emissions from coalfired power plants because the plants will require less ofthe dried coal to produce the equivalent amount of power.For example, in this project, the moisture in the lignite

To be determined

would be lowered from 38% to 29.5% and is estimated toyield a 2.8% efficiency improvement with an attendantbenefit of reducing carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, andmercury emissions per unit electricity output. This technology could potentially increase the efficiency of plantsrunning on PRB and lignite which represents slightlymore than half of the coal electrical generation capacity inthe United States.
5-46 Program Update 2003

Clean Coal Power InitiativeCoal Processing for Clean FuelsIndirect LiquefactionGilberton Coal-to-Clean Fuelsand Power Co-ProductionProjectParticipantWMPI PTY., LLCAdditional Team MembersNexant, Inc.—collaboratorShell Global Solutions B.V., U.S.—collaboratorUhde GmbH.—Engineer, technology supplier, and

constructor

SASOL Technology Ltd.—collaboratorLocationGilberton, Schuylkill County, PennsylvaniaTechnologyShell gasifier and Fischer-Tropsch (FT) synthesisProject Capacity/Production5,038 bbls/day of ultra-clean fuels and 41 MWeCoalCoal-derived wastes, such as anthracite culmProject FundingTotal $612,000,000 100%DOE Share $100,000,000 16Participant $512,000,000 84Project ObjectiveTo demonstrate gasification of coal wastes to produce asynthesis gas, and in turn electric power, steam, and cleanliquid fuels.

Technology/Project DescriptionThe plant will gasify the coal wastes to produce a synthesis gas of hydrogen and carbon monoxide using Shell’soxygen blown gasifier. A portion of the synthesis gasfrom the gasification process will be converted into synthetic hydrocarbon liquids via a catalytic chemical process known as FT synthesis. The FT naphtha, kerosene,and diesel fuels, being virtually free of sulfur, nitrogen,and aromatics, are superior to their conventional petroleum counterparts in both end-use and environmentalproperties. The FT naphtha can either be upgraded to ahigh-octane, clean reformulated gasoline (RFG) or usedas sulfur-free onboard reforming feed for hydrogen fuelcell-powered vehicle applications. The FT kerosene has alow smoke point and potential application as a nichemarket jet fuel. FT diesel fuel has a high Cetane Number

and offers reduced particu

and CO emissions. Other vitrified material that has 
Calendar Year

 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 

2002 2003 2006 2004 2005 2007 2008 2009 2010 

Project selected 1/8/03

1/03

Project Status/AccomplishmentsThis project was selected for award on January 8, 2003.Negotiations are currently in progress. The cooperativeagreement is expected to be issued by late-2003. Theproject duration is expected to be six years.Work is continuing on preparing the Environmental Impact Statement. The public scoping meeting was held onMay 5, 2003. Other preaward activities, such as securingproject financing, preparing an estimate for the lump sumturnkey price, and characterization of the feedstock, arealso underway.Commercial ApplicationsA primary benefit of this project is that it applies cleancoal technology to address a long-standing environmentalreclamation issue associated with the mining and production of coal. This project offers a unique integration ofseveral key technologies to, for the first time, convert4,700 tons/day of coal waste materials (referred to asanthracite culm in this case) into 41 MWe of clean electric power and over 5,000 barrels per day of ultra-cleantransportation fuels. This project will process about 1.0

To be determined

million tons per year of coal waste materials from theGilberton site. It has been estimated that from past coalmining operation, about 200–300 million tons of thismaterial can be found across Pennsylvania alone. A similar amount is present in Illinois. If successful, this technology could be applied in many regions of the countryenabling reclamation of lands where coal wastes are currently stockpiled and significantly reduce waste disposalactivities from operating coal mines. The transportationfuels produced will be in the form of ultra-clean, highcetane diesel fuel from the FT process and contain nosulfur or aromatics. The FT naphtha can be upgraded toclean-burning reformulated gasoline. FT naphtha is alsoan excellent feedstock for steam cracking for olefin production, or as onboard reforming feed for fuel cell powered vehicles. The proposed process scheme is veryflexible. It can use coal, coal wastes, petroleum coke,and biomass alone, or as a blended feedstock to makesynthesis gas that can be converted into a variety ofbeneficial products such as electricity, process heat,transportation fuels and other chemical feedstocks. Thecombination of the Shell gasifier and the use of the

RectisolTM process will plant’s effluent to very lbe concentrated in carbofor carbon management project. The gross plant 45 percent, based on the the energy value of all thwill bring this country ondence by demonstrating domestic waste coal and high-value products in an If successful, this project technical, business, and fsubsequent applications.
5-48 Program Update 2003

Advanced Coal ConversionProcess DemonstrationDemonstration Operations CompletedParticipantWestern SynCoal LLC (formerly Rosebud SynCoalPartnership; a subsidiary of Montana Power Company’sEnergy Supply Division)Additional Team MembersNoneLocationColstrip, Rosebud County, MT (adjacent to WesternEnergy Company’s Rosebud Mine)TechnologyWestern SynCoal LLC’s Advanced Coal ConversionProcess for upgrading low-rank subbituminous and lignitecoalsPlant Capacity/Production45 tons/hr of SynCoal® product

CoalPowder River Basin subbituminous (Rosebud Mine),0.5–1.5% sulfur, plus tests of other subbituminous coalsand lignitesProject FundingTotal $105,700,000 100%DOE 43,125,000 41Participant 62,575,000 59Project ObjectiveTo demonstrate Western SynCoal LLC’s Advanced CoalConversion Process (ACCP) to produce SynCoal®, a

stable coal product having a moisture content as low as1%, sulfur content as low as 0.3%, and heating value upto 12,000 Btu/lb.

Technology/Project DescriptionThe process demonstrated is an advanced thermal coalconversion process coupled with physical cleaning techniques to upgrade high-moisture, low-rank coals to produce a high-quality, low-sulfur fuel. The raw coal isscreened and fed to a vibratory fluidized-bed reactorwhere surface moisture is removed by heating with hotcombustion gas. Coal exits this reactor at a temperatureslightly higher than that required to evaporate water andflows to a second vibratory reactor where the coal isheated to nearly 600 °F. This temperature is sufficient toremove chemically bound water, carboxyl groups, andvolatile sulfur compounds. In addition, a small amount oftar is released, partially sealing the dried product. Particleshrinkage causes fracturing, destroys moisture reactionsites, and liberates the ash-forming mineral matter.

SynCoal is a registered trademark of the Rosebud SynCoal Partnership.

The coal is then cooled to with an inert gas in a vibrcooled coal is sized and fair pressure and vibration ing much of the pyrite, frothe sulfur content of the pfractions are sent to a profractions go to fluidized-bremoval.The fines handling system are produced throughout tgathered by screw conveyconveyors to a bulk cooliblended with the coarse ppacity bin until loaded intsales, or returned to the m

Clean Coal Technology Demonstration ProgramCoal Processing for Clean FuelsCoal Preparation Technologies
Calendar Year

Results SummaryOperational• During the life of the ACCP project, over 2.8 million

tons of raw coal was processed to produce almost1.9 million tons of SynCoal® products, which included

regular, fines, blends, DSE treated, and special characteristic SynCoal® shipped to various customers.

• The product produced was exceptionally close to the

design basis product from a chemical standpoint, butdid not allow for conventional bulk handling from aphysical standpoint due to instability (spontaneousheating) and dustiness.

Environmental• The measured emissions of PM from the process stack

were 0.0259 gr/dscf (2.563 lb/hr) with a limit of0.031 gr/dscf.

• The measured emissions of NO

x

 were 4.50 lb/hr

(54.5 ppm) compared with a vendor estimated limit of7.95 lb/hr for controlled emissions and 11.55 lb/hr foruncontrolled emissions.

• The measured emissions of CO were 9.61 lb/hr

(191.5 ppm) compared with a vendor estimated limitof 6.46 lb/hr for controlled emissions and 27.19 lb/hrfor uncontrolled emissions.

• The measured emissions of SO2 were 0.227 lb/hr

(2.0 ppm) compared with a vendor estimated limit of7.95 lb/hr for controlled emissions and 20.27 lb/hr foruncontrolled emissions.

• The measured emissions of total hydrocarbons were

2.93 lb/hr (37.1 parts per million).

• The measured emissions of hydrogen sulfide were

0.007 lb/hr (0.12 parts per million).

Economic• Economic data are not available.

Preaward Design and Construction Operation and Reporting

2003

1 2 3 

2002

1 2 3 4

1994

1 2 3 4

1993

1 2 3 4

1992

1 2 3 4

1991

1 2 3 4

1990

1 2 3 4

1989

1 2 3 4

1988

3 4

12/88 9/90 6/92

Design completed 8/91

DOE selected project(CCT-I) 12/9/88

Cooperative agreement

awarded 9/21/90

Ground breaking/construction started 3/28/91NEPA process completed (EA) 3/27/91

Preoperational tests initiated 12/91

Construction completed 2/92

Environmental monitoring plan completed 4/7/92

Test operation initiated 6/92

**

1
5-50 Program Update 2003

Project SummaryThis project demonstrated an advanced, thermal, coalupgrading process, coupled with physical cleaning techniques, that was designed to upgrade high-moisture, lowrank coals to a high-quality, low-sulfur fuel, registered asthe SynCoal® process. The coal was processed through

three stages (two heating stages followed by an inert cooling stage) of vibrating fluidized-bed reactors that removechemically bound water, carboxyl groups, and volatilesulfur compounds. After thermal upgrading, the coal isprocessed in vibrating pneumatic stratifiers to separate thepyrite-rich coal refuse from the SynCoal® product.

The 45-ton-per-hour unit is located adjacent to a unit trainload-out facility at Western Energy Company's Rosebudcoal mine near Colstrip, Montana. The demonstrationplant was sized at about one-tenth the projected throughput of a projected commercial facility.Operational PerformanceDuring the life of the ACCP project, over 2.9 million tonsof raw coal was processed to produce almost 2.0 milliontons of SynCoal® products, which include regular, fines,

blends, dust stabilization enhancement (DSE) treated, andspecial characteristic SynCoal® shipped to various customers. See Exhibit 5-4 for annual statistics from the

ACCP plant. The plant posted a perfect worker safety

Exhibit 5-4

ACCP Annual Production Rates

record with no lost time accidents during the entire nineyears of operation. When operation ended in 2001, theACCP had been supplying six commercial customers withSynCoal®.

The product produced has been exceptionally close to thedesign basis product from a chemical standpoint, but wasnot acceptable for conventional bulk handling and storagedue to instability (spontaneous heating) and dustiness.Due to the instability, SynCoal® had to be stored with an

inert gas or in tightly sealed vessels to prevent air infiltration. A CO2 inert storage system was developed and installed for silo storage of SynCoal®. A significant amount

of work has gone into addressing the instability issue. Inconjunction with ENCOAL LLC and Amax Coal Company, Western SynCoal researched the effects of differentenvironments and treatments on low-rank coal composition. Specific objectives were to study the explosivity andflammability limits of dust from the conversion processand to identify the causes of spontaneous heating of upgraded coal products. At the time activities were suspended, the development efforts were focused on the useof the Aeroglide Tower Reactor design.The Aeroglide reactor represents a novel method of allowing process gases to contact the solids in a mechanically gentle environment. Solids are fed to the unit andflow, assisted only by gravity, downward through a system of baffles that gently 

tion of the solids from the controlled using a mass flbaffles are configured perrow. Process gases are inttally configured baffles anuniformly. Process gases exit the process bed of soconfigured to rehydrate p

heat of reaction, and partieffort to promote product was intended to modify thSynCoal® product allowin

techniques to be employepromising, but not concluWith regard to the operatiSynCoal® product, three dat the ACCP facility—Nolignite, and Amax subbitu190 tons of the SynCoal® 

North Dakota lignite was clone-fired Milton R. YouTesting showed dramatic bustion, improved slag taboiler air flow requiremen

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 

Raw Coal 28,686 157,421 371,447 479,621 369,652 395,450 163,272 419,296 441,379 Processed (tons)Availability (%) 18 50 65 78 65 66 28 70 73 Forced Outage 68 24 26 13 21 26 8 15 14 Rate (%)Avg. Feed Rate 21.1 35.8 64.8 70.1 64.3 68.0 66.0 68.4 69.(ton/hr)SynCoal® Shipped 5,566 57,927 208,428 315,688 238,766 250,070 97,575 288,650 291,604 

(tons)

Note: 163,106 tons of fines sold in July 1997.
Exhibit 5-5

ACCP Stack Emissions

Survey Results

Limit Measured

Particulate Matter 0.031 gr/dscf 0.0259 gr/dscf

2.563 lb/hr

Nitrogen Oxides 7.95 lb/hra 4.50 lb/hr

11.55 lb/hrb 54.5 ppm

Carbon Monoxide 6.46 lb/hra 9.61 lb/hr

27.19 lb/hrb 191.5 ppm

Sulfur Dioxide 7.95 lb/hra 0.227 lb/hr

20.27 lb/hrb 2.0 ppm

Total Hydrocarbons as NA 2.93 lb/hrPropane (Less Methane 37.1 ppmand Ethane)Hydrogen Sulfide NA 0.007 lb/hr

0.12 ppm

a Estimated controlled emissions based on vendor information.b Estimated uncontrolled emissions based on vendor information.

increased from 82% to over 86%, and the total gross heatrate improved by 123 Btu/kWh.At the Colstrip plant with two coal-fired power plants,baseline testing at the start of the demonstration indicatedthat the 330-MWe Unit No. 2 was typically producing2.9 MWe (net) less than Unit No. 1, a sister unit of comparable capacity. In late Spring 1999, Unit No. 1 was overhauled, resulting in an increase in its average output of7 MWe (net). With this increase in output, the overhauledUnit No. 1 would have produced 5.4 MWe more than UnitNo. 2. However, for the days that SynCoal® was used, Unit

No. 2 out-produced the overhauled Unit No. 1 by an average of 7.3 MWe—285.7 MWe versus 278.4 MWe (net)—with 15.0% of the total heat input coming from SynCoal.Furthermore, SynCoal® can be credited for actual 1999 SO2

emissions reductions for Unit No. 2 of approximately 430tons, or an 8% reduction, and NOx emissions reductions of

approximately 826 tons, or a 19% reduction, when compared with Unit No. 1 emissions.Environmental PerformanceWestern SynCoal originally assumed that SO2 emissions

would have to be controlled by injecting chemical sorbentsinto the ductwork. Preliminary data indicated that the addition of chemical injection sorbent was not necessary tocontrol SO2 emissions under the operating conditions.

The coal-cleaning area's fugitive dust was controlled byplacing hoods over the fugitive dust sources conveyingthe dust-laden air to fabric filters. The bag filters effectively removed coal dust from the air before discharge.The Montana Department of Health and EnvironmentalSciences completed stack tests on the east and west baghouse outlet ducts and the first-stage drying gas baghousestack in 1993.A stack emissions survey was conducted in May 1994.The survey determined the emissions of particulates, sulfur dioxide, oxides of nitrogen, carbon monoxide, totalhydrocarbons, and hydrogen sulfide from the processstack. The results are shown in Exhibit 5-5.Economic PerformanceEconomic data are not available.

Commercial ApplicationsACCP has the potential to enhance the use of low-rankwestern subbituminous and lignite coals. SynCoal® is a

viable compliance option for meeting SO2 emission reduction requirements. SynCoal® is an ideal supplemental

fuel for plants seeking to burn western low-rank coals,because the ACCP allows a wider range of low-sulfur rawcoals without derating the units.The project was able to prove the value of SynCoal®

through the seven commercial customers serviced duringthe last few years of operation. The customers represented utility, industrial, and metallurgical applications.The ACCP has the potential to convert inexpensive, lowsulfur, low-rank coals into valuable carbon-based reducingagents for many metallurgical applications. Furthermore,SynCoal® enhances cement and lime production and provides a value-added bentonite product.

ContactsHarry Bonner, General M

(406) 494-5119Western SynCoal LL120 North ParkmontButte, MT 59701(406) 494-3317 (fax)

Douglas Archer, DOE/H

douglas.archer@hq.d

Joseph B. Renk III, NET

joseph.renk@netl.do

ReferencesTechnical Progress RepSynCoal LLC. April 2001999, February 1999, A1995, December 1993, a
5-52 Program Update 2003
Industrial Applications
5-54 Program Update 2003

Clean Power from IntegratedCoal/Ore Reduction(CPICORTM)ParticipantCPICORTM Management Company LLC (a limited liability company composed of subsidiaries of the GenevaSteel Company)Additional Team MembersGeneva Steel Holdings corporation—cofunder,

constructor, host, and operator of unit

LocationVineyard, Utah County, UT (Geneva Steel Co.’s mill)TechnologyHIsmelt® direct iron-making process

Plant Capacity/Production3,300 ton/day liquid iron production and 296 MW (gross)of electricityCoalBituminous, 0.5% sulfurProject FundingTotal $1,065,805,000 100%DOE 149,469,242 14Participant 916,335,758 86Project ObjectiveTo demonstrate the integration of direct iron making withthe coproduction of electricity using various U.S. coals inan efficient and environmentally responsible manner.Technology/Project DescriptionThe HIsmelt® process is based on producing hot metal

and slag from iron ore fines and non-coking coals. The

heart of the process is producing sufficient heat and maintaining high heat transfer efficiency in the post-combustion zone above the reaction zone to reduce and smeltiron oxides. The HIsmelt® process uses a vertical smelt

reduction reactor, which is a closed molten bath vessel,into which iron ore fines, coal, and fluxes are injected.The coal is injected into the bath where carbon is dissolved rapidly. The carbon reacts with O2 (from the iron

ore) to form CO and metallic iron. Injection gases andevolved CO entrain and propel droplets of slag and molten iron upward into the post-combustion zone. The ironreduction reaction in the molten bath is endothermic;therefore, additional heat is needed to sustain the processand maintain hot metal temperature. This heat is generated by post-combusting the CO and hydrogen from thebath with an O2-enriched hot air blast from the central top

lance. The heat is absorbed by the slag and molten irondroplets, which are returned to the bath by gravity.

Droplets in contact with tzone absorb heat, but are ascending reducing gasesbon, prevent unacceptable molten iron collects in the tinuously tapped from the which maintains a constanSlag, which is periodicallblast furnace-type tap holinternal cooling system angases, mainly N2, CO2, CO

After scrubbing, the cleanan expander and then comThe cleaned gases can alstially reduce incoming iro

HIsmelt is a registered trademark of HIsmelt Corporation Pty Limited.Clean Coal Technology Demonstration ProgramIndustrial Applications
Calendar Year

Project Status/AccomplishmentsThe cooperative agreement was awarded on October 11,1996. CPICORTM analyzed the global assortment of newdirect iron-making technologies to determine which technology would be most adaptable to western U.S. coalsand raw materials. Originally, the COREX® process appeared suitable for using Geneva’s local raw materials;

however, lack of COREX® plant data on 100% raw coals

and ores prevented its application in this demonstration.Thus, CPICORTM chose to examine alternatives. Theprocesses evaluated included: AISI direct iron-making,DIOS, Romelt, Tecnored, Cyclonic Smelter, andHIsmelt®. The HIsmelt® process appears to offer good

economic and operational potential, as well as the prospect of rapid commercialization. CPICORTM has completed testing of two U.S. coals at the HIsmelt® pilot plant

near Perth, Australia.Project definition, preliminary design, and environmentalpermitting are ongoing. On July 28, 1999, DOE issued aNotice of Intent to prepare an Environmental ImpactStatement for the project. A NEPA public scoping meeting was held in Provo, Utah on July 15, 1999.

On February 1, 1999, Geneva Steel Company (CPICORTMManagement Company’s parent corporation) filed a voluntary petition for bankruptcy under Chapter 11 of the UnitedStates Bankruptcy Code in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court forthe District of Utah. Geneva Steel emerged from Chapter11 bankruptcy in early 2001 with a restructured balancesheet that enables full participation in this demonstrationproject.On January 25, 2002, Geneva Steel LLC filed a voluntarypetition under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code. The filing in the United States BankruptcyCourt for Utah, Central Division, was required by thecompany’s secured lenders as a condition to providingcontinued access to cash proceeds from the sale of inventory and the collection of accounts receivable. Withoutsuch access, Geneva Steel would not have sufficient liquidity to continue its activities and protect its facilities.CPICORTM has issued several major contracts for theengineering design of the project. HIsmelt Plc. will perform all preliminary engineering required for Phase I ofthe project. Lurgi Metallurgy will assist in the design ofthe direct iron making process, with Rio Tinto (the parent

company of HIsmelt PlcLurgi will also provide egeneration process, inclexpander for power genCommercial ApplicaThe HIsmelt® technolog

ing blast furnace and cotional potential to produOf the existing 79 coke of age or older and are dbuilds. There are about which have been operatsome originally installed 

represents a viable optioiron-making technologyThe HIsmelt® process is 

plants have been built, oKwinana, Australia in 19lia, the process has been rameters have been idenels have been successful

DOE selected project(CCTDP-V) 5/4/93

5/93

Preaward

Cooperative agreement awarded 10/11/96

NEPA process completed 4/04*

Construction started 4/04*

Design and Construction

Operation initiated 4/07*Construction completed 4/0

Operation a

Environmental monitoring

plan completed 4/05*

10/96 4/07 

1992 1997 2004 1993 1996 2005 2006 2007 2008 

** **

 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 

Operat
5-56 Program Update 2003

Power Plant Improvement InitiativeIndustrial ApplicationsCommercial Demonstration ofthe Manufactured AggregateProcessing TechnologyUtilizing Spray Dryer AshParticipantUniversal Aggregates, LLC (a joint venture betweenCONSOL Energy, Inc. and SynAggs, Inc.)Additional Team MembersCONSOL Energy, Inc.—development and engineeringP.J. Dick, Inc.—project management and constructionSynAggs, LLC—marketingLocationKing George County, VA (Birchwood Power Facility)TechnologyAggregate manufacturing plant using by-products fromspray dryer flue gas desulfurization (FGD) scrubbersPlant Capacity/Production150,000 tons/year of lightweight aggregateCoalBituminous, 0.9% sulfurProject FundingTotal $19,581,734 100%DOE 7,224,000 37Participant 12,357,734 63Project ObjectiveUniversal Aggregates LLC will design, build, and operatean aggregate manufacturing plant that converts 115,000tons/year of spray dryer by-products into 167,000 tons/year of lightweight aggregate that can be used in themanufacture of masonry blocks or lightweight concrete.

Technology/Project DescriptionFlue gas desulfurization systems, used to lower sulfuremissions from coal plants, often produce a type ofsludge that is landfilled; only 18% of FGD residue isrecycled. Much of that 18% pertains to recycling byproducts from wet FGD systems or scrubbers. UniversalAggregates’ process can be used to recycle the by-products from wet or dry scrubbers. This would reduce plantdisposal costs while reducing the environmental drawbacks of landfilling.The Birchwood facility will transform 115,000 tons/yearof spray dryer by-products that are currently being disposed of in an off-site landfill into 167,000 tons/year of auseful product: lightweight aggregates that can be used tomanufacture lightweight masonry blocks or lightweightconcrete.
Calendar Year

 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 

2001 2002 2005 2003 2004 2006 2007 2008 2009 

Project selected 9/26/01

Cooperative agreement awarded/start design and construction period 3/02

Project complete/final report issued 5/05*

Start contract negotiations 12/01

3/02 5/05

NEPA complete (FONSI) 10/02

Operation initiated 1/04*

Project Status/AccomplishmentsThe project was selected for award on September 26,2001. The cooperative agreement was awarded on November 25, 2002. The National Environmental PolicyAct process was completed on October 2, 2002, with theissuance of a Finding of No Significant Impact. Start ofconstruction was approved by DOE on March 24, 2003.The plant will begin operation in 2004.Commercial ApplicationsThere are currently twenty-one spray dryer facilities operating in the United States that produce an adequate amountof spray dryer by-product to economically justify theinstallation of a lightweight aggregate manufacturing facility. Industry sources believe that as additional scrubbing isrequired, dry FGD technologies will be the technology ofchoice. Letters from potential lightweight aggregate customers indicate that there is a market for the product oncethe commercialization barriers are eliminated by this demonstration project.

Construction Project complete 2/05*started 3/03

Design and Construction

Operations and

Reporting

9/01 1/04

Preaward
5-58 Program Update 2003

Clean Coal Power InitiativeIndustrial ApplicationsAdvanced Multi-Product CoalUtilization By-ProductProcessing PlantParticipantUniversity of Kentucky Research FoundationAdditional Team MembersLG&E Energy Corporation—collaboratorUniversity of Kentucky Center for Applied Energy

Research (CAER)—collaborator

LocationGhent, Carroll County, Kentucky (Kentucky UtilitiesCompany’s Ghent Power Station)TechnologyUniversity of Kentucky CAER’s hydraulic classificationfroth flotation processProject Capacity/Production800 tons per day of coal ash inputCoalPittsburgh coalProject FundingTotal $8,916,739 100%DOE Share $4,450,163 50Participant $4,466,576 50Project ObjectiveTo demonstrate an advanced coal ash beneficiation processing plant at the 2,200-MW Ghent Power Plant that willproduce (1) pozzolan (cementitious material), high-grade,lightweight aggregate; (2) graded fill sand; (3) high-qualitypolymeric filler; and (4) recycled carbon fuel.

Technology/Project DescriptionThe process is based upon a hydraulic classification andfroth flotation technology developed at the University ofKentucky CAER. The technology can process ash storedin disposal ponds or directly from the plant. Raw feed isclassified into a pozzolan stream (-200 mesh) and acoarse stream (+200 mesh). The coarse materials are further classified and concentrated into a sand product andcoarse carbon product by spiral concentrators. The finepozzolan stream is treated with a reagent system, the finecarbon removed via froth flotation, and the pozzolanconcentrated, filtered, and dried. A small stream from the

froth cell is further processed hydraulically to produce afine particle suitable for use in a number of applications,including a polymer additive.
Calendar Year

 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 

2002 2003 2006 2004 2005 2007 2008 2009 2010 

Project selected 1/8/03

1/03

Project Status/AccomplishmentsThe project was selected for award on January 8, 2003.Negotiations are currently underway. The cooperativeagreement is expected to be awarded by late-2003. Theestimated project duration is about four years.Commercial ApplicationsThroughout the United States, many coal-fired powerplants utilize ash-settling ponds and in many cases arerequired to pay for offsite landfill disposal. This projectaddresses the use of all of the coal utilization by-productsfrom the plant to produce salable and valued products.Finding a beneficial use of these materials will reduce theneed for the creation of new ash settling ponds and extend the life of existing ponds.One of the important benefits associated with this projectis that the 156,000 tons per year of high-quality pozzolan,to be produced from coal by-products, will displace anequivalent amount of portland cement. Manufacturingportland cement results in release of approximately 1 tonof CO2 per ton of cement produced. As such, this project

represents a potential greenhouse gas offset. Cement making currently releases about 47 million tons per year of CO2 in the U.S., making it one of the highest generators of CO2 of any industrial process. Therefore, utilization of existing coal ash for this purpose offers a new pathway for reducing future CO2 emissions related to the produc- tion of cement.

To be determined
5-60 Program Update 2003

Clean Coal Power InitiativeIndustrial ApplicationsWestern Greenbrier CoProduction DemonstrationProjectParticipantWestern Greenbrier Co-Generation, LLCAdditional Team MembersAlstom Power, Inc.—technology supplierHazen Research, Inc.—technology supplierParsons E&C—turn-key constructorHazen Research Labs—Technology SupplierMidway Environmental Associates—Technology SupplierLocationRainelle, Greenbrier County, West VirginiaTechnologyAlstom Power fluidized-bed combustion and WoodBrikTMtechnologyProject Capacity/Production85 MW and structural bricksCoalBituminous wasteProject FundingTotal $215,000,000 100%DOE Share $107,500,000 50Participant $107,500,000 50Project ObjectiveTo demonstrate integrated co-production of 85 MW ofpower and simultaneous manufacture of structural brickscertified to meet insulation and load-bearing specificationrequirements, or to produce Class “C” fly ash for concreteapplications.

Technology/Project DescriptionThe co-generating power plant uses a novel circulatingfluidized bed combustion (CFB) type of boiler incorporating an inverted cyclone to raise steam to power a conventional steam turbine generator. The CFB boiler island isexpected to allow a 30–40% smaller footprint, and reduction in steel tonnage by up to 60% as compared to a conventional CFB system. The plant will burn waste coalfrom a 4 million ton waste coal pile at Anjean and otherregional sources. Ash produced from the coal combustionis divided into two streams. Bottom ash and a small portion of the fly ash is collected and returned to the wastecoal pile. The mildly alkaline nature of the ash assists inneutralizing the acid runoff from the wastepile, thus alleviating a significant environmental problem. Most of thefly ash is calcined in a kiln, with added limestone, toconvert it to a chemical and physical form that renders it

useful for production of sClass “C” fly ash for concpatented product, Woodbrproduction at the Western cility. The WoodbrikTM is ash and wood waste into plant is envisioned to be aenvironmentally balanced which will build on the syclean-coal power generatithe boiler or heat from the ing system would be used Eco-Park.
Calendar Year

 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 

Project 1/8/03

1/03

Project Status/AccomplishmentsThe project was selected for award on January 8, 2003.Negotiations are currently underway. The cooperativeagreement is expected to be awarded late-2003. Theproject is expected to last less than two years.Commercial ApplicationsA primary benefit of this project is the application ofclean coal technologies to improve industrial ecology byemploying advanced multi-pollutant control systems,addressing environmental remediation of coal wastes, andusing coal, coal wastes and by-products to producepower, process heat and other industrial products. Thisproject offers a unique integration of technologies toconvert 1,610 tons/day of coal waste materials that resulted from past mining operations, commonly referredto as “gob,” and 220 tons/day of freshly mined coal, into75 MW of electricity, 20,000 pounds/hour of steam forindustrial use and district heating, 300 tons/day of structural bricks and 970 tons/day of alkaline ash materialsuitable for use in remediating acid mine drainage. Ifsuccessful, this technology and integrated approachcould be applied to many regions of the country to reTo be determined claim contaminated land where waste coal is currently stockpiled and to significantly reduce waste disposal activities from operating coal mines. For example, West Virginia alone contains about 400 million tons of waste coal. The advanced compact CFB power plant incorpo- rates SOx, NOx, particulate, and mercury missions con- trols and reduces the standard “footprint” of such plants by 40%. The compact nature of the new system will also reduce structural steel and related construction costs for the boiler system by up to 60%. In addition, the simpli- fied construction process planned for the boiler is ex- pected to result in safer construction practices and a short- ened construction time. Employing a Rankine steam cycle for energy conversion (thermal to electricity), this boiler’s targeted reheat steam cycle configuration (1,800 psig/1,000 °F/1,000 °F) is deemed aggressive for a power plant of this size, particularly one that uses waste feedstocks. This plant attempts to maximize power gen- eration efficiency, reduce CO2 emissions, and conserve water resources, while co-producing steam for commer- cial and industrial uses. Aside from the novel po

convert coal waste and oucts, including the produalkaline ash for environindustrial uses (hardwooand co-production of strtion will also result in hment at the power plant Successful integration ovelopment of this facilitstate and local governmsimilar refuse sites in th
5-62 Program Update 2003
Appendix A. Historical Perspective, LegHistory, and Public LawsCCTDP HistoricalPerspectiveThere were a number of key events that prompted creation of the Clean Coal Technology DemonstrationProgram (CCTDP) and impacted its focus over thecourse of the five solicitations. The roots of the CCTDPcan be traced to the acid rain debates of the early 1980s,culminating in U.S. and Canadian envoys recommendinga five-year, $5 billion U.S. effort to curb precursors toacid rain formation—sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen

oxides (NOx). This recommendation was adopted and

became a presidential initiative in March 1987.As a part of the response to the recommendations ofthe Special Envoys on Acid Rain in April 1987, the

President directed the Secretary of Energy to establisha panel to advise the President on innovative clean coaltechnology activities. This panel was the InnovativeControl Technology Advisory Panel. As a part of thepanel’s activities, the state and federal incentive subcommittee prepared a report, Report to the Secretary ofEnergy Concerning Commercialization Incentives, thataddressed actions that states could take to provide incentives for demonstrating and deploying clean coaltechnologies. The panel determined that demonstrationand deployment should be managed through both stateand federal initiatives.In the same time frame, the Vice President’s Task Forceon Regulatory Relief (later referred to as the Presidential Task Force on Regulatory Relief) was established. Among other things, the task force was asked to exam- ine incentives and disincentives for the commercial realization of new clean coal technologies. The task force also examined cost-effective emissions reduction measures that might be inhibited by various federal, state, and local regulations. The task force recom- mended that preference be given to projects located in states that offer certain regulatory incentives to encour- age such technologies. This recommendation was ac- cepted and became part of the project selection consid- erations beginning with CCTDP-II. Initial CCTDP emphasis was on controlling SO2 and NOx emissions from existing coal-based power genera- tors. Approaches demonstrated through the program were coal processing to produce clean fuels, combus- tion modification to control emissions, postcombustion cleanup of flue gas, and repowering with advanced power generation systems. These early efforts (projects resulting from the first three solicitations) produced a suite of cost-effective 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 archi- tects to have access to real-time data on emission control capabilities while structuring proposed acid rain regula- tions under Title IV of the CAAA. Aside from acid rain, th

area of hazardous air poas air toxics. Title III of compounds subject to cand volatile and semi-vimpacts on coal-based pprojects were leveraged grated effort among the (DOE), EPA , the Elect(EPRI), and the Utility this effort, concerns abopower generation have enabling focus on but a because NOx is a precuence of NOx in ozone nlevels, became an issueCCTDP to include techreduction in the portfolIn the course of the last a number of energy and combined to change the efficiency, very-low-emogy. Energy demand prshowed the need for copower generation, with the 21st century. The CA

sions at year 2000 level

increased attention relaFurthermore, particulatincreased scrutiny becadisorders and the tendehere to particulate matt
A-2 Program Update 2003

the growing concern over global warming, and morespecifically, the carbon dioxide (CO2) produced fromburning 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 ofchoice (if not necessity) for many developing countrieswhere projected growth in electric power generation isthe greatest. The path chosen to respond to these considerations was to pursue advanced power generation systems that could provide major enhancements in efficiency and control SO2, NOx, and particulates without

introducing external parasitic control devices. (Increasedefficiency translates to less coal consumption per unit ofenergy produced.) As a result, a number of advancedpower generation projects were undertaken, representingpioneer efforts recognized throughout the world.

CCTDP Legislative HistoryThe legislation authorizing the CCTDP is found inPublic Law 98-473, Joint Resolution Making ContinuingAppropriations for Fiscal Year 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 wasdedicated to “conducting cost-shared clean coal technology projects for the construction and operation of facilities to demonstrate the feasibility of future commercialapplications of such technology.” Title III of this actdirected the Secretary of Energy to solicit statements ofinterest 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 projectswith a total estimated cost in excess of $8 billion.After this significant initial expression of interest inclean coal demonstration projects, Public Law 99-190,enacted December 1985, appropriated $400 million toconduct cost-shared demonstration projects. Of thetotal appropriated funds, approximately $387 millionwas made available for cost-shared projects to be selected through a competitive solicitation, or ProgramOpportunity Notice (PON), referred to as CCTDP-I.(The remaining funds were required for program direction and the legislatively mandated Small BusinessInnovation 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 fromthe private sector in the Department of the Interior andRelated Agencies Appropriations Act for FY1987(Public Law 99-591, enacted October 30, 1986). Theinformation received was to be used to establish thelevel of potential industrial interest in another solicitation, this time involving clean coal technologiescapable of retrofitting, repowering, or modernizingexisting facilities. Projects were to be cost-shared, withindustry sharing at least 50 percent of the cost. As aresult of the solicitation, a total of 39 expressions ofinterest were received by DOE in January 1987.On March 18, 1987, the President announced theendorsement of the recommendations of the SpecialEnvoys on Acid Rain, including a $2.5 billion government share of funding for industry/government demonstrations of innovative control technology over a fiveyear period. The Secretary of Energy stated that thedepartment would ask Congress for an additional $350million in FY1988 and an advanced appropriation of$500 million in FY1989. Additional appropriations of$500 million would be requested in fiscal years 1990,

1991, and 1992. This reqdent on April 4, 1987.Public Law 100-202, enamended by Public Law of $575 million to condumillion was for projects, gram direction and the SThe Department of the IAppropriations Act for Fenacted September 27, 1for necessary expenses anology demonstrations iOf the total funding, aboavailable for cost-sharinfor program direction angrams. The act continued must demonstrate technorepowering existing facilrized the use of Tennessegram funds as a source ocept if provided by annuation, funds borrowed by Rtration (now Rural Utilititives from the Federal Finas cost-sharing in the CCprovided by annual approIn the Department of the Appropriations Act of 19enacted October 23, 198million for the CCTDP-Iaccording to the act, “shcapable of replacing, reting facilities and shall be tained under this head in and 100-446 as amended million was made availaprojects selected in CCTprogram direction and th
In Public Law 101-121, enacted October 23, 1989,Congress also provided $600 million for the CCTDP-Vsolicitation. CCTDP-V, according to the act, “shall besubject to all provisos contained under this head inPublic Laws 99-190, 100-202 and 100-446 as amendedby this Act.” Approximately $568 million was madeavailable for federal cofunding of projects to be selected in this solicitation, with the remainder again forprogram direction and the SBIR and STTR programs.Subsequent acts (Public Laws 101-164, 101-302,101-512, and 102-154) modified the schedule for issuing CCTDP-IV and/or CCTDP-V PONs and selectingprojects. In Public Law 101-512, Congress directedDOE to issue the PON for CCTDP-IV not later thanFebruary 1, 1991, with selections to be made within 8months. In Public Law 102-154, Congress directedDOE to issue the CCTDP-V PON not later than July 6,1992, with selections to be made within 10 months.This later act also directed that CCTDP-V proposalsshould advance significantly the efficiency and environmental performance of coal-using technologies andbe applicable to either new or existing facilities.

Public Laws 101-164, 101-302, 101-512, 103-138, and103-332 adjusted the rate at which funds were to bemade available to the program.The CCTDP funds have been further adjusted throughsequestering requirements of the Gramm-RudmanHollings Deficit Reduction Act as well asrescissions. 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.

Rescissions have reduced CCTDP appropriations asfollows:• $200 million was rescinded by Public Law 104-6.• $123 million was rescinded by Public Law 104-208.

• $17 million was res• $101 million was re• $38,000 was rescind

(general reduction).

In 1998, $40 million oferred by Public Law 1stored over a three yea1999. Again in 1999, Cfunds. In Public Law 1$156,000,000 until OcLaw 107-63, Congress tober 1, 2002. In 2003, deferred $87,000,000 uExhibit A-1 lists all the CCTDP and provides a to program funding as At the end of this appecerpted from appropriaing-related acts.

Exhibit A-1

CCTDP Legislative History

Public DateLaw Enacted CCTDP Round Program Funding Implementation Provis98-473 10/12/84 Initiation of CCTDP Rescinded $750 million of $5.375 billion from the Energy Title III required publicatio

informational Security Reserve (Synthetic Fuels Corporation) to be of interest in and proposals solicitation deposited in a U.S. Treasury Department account entitled emerging CCTs. A report to 

“Clean Coal Technology Reserve” for conducting cost-shared later than 4/15/85.clean coal technologies (CCT) projects for the construction and operation of facilities to demonstrate the feasibility for future commercial application of such technology, without fiscal year limitation, subject to subsequent annual appropriation.

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

project guidelines containecertain modifications.
A-4 Program Update 2003

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

CCTDP as described under the U.S. Treasury Department selected no later than 8/1/86. Energy Security Reserve, with the request for proposals to be provisions were detailed.for the full $400 million.

99-591 10/30/86 Second informational (Contained no funding provisions for CCTDP.) Title II required publication o

solicitation of interest in, and informatio

employing emerging CCTs crepowering, or modernizing Congress was required no lat

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

expended and $525 million for FY beginning 10/1/88 until later than 60 days following eexpended. capable of retrofitting or repo

Extended project selection froreceipt of proposals. Provided costs for preparation and submupon signing of the cooperati(H. Rep. 100-498) provided tmade available to nonutility funds were made available foH. Rep. Report 100-171 and provisions for participant to r

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

Pub. L. 100-202 was amended by striking $525 million and for emerging CCTs capable oinserting $190 million for FY beginning 10/1/88 until expended, existing facilities. Proposals $135 million for fiscal year beginning 10/1/89 until expended, issuance of the PON; projectand $200 million for FY beginning 10/1/90 until expended, than 120 days after receipt oprovided that outlays for FY89 resulting from use of fundsappropriated under Pub. L. 100-202, as amended, did not Funds borrowed by REA eleexceed $15.5 million. Federal Financing Bank were 

Funds derived by the Tennespower program were deemed except if provided by annual 

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

third solicitation. not later than 1/1/90.

101-121 10/23/89 CCTDP-IV and Made available $600 million on 10/1/90 until expended and Two solicitations (CCTDP-IV 

CCTDP-V for $600 million on 10/1/91 until expended. Pub. L. 100-446 one each appropriation, to de

was amended by striking $575 million and inserting $450 million of replacing, retrofitting, or r

Exhibit A-1 (continued)

CCTDP Legislative History

Public DateLaw Enacted CCTDP Round Program Funding Implementation Provisio
101-121 10/23/89 CCTDP-IV and to be made available on 10/1/89 until expended and $125 million subject to all provisos cont

(continued) CCTDP-V to be made available on 10/1/90. Unobligated balances excess to and 100-446 as amended. T

the needs of the procurement for which they originally were becoming available on 10/1made available may be applied to other procurements for which with selections made by 2/requests for proposals had not yet been issued, except that no funds becoming available osupplemental, backup, or contingent selection of projects could later than 9/1/91, with selecbe made over and above the projects originally selected.

101-164 11/21/89 CCTDP-IV and Appropriation for FY1990 was amended by striking $450 million and Solicitations could not be c

CCTDP-V inserting $419 million and by striking $125 million and inserting obligate funds. Repayment 

$156 million. CCTDP-V were to be the s

101-302 5/25/90 CCTDP-IV and Obligation of funds previously appropriated for CCTDP-IV and

CCTDP-V was deferred until 9/1/91.

101-512 11/5/90 CCTDP-IV and Pub. L. 101-121 was amended by striking $600 million made The CCTDP-IV solicitation 

CCTDP-V available on 10/1/90 until expended and $600 million made 2/1/91. The CCTDP-V PON 

available on 10/1/91 until expended and inserting $600 million 3/1/92. Project selections wmade available as follows: $35 million on 9/1/91, $315 million months of PON’s issuance. on 10/1/91, and $250 million on 10/1/92, all sums remaining be the same as for CCTDPuntil expended, for use in conjunction with a separate general provide protections for tradrequest for proposals, and $600 million made available as follows: information. Conference R$150 million on 10/1/91, $225 million on 10/1/92, and $225 million recommends changes to proon 10/1/93, all sums remaining until expended, for use with aseparate general request for proposals.

102-154 11/13/91 CCTDP-V Pub. L. 102-512 was amended by striking $150 million on The CCTDP-V PON was d

10/1/91 and $225 million on 10/1/92 and inserting $100 million with selection to be made won 10/1/91 and $275 million on 10/1/92. two months). The PON wa

significantly the efficiency of coal-using technologies or existing facilities. Confestated expectations that the conducted under the same gCCTDP-IV, principally morange of eligible technologtechnical criteria to consideactivities, strengthen criteriand adjust commercial perffacilities and technologies wenergy efficiency and envir

Exhibit A-1 (continued)

CCTDP Legislative History

Public DateLaw Enacted CCTDP Round Program Funding Implementation Provis
A-6 Program Update 2003

102-154 11/13/91 CCTDP-V (3) clarify and strengthen cos(continued) particularly with regard to de

Funding was allowed for proactivities for process performdesign verification, materials alternative designs on a cost-10 percent of the governmenDevelopment activities eligiblimited modifications to exisrelated testing but not constru

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 millionon 10/1/94; and by striking $275 million on 10/1/92 and $225million 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 

Programs (Title XIII; Subtitlconduct programs for RD&D of coal-based technologies. Sdirected to submit to Congreamong other things, recommin which the cost-sharing dempursuant to the Clean Coal Pbe modified and extended in demonstration of advanced c(2) periodic status reports on coal-based technologies and application attributes.

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 millionon 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 on10/1/94 and inserting $125 million on 10/1/93, $275 million on10/1/94, and $100 million on 10/1/95.

Exhibit A-1 (continued)

CCTDP Legislative History

Public DateLaw Enacted CCTDP Round Program Funding Implementation Provisio
103-332 9/30/94 Pub. L. 101-512 was amended by striking $100 million on An amount not to exceed $

10/1/94 and $50 million on 10/1/95 and inserting $18 million on may be used for administra10/1/94, $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 on10/1/95 and inserting $19.121 million on 10/1/94, $100 millionon 10/1/95, and $255.879 million on 10/1/96.

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 inFY1997, $150 million was rescinded.

104-134a 4/26/96 Conference Report (H. Rep

1977) allowed for the use ofunds for program administ

104-208b 9/30/96 Conference Report (H. Rep. 104-863 to accompany H.R. 3610) House and Senate committ

noted rescission of $123 million for FY1997 or prior years. to $16 million in available 

CCTDP in FY1997 (H. Reto 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 Conference Report allowed 

was deferred. funds for program administ

106-113 11/29/99 Of funds made available for obligation in prior years, $156 million Conference Report did not 

was deferred. $38,000 was rescinded as a result of the general $14.4 million in CCTDP fureduction.

106-291 10/11/00 Of funds made available for obligation in prior years, $67 million Conference Report (H. Rep

was deferred. Another $95 million was transferred to the Power use of up to $14.4 million iPlant Improvement Initiative. administration.

107-63 11/5/01 Of the funds made available for obligation in prior years,

$40,000,000 was deferred.

108-7 2/20/03 Of the funds made available for obligation in prior years,

$87,000,000 was deferred.

Exhibit A-1 (continued)

CCTDP Legislative History

Public DateLaw Enacted CCTDP Round Program Funding Implementation Provis

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.
A-8 Program Update 2003

Exhibit A-2

PPII Legislative History

Program FundingMade available $95,000,000 derived by transfer from fundsappropriated in prior years from the CCTDP for a general requestfor proposals for the commercial scale demonstration oftechnologies to assure the reliability of the Nation’s energysupply from existing and new electric generating facilities forwhich the Department of Energy upon review may providefinancial assistance awards.Provided that funds excess to the needs of the Power PlantImprovement Initiative procurement provided for in Public Law106-291 shall be made available for the Clean Coal PowerInitiative provided for in Public Law 107-63.

PublicLaw106-291107-63

DateEnacted10/11/0011/5/01

Implementation Provisions

dards. The program was also open to technologiesthat improve the economics and overall performanceof coal-fired power plants.Private sector proposers must at least match the government funding. Proposed technologies must be mature enough to be commercialized within the next fewyears, and the cost-shared demonstrations must belarge enough to show that the technology is viable forcommercial use.PPII Legislative HistoryThe legislation authorizing PPII is found in Public Law106-291, Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2001. Under the act,$95,000,000 was transferred from funds appropriatedin prior years under the CCTDP and made available fora general request for proposals for the commercialscale demonstration of t

ability of the nation’s ennew electric generating fwere to be spent only in governing the use of fununder which they were osions for recoupment are cept that repayments fronologies shall be from bactions, and the repaymeprojects. Congress provunder PPII shall be consogy Demonstration Projters 51, 52, and 60 of titRegulations. In Public Law 107-63, Cexcess to the needs of thavailable for the Clean CExhibit A-2 lists all the kand provides a summary gram funding as well as 

PPII Historical Perspective The roots of this program lie in the blackouts and brownouts of 1999 and 2000. The Power Plant Improve- ment Initiative (PPII) is an outgrowth of congressional direction provided in the fiscal year 2001 appropriations to DOE’s fossil energy research program. Funding was added for the program following increasing concerns over the adequacy of the nation’s power supplies. Sev- eral 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 elec- tricity and lagging construction of new power plants. Eligible projects include technologies that boost the efficiencies 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 stan-
CCPI Historical PerspectiveThe CCPI was designed to respond to tighter air emission standards, the growth in electricity consumption,and emerging new technologies. With emerging airemission regulations dealing with ozone, particulatematter (PM), and mercury, new technologies are neededto provide consistent, reliable, low-cost energy whilemeeting these standards. Electricity demand is forecasted to increase by 45 percent over the next 20 years.The rising growth rate will require the construction ofmore than 1,300 new power plants. Driven by the rise inthe digital economy, higher quality electricity is ingreater demand than ever before. New technologies coming from the computer revolution are playing an everincreasing role in the development of new power planttechnologies. Neural networks and artificial intelligencecan be used to fine-tune operations and increase efficiency at coal-fired power plants. New environmental

control technologies could reduce fine particulates and

mercury to previously unattainable levels. To meet thechallenges of tighter air emission standards, the growthin electricity consumption, and emerging new technologies, Congress appropriated funds for CCPI.

CCPI Legislative HistoryThe legislation authorizing CCPI is found in Public Law107-63, Department of Interior and Related AgenciesAppropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2002. 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 andexpanded coal use. Congress specified that no CCPIproject could be selected for which sufficient funding wasnot available to provide for the total project. Also, fundsare to be expended in accordance with the provisionsgoverning the use of funds contained under the heading“Clean Coal Technology” in prior appropriations.Congress specified certain changes to the repaymentprovisions. Specifically, DOE could include provisionsfor repayment of government contributions to individualprojects in an amount up to the government contributionto the project on terms and conditions that are acceptable to DOE, including repayments from sale and licensing of technologies from both domestic and foreigntransactions. (In the CCTDP, repayment had been limited to domestic transactions.) Also, repayments arebeing retained by DOE for future coal-related research,development and demonstration projects.As with PPII, Congress specified that any technologyselected under CCPI shall be considered a “Clean CoalTechnology,” and any project selected under CCPIshall be considered a “Clean Coal TechnologyProject,” for the purposes of 42 U.S.C. 7651n, andChapters 51, 52, and 60 of title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations.In 2003, Congress appropriated another $150,000,000for CCPI in Public law 108-7. There were no changesin the implementing provisions.Exhibit A-3 lists all key legislation relating to CCPIand provides a summary of provisions relating to program implementation. Following this section are funding provisions excerpted from appropriations.
A-10 Program Update 2003

107-63108-7

11/5/012/20/03

Made available $150,000,000, after coordination with the privatesector, for a request for proposals for a Clean Coal PowerInitiative providing for competitively-awarded research,development, and demonstration projects to reduce the barriersto continued and expanded coal use107-63.Provided that funds excess to the needs of the Power PlantImprovement Initiative procurement provided for in Public Law106-291 shall be made available for the Clean Coal PowerInitiative provided for in Public Law 107-63.Made available $150,000,000, after coordination with the privatesector, for a request for proposals for a Clean Coal PowerInitiative providing for competitively-awarded research,development, and demonstration projects to reduce the barriersto continued and expanded coal use.

No project may be selected for which sufficient fundifor the total project. Funds shall be expended in accogoverning the use of funds contained under the headiprior appropriations. Provisions for repayment of goindividual projects in an amount up to the governmenrepayments from sale and licensing of technologies frtransactions. Repayments shall be retained by DOE fodevelopment and demonstration projects. Any technoprogram shall be considered a Clean Coal Technologunder this program shall be considered a Clean Coal purposes of 42 U.S.C. 7651n, and Chapters 51, 52, anFederal Regulations: Up to 4 percent of program direNational Energy Technology Laboratory may be used Energy activities not included in this account.

PublicLaw

DateEnacted

Program Funding Implementation Provisions

Exhibit A-3

CCPI Legislative History
Public Laws—CCTDP,PPII, and CCPIPublic Law 99-190Public 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, pursuantto the Federal Nonnuclear Energy Research and Development Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5901, et seq.), issue ageneral request for proposals for clean coal technologyprojects for which the Secretary of Energy upon reviewmay provide financial assistance awards. Proposals forclean coal technology projects under this section shallbe submitted to the Department of Energy within 60days 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 theSecretary may vest fee title or other property interestsacquired under cost-shared clean coal technologyagreements in any entity, including the United States:Provided further, That the Secretary shall not financemore than 50 per centum of the total costs of a projectas estimated by the Secretary as of the date of award offinancial assistance: Provided further, That cost-sharingby project sponsors is required in each of the design,construction, and operating phases proposed to be included in a project: Provided further, That financialassistance for costs in excess of those estimated as ofthe date of award of original financial assistance maynot be provided in excess of the proportion of costsborne by the Government in the original agreement and

only up to 25 per centum of the original financial assistance: Provided further, That revenues or royaltiesfrom prospective operation of projects beyond the timeconsidered in the award of financial assistance, or proceeds from prospective sale of the assets of the project,or revenues or royalties from replication of technologyin future projects or plants are not cost-sharing for thepurposes of this appropriation: Provided further, Thatother appropriated Federal funds are not cost-sharingfor the purposes of this appropriation: Provided further,That existing facilities, equipment, and supplies, orpreviously expended research or development fundsare not cost-sharing for the purposes of this appropriation, except as amortized, depreciated, or expensed innormal 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 CoalTechnology program as described under the Departmentof the Treasury, Energy Security Reserve. Bill language isincluded which provides for the selection of projects nolater than August 1, 1986. Within that period, a generalrequest for proposals must be issued within 60 days andproposals must be submitted to the Department within 60days after issuance of the general request for proposals.

Language is also includergy to vest title in interany entity, including the cost-sharing requiremenprojects are made availaprogram in the Energy SIt is the intent of the mform of facilities and ethe extent that they woexpensed in normal bupractice shall be determnecessarily the practice erty which has been fuceive any cost-sharing has been in continuous calendar year immediathis Act. For this propeof the project may be acost-share by the propopreciated would be limthe depreciation claimestration project. Furthebusiness practice, the Svaluation for property otherwise manipulated preciation purposes or circumstances which wthe mere purpose of paThe managers agree thtax implications of proable to individual propin determining the percThis is consistent with in Department of EnergIt is the intent of the macompetition and that thkets utilizing the entire 

House Senate Conference

Fiscal year:1988 $50,000,000 $350,000,000 $50,000,0001989 200,000,000 500,000,000 525,000,0001990 100,000,000 ___________ __________Total 350,000,000 850,000,000 575,000,000
A-12 Program Update 2003

projects should be limited to the use of United Statesmined coal as the feedstock and demonstration sitesshould be located within the United States.The managers agree that no more than $1,500,000 shallbe available in FY1986 and $2,000,000 each year thereafter for contracting, travel and ancillary costs of theprogram, and that manpower costs are to be funded under the fossil energy research and development program.The managers direct the Department, after projects areselected, to provide a comprehensive report to the Congress on proposals received.The managers also expect the request for proposals tobe or the full $400,000,000 program, and not only forthe first $100,000,000 available in fiscal year 1986.Public Law 100-202Public Law 100-202, 101 Stat. 1329-1 (1987)

CLEAN COAL TECHNOLOGY

For necessary expenses of, and associated with, CleanCoal Technology demonstrations pursuant to 42 U.S.C.5901 et seq., $50,000,000 are appropriated for the fiscalyear beginning October 1, 1987, and shall remain available until expended, and $525,000,000 are appropriatedfor the fiscal year beginning October 1, 1988, and shallremain available until expended.No later than sixty days following enactment of thisAct, the Secretary of Energy shall, pursuant to the Federal Nonnuclear Energy Research and DevelopmentAct 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 repoweringexisting facilities, for which the Secretary of Energyupon review may provide financial assistance awards.Proposals under this section shall be submitted to the

Department of Energy no later than ninety days afterissuance of the general request for proposals requiredherein, and the Secretary of Energy shall make anyproject selections no later than one hundred and sixtydays after receipt of proposal: Provided, That projectsselected are subject to all provisos contained under thishead in Public Law 99-190: Provided further, That preaward costs incurred by project sponsors after selectionand before signing an agreement are allowable to theextent that they are related to (1) the preparation ofmaterial requested by the Department of Energy andidentified as required for the negotiation; or (2) thepreparation and submission of environmental data requested by the Department of Energy to complete National Environmental Policy Act requirements for theprojects: Provided further, That pre-award costs are tobe reimbursed only upon signing of the project agreement and only in the same ratio as the cost-sharing forthe total project: Provided further, That reports onprojects selected by the Secretary of Energy pursuant toauthority granted under the heading “Clean coal technology” in the Department of the Interior and RelatedAgencies Appropriations Act, 1986, as contained inPublic Law 99-190, which are received by the Speakerof the House of Representatives and the President of theSenate prior to the end of the first session of the 100thCongress shall be deemed to have met the criteria in thethird proviso of the fourth paragraph under the heading“Administrative provision, Department of Energy” in theDepartment 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 thereport by the Speaker of the House of Representativesand the President of the Senate.

Conference Report 498, 100th Cong., 1

CLEAN CO

Appropriates $575,000,0instead of $350,000,000 $850,000,000 as proposson by year is as followsBill language, proposed have prohibited using grmanagers agree that projbased on cooperative agbe applicable to support account.The managers agree to ding personnel floors for managers further agree tpersonnel and contract sagreement included 58 nemployment floors for thand 30 positions within technology funds, up to 1988 personnel-related cfor all contract costs neeand complete negotiatioments. Contract costs neprojects should be requebudget. Increases above reprogramming procedusonnel related costs for tprogram direction are to energy research and devThe length of time for seretary of Energy has bee160 days based on expercoal procurement. Once 
the Secretary should establish project milestones andguidelines for project negotiations in order to expeditethe negotiation process to the extent feasible.The managers agree that the funds provided are available for non-utility applications as well as for utilityapplications.The managers agree that no funds are provided for thedemonstration of clean coal technologies which areintended solely for new, stand alone, applications. TheSenate had proposed up to 25% of the funds be available for this purpose.Bill language has been included which provides thatreports on projects selected in the first round of cleancoal procurements that are received before the end ofthe first session of the 100th Congress will satisfy reporting requirements 30 calendar days after receipt byCongress. This provision applies to a maximum of twoproject reports.Public Law 100-446Public Law 100-446, 102 Stat. 1774 (1988)

CLEAN COAL TECHNOLOGY

For necessary expenses of, and associated with, CleanCoal 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 ageneral request for proposals issued pursuant to this appropriation shall demonstrate technologies capable ofretrofitting or repowering existing facilities and shall besubject 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 fiscal year beginning October 1, 1988” and inserting “$190,000,000 are appropriated for the fiscal year beginning October 1, 1988, and shall remain available until expended, $135,000,000 are ap- propriated for the fiscal year beginning October 1, 1989, and shall remain available until expended, and $200,000,000 are appropriated for the fiscal year begin- ning October 1, 1990”: Provided, That outlays in fiscal 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 cost-sharing requirement, except to the extent that such funds are provided by annual appropriations Acts: Pro- vided, That unexpended balances of funds made avail- able in the “Energy Security Reserve” account in the Treasury for the Clean Coal Technology Program by the Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Acts, 1986, as contained in section 101(d) of Public Law 99-190, shall be merged with this account: Provided further, That for the purposes of the sixth proviso in Public Law 99-190 under this heading, funds provided under section 306 of Public Law 93-32 shall be considered non-Federal: Provided further, That reports on projects selected by the Secretary of Energy pursuant to authority granted under the heading “Clean coal technology” in the Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1986, as con- tained in Public Law 99-190, which are received by the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the Presi- dent of the Senate prior to the end of the second ses- sion of the 100th Congress shall be deemed to have met the criteria in the third proviso of the fourth para- graph under the headin

Department Energy” in and Related Agencies Acontained in Public Lacalendar days from recof the House of Represthe Senate. Conference Repor862, 100th Cong., 

CLEAN C

Amendment No. 131: Rment. The managers on a motion to recede and Senate with an amendmIn lieu of the matter prsert the following: For ciated with, Clean Coapursuant to 42 U.S.C. be made available on Omain available until exselected pursuant to a gissued pursuant to this technologies capable oisting facilities and shatained under this head 202 as amended by thiThe managers on the pconcur in the amendmement of the Senate. Th$575,000,000 in fiscal Technology procuremeand clarifies that the prrepowering technologisharing provisions of th
A-14 Program Update 2003

The managers agree that a request for proposals shouldbe issued by May 1, 1989, with proposals due no laterthan 120 days after issuance of the request for proposals, and that the Secretary of Energy should makeproject selections no later than 120 days after receipt ofproposals.Amendment No. 132: Reported in technical disagreement. The managers on the part of the House will offera motion to recede and concur in the amendment of theSenate with an amendment as follows:Restore the matter stricken by said amendment,amended to read as follows: The first paragraph underthis head in Public Law 100-202 is amended by striking “and $525,000,000 are appropriated for the fiscalyear beginning October 1, 1988” and inserting“$190,000,000 are appropriated for the fiscal yearbeginning October 1, 1988, and shall remain availableuntil expended, $135,000,000 are appropriated for thefiscal year beginning October 1, 1989, and shall remainavailable until expended, and $200,000,000 are appropriated for the fiscal year beginning October 1, 1990”:Provided, That outlays in fiscal year 1989 resultingfrom the use of funds appropriated under this head inPublic Law 100-202, as amended by this Act, may notexceed $15,500,000: Provided further, That these actions are taken pursuant to section 202(b)(1) of PublicLaw 100-119 (2 U.S.C. 909).The managers on the part of the Senate will move toconcur in the amendment of the House to the amendment of the Senate. The amendment changes the availability of $525,000,000 originally made available forfiscal 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 andalso provides an outlay ceiling in fiscal year 1989. TheHouse had proposed $100,000,000 in fiscal year 1989,$225,000,000 in fiscal year 1990, and $200,000,000 in

fiscal year 1989, $225,000,000 in fiscal year 1990, and$200,000,000 in fiscal year 1991, and the Senate struckthe House language.Both of these changes are necessary because of budgetallocation constraints, but neither action has an effecton the execution of the Clean Coal program, or on theCongress’ overall support for the program, as is evidenced by additional appropriations provided for athird 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 ceilingprovided will be sufficient to cover project costs.Amendment No. 133: Modifies public law citation asproposed by the Senate.Amendment No. 134: Reported in technical disagreement. The managers on the part of the House will offera motion to recede and concur in the amendment of theSenate which clarifies that funds borrowed by REAElectric Cooperatives from the Federal Financing Bankare eligible as cost-sharing in the clean coal technologyprogram.Amendment No. 135: Reported in technical disagreement. The managers on the part of the House will offera motion to recede and concur in the amendment of theSenate which specifies clean coal projects may proceed30 calendar days after receipt by Congress of requiredreports, provided the reports are received prior to theend of the 100th Congress.

Public Law 101-Public Law 101-45, 

CLEAN CO

Notwithstanding any otoriginally appropriated partment of the Interior propriations Act, 1989, solicitation of clean coaprojects, which projectDepartment not later thPublic Law 101-Public Law 101-121

CLEAN CO

For necessary expenses Coal Technology demon5901 et seq., $600,000,0October 1, 1990, and shaexpended, and $600,000on October 1, 1991, and expended: Provided, Tha separate general requeant to each of these apprtechnologies capable of powering existing facilitprovisos contained unde190, 100-202, and 100-4Provided further, That thusing funds becoming avunder this paragraph sha1, 1990, and projects resmust be selected no later vided further, That the g
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 asolicitation must be selected no later than May 1, 1992.The first paragraph under this head in Public Law 100-446is amended by striking “$575,000,000 shall be made available on October 1, 1989” and inserting “$450,000,000 shallbe made available on October 1, 1989, and shall remainavailable until expended, and $125,000,000 shall be madeavailable on October 1, 1990”: Provided, That these actionsare taken pursuant to section 202(b)(1) of Public Law 100-119 (2 U.S.C. 909).With regard to funds made available under this head inthis and previous appropriations Acts, unobligatedbalances excess to the needs of the procurement forwhich 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 notbeen made as of the date of enactment of this Act nosupplemental, backup, or contingent selection ofprojects shall be made over and above projects originally selected for negotiation and utilization of available funds: Provided further, That reports on projectsselected by the Secretary of Energy pursuant to authority granted under this heading which are received bythe Speaker of the House of Representatives and thePresident of the Senate less than 30 legislative daysprior to the end of the first session of the 101st Congress shall be deemed to have met the criteria in thethird proviso of the fourth paragraph under the heading“Administrative provisions, Department of Energy” inthe Department of the Interior and Related AgenciesAppropriations Act, 1986, as contained in Public Law99-190, 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 theend 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 offera motion to recede and concur in the amendment of heSenate which adds the word “replacing” to the definition of clean coal technology. The managers agree thatthe inclusion of “replacing” for clean coal IV and V isintended to cover the complete replacement of an existing facility if because of design or site specific limitations, repowering or retrofitting of the plant is not adesirable option.Amendment No. 113: Appropriates $450,000,000 forfiscal year 1990 for clean coal technology instead of$500,000,000 as proposed by the House and$325,000,000 as proposed by he Senate. This appropriation along with $125,000,000 provided for fiscalyear 1991 in Amendment 114 fully funds the thirdround of clean coal technology projects. The managersagree that additional manpower is required, particularlyat the Department’s Energy Technology Centers, inorder to manage adequately the increased workloadfrom the accumulation of active clean coal technologyprojects and the inclusion of additional procurementsin this bill. Although a legislative floor is not included,the managers agree that at least eighty personnel willbe required in addition to the approximately thirtyFTE’s now included in the fossil energy research anddevelopment appropriation. The managers agree further that funds from the fossil energy research and development appropriation should not be used to pay thecost of more than the equivalent FTE’s paid under thataccount in fiscal year 1989.Amendment No. 114: Reported in technical disagreement. The managers on the part of the House will offer

a motion to recede and Senate with an amendmIn lieu of the matter stramendment, insert: and expended, and $125,00The managers on the pacur in the amendment othe Senate. The amendmfiscal year 1991 for the curement instead of $75House and $100,000,00Amendment No 115: Dpriation of $150,000,0coal technology. The Hpriation.Amendment No. 116: Rby the Senate which probackup, or contingent ptechnology procuremenAmendment No. 117: stricken by the Senate

Public Law 101Public Law 101-16

CLEAN C

The second paragraph unmaking appropriations foand Related Agencies fo30, 1990, is amended by serting “$419,000,000” aand inserting “$156,000
A-16 Program Update 2003

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) forthe “Nuclear Waste Disposal Fund” by $46,000,000.This reduction will make funds available for the drugprevention effort.The managers have agreed to reductions to the Interiorand Related Agencies Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year1990 (Public Law 101-121) in order to accommodateadditional drug related appropriations.The reductions are in three areas. The new budget authority for Clean Coal Technology of $450,000,000 forfiscal year 1990 is reduced by $31,000,000 with thissame amount added to the advance appropriation forfiscal year 1991. With this change the new amount forfiscal year 1990 is $419,000,000 while fiscal year 1991increases to $156,000,000. The second area of change isthe imposition of an outlay ceiling on Strategic Petroleum Reserve oil acquisition. Outlays will be reducedfrom an estimated $169,945,000 to $147,125,000 andwill decrease the fill rate from approximately 50,000barrels per day to approximately 46,000 or 47,000 barrels per day. The third reduction relates to the Pennsylvania Avenue Development Corporation. The borrowingauthority is reduced from $5,000,000 to $100,000.The conference agreement includes bill language reducing the amount of funds transferred from trust fundsto the Health Care Financing Administration ProgramManagement 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 1990Labor, Health and Human Services, and Educationappropriations bill, will be sufficient to support thesubcommittee’s share of the cost of anti-drug abusefunding. The conferees intend that the reduction in trust

fund transfers be associated with activities to implement catastrophic health insurance, where fundingneeds may be diminished.

Public Law 101-302Public Law 101-302, 104 Stat. 213 (1990)

CLEAN COAL TECHNOLOGY

Funds previously appropriated under this head forclean coal technology solicitations to be issued no laterthan 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 toobligate these funds: Provided further, That pursuant tosection 202(b) of the Balanced Budget and EmergencyDeficit Control Reaffirmation Act of 1987, this actionis a necessary (but secondary) result of a significantpolicy change: Provided further, That for the clean coal

solicitations identified herein, provisions included forthe repayment of government contributions to individual projects shall be identical to those included inthe Program Opportunity Notice (PON) for Clean CoalTechnology III (CCTDP-III) Demonstration Projects(solicitation number DE-PSO1-89 FE 61825), issuedby 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 offera motion to recede and concur in the amendment of thesenate with an amendment as follows:In lieu of the matter proposed by said amendmentinsert:

DEPARTM

CLEAN CO

Funds previously appropclean coal technology sothan June 1, 1990, and n1991, respectively, shall ber 1, 1991: Provided, Ttations shall not be condobligate these funds: Prosection 202 (b) of the BaDeficit Control reaffirma necessary (but secondapolicy change: Provided solicitations identified hthe repayment of governvidual projects shall be ithe Program Opportunity Technology III (CCTDP(solicitation number DEthe Department of EnergThe managers on the parconcur in the amendmenment of the Senate.The amendment delays thtechnology solicitations aspecifies that, when issuerepayment provisions usetation. This provision was duced bill (H.R. 4828) anto the original Dire EmergThe managers agree that proposed by a House autmodify the Clean Coal Tresolved before a reasonaThe proposed delay will The managers have added sions dealing with the rep
funds will remain the same as the third round of procurements. These provisions were developed over a four yearperiod based on experience of previous procurements andnegotiations, and input from industrial participants, Congress, and the managers of the program. They appear tobe working well.Based on the long-term experience, and the clear factthat implementation of this type of technology willbecome even more important with passage of clean airlegislation, the managers reject proposals put forth bythe Department of Energy to increase rates substantially. Such proposals, while they might increase therecovery of government-provided funds over periodsof up to 20 years, might also act as a deterrent to industrial participation in the program, which is already over50 percent cost-shared by industry. The purpose of theprogram is to accelerate the introduction of clean usesof coal in a more efficient manner in compliance withstringent new air quality standards, not the provision ofinvestment returns to the Government at the expense ofnascent markets.Public Law 101-512Public Law 101-512, 104 Stat. 1915 (1990)

CLEAN COAL TECHNOLOGY

The first paragraph under this head in Public Law101-121 is amended by striking “$600,000,000 shall bemade available on October 1, 1990, and shall remainavailable until expended, and $600,000,000 shall bemade available on October 1, 1991, and shall remainavailable until expended” and inserting “$600,000,000shall be made available as follows: $35,000,000 onSeptember 1, 1991, $315,000,000 on October 1, 1991,and $250,000,000 on October 1, 1992, all such sums toremain 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 onOctober 1, 1992, and $225,000,000 on October 1,1993, all such sums to remain available until expendedfor use in conjunction with a separate general requestfor proposals”: Provided, That these actions are takenpursuant to section 202(b)(1) of Public Law 100-119 (2

U.S.C. 909): Provided further, That a fourth generalrequest for proposals shall be issued not later than February 1, 1991, and a fifth general request for proposalsshall be issued not later than March 1, 1992: Providedfurther, That project proposals resulting from suchsolicitations shall be selected not later than eightmonths after the date of the general request for proposals: Provided further, That for clean coal solicitations

required herein, provisions included for the repaymentof government contributions to individual projects shallbe identical to those included in the Program Opportunity Notice (PON) for Clean Coal Technology III(CCTDP-III) Demonstration Projects (solicitationnumber DE-PS01-89 FE 61825), issued by the Department of Energy on May 1, 1989: Provided further, Thatfunds provided under this head in this or any otherappropriations Act shall be expended only in accordance with the provisions governing the use of suchfunds contained under this head in this or any otherappropriations Act.With regard to funds made available under this head inthis and previous appropriations Acts, unobligatedbalances excess to the needs of the procurement forwhich they originally were made available may be applied to other procurements for use on projects forwhich cooperative agreements are in place, within thelimitations and proportions of Government financingincreases currently allowed by law: Provided, That the

Department of Energy, for a period of up to five (5)years after completion of the operations phase of a

cooperative agreement tections, including exechapter 5 of title 5, Undissemination of informstration activities condTechnology Program aor commercial or finanleged or confidential if tained from and first prparticipating in a Clean Provided further, That, manent Federal employPublic Law 97-257, as time Federal employeetant Secretary for Fossprograms under this hethis head in this and anof which 35 shall be foMETC: Provided furthlected by the Secretary granted under this headSpeaker of the House odent of the Senate less the end of the second sshall be deemed to havproviso of the fourth pAdministrative provisithe Department of the IAppropriations Act, 1999-190, upon expiratioceipt of the report by thresentatives and the Prend of the session, whi
A-18 Program Update 2003

Conference Report (H.R. Conf. Rep. No.971, 101st Cong., 2nd Sess. [1990])

CLEAN COAL TECHNOLOGY

Amendment No. 142: Provides $35,000,000 for cleancoal technology on September 1, 1991 as proposed bythe House instead of $100,000,000 as proposed by theSenate. This amendment and Amendment No. 143 shiftthe availability of $65,000,000 from fiscal year 1991 tofiscal year 1992.Amendment No. 143: Provides $315,000,000 for cleancoal technology on October 1, 1991 as proposed by theHouse instead of $250,000,000 as proposed by theSenate. This amendment and Amendment No. 142 shiftthe availability of $65,000,000 from fiscal year 1991 tofiscal year 1992.Amendment No. 144: Provides dates for two solicitations for clean coal technology as proposed by theSenate. The date for CCTDP-IV is amended to February 1, 1991 from January 1, 1991. The date forCCTDP-V is not changed from the Senate date ofMarch 1, 1992.The managers have agreed to a February 1, 1991 datefor the next solicitation to enable the Department topublish a draft solicitation for comment by interestedparties. It is expected that there will be changes toevaluation criteria and other factors that make it imperative that potential proposers have an opportunityto comment on the content of the solicitation.The managers urge the Department to include potential benefits to remote, import-dependent sites as aprogram policy factor in evaluating proposals. TheDepartment should also consider projects which canprovide multiple fuel resource options for regionswhich are more than seventy-five percent dependenton one fuel form for total energy requirements.

Amendment No. 145: Requires selection of projectswithin eight months of the requests for proposals required by Amendment No. 144 as proposed by theSenate. The House had no such provision.Amendment No. 146: Requires repayment of government contributions to projects under conditions identicalto the most recent clean coal solicitation as proposed bythe Senate. The House had no such provision.Amendment No. 147: Provides that funds for cleancoal technology may be expended only under conditions contained in appropriations Acts. The Senatelanguage had prohibited geographic restrictions onthe expenditure of funds. The House had no suchprovision. The managers direct that no preferentialconsideration be given to any project referencedexplicitly or implicitly in other legislation.The managers agree to delete bill language dealingwith geographic restrictions based on such restrictionsbeing 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 managersagree 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 30full-time equivalent positions from fossil energy research and development may be used in the clean coalprogram in fiscal year 1991.

Public Law 102-154Public Law 102-154, 105 Stat. 990 (1991)

CLEAN COAL TECHNOLOGY

The first paragraph under this head in Public Law101-512 is amended by striking the phrase

“$150,000,000 on OctobOctober 1, 1992” and insOctober 1, 1991, $275,0Notwithstanding the issurequest for proposals un101-512, such request folater than July 6, 1992, aunder this head in Public time interval for selectiosuch solicitation, project fifth general request for later than ten months aftgeneral request for propthe fifth general request to all provisos contained appropriations Acts unleNotwithstanding the proous appropriations Acts, the fifth general request significantly the efficienmance of coal-using techeither new or existing faperiods may be used in land operating phases for Provided further, That thmore than 50 per centum budget period: Provided development activities ftion, component design vtion, and evaluation of afunded on a cost-shared centum of the GovernmeProvided further, That dfor cost-sharing may incexisting facilities for proinclude construction of n
With regard to funds made available under this head inthis and previous appropriations Acts, unobligated balances excess to the needs of the procurement for whichthey originally were made available may be applied toother procurements for use on projects for which cooperative agreements are in place, within the limitations andproportions of Government financing increases currentlyallowed by law: Provided, That hereafter, the Departmentof Energy, for a period of up to five years after completionof the operations phase of a cooperative agreement mayprovide appropriate protections, including exemptionsfrom subchapter II of chapter 5 of title 5, United StatesCode, against the dissemination of information that resultsfrom demonstration activities conducted under the CleanCoal Technology Program and that would be a trade secret or commercial or financial information that is privileged or confidential if the information had been obtainedfrom and first produced by a non-Federal party participating in a Clean Coal Technology project: Provided further,That hereafter, in addition to the full-time permanentFederal employees specified in section 303 of PublicLaw 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 programsunder this head using funds available under this head inthis and any other appropriations Act and of which notless than 35 shall be for PETC and not less than 30 shallbe for METC: Provided further, That hereafter reportson projects selected by the Secretary of Energy pursuantto authority granted under this heading which are received by the Speaker of the House of Representativesand the President of the Senate less than 30 legislativedays prior to the end of each session of Congress shallbe deemed to have met the criteria in the third proviso ofthe fourth paragraph under the heading “Administrativeprovisions, Department of Energy” in the Department ofthe 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 Presi- dent 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 offera motion to recede and concur in the amendment of theSenate with an amendment as follows:In lieu of the matter stricken and inserted by saidamendment insert:Notwithstanding the issuance date for the fifth generalrequest for proposals under this head in Public Law101-512, such request for proposals shall be issued notlater than July 6, 1992, and notwithstanding the provisounder this head in Public Law 101-512 regarding thetime interval for selection of proposals resulting fromsuch solicitation, project proposals resulting from thefifth general request for proposals shall be selected notlater than ten months after the issuance date of the fifthgeneral request for proposals: Provided, That hereafterthe fifth general request for proposals.The managers on the part of the Senate will move toconcur in the amendment of the House to the amendment of the Senate.The amendment changes the issuance date for the fifthgeneral request for proposals to July 6, 1992 instead ofMarch 1, 1992 as proposed by the House and August 10,1992 as proposed by the Senate and the allowable lengthof time from issuance of the request for proposals toselection of projects to ten months. The amendment alsodeletes Senate proposed bill language pertaining to asixth general request for proposals as discussed below.

The managers agree ththe procurement proceals should include an apreparation of proposato an additional month view and evaluation of the process for the fourThe managers have agrregarding a sixth round funding will be providunobligated and unneeavailable from the first Secretary on available the Senate amendmentreport should be submiCommittees on Approp1994. Based on that repditions for the sixth rouyear 1995 appropriatioThe managers expect tconducted under the sathe fourth solicitation pinclude the wider range applications; (2) to adjallowable developmenfor non-utility demonstcial performance critertechnologies with regaefficiency and environmclarify and strengthen clarly with regard to devAmendment No. 166: Rby the Senate which reproposals. The Senate both a fifth and a sixth Amendment No. 167: Rment. The managers on 
A-20 Program Update 2003

a motion to recede and concur in the amendment of theSenate which directs the Secretary of Energy toreobligate up to $44,000,000 from the fourth round ofClean Coal Technology proposals to a proposal rankedhighest in its specific technology category by theSource Evaluation Board if other than the highest ranking project in that category was selected originally bythe Secretary, and if such funds become unobligatedand are sufficient to fund such projects. This amendment would earmark such funds, if they become available, to a specific project not chosen in the Departmentof Energy selection process for the fourth round ofClean Coal Technology.Amendment No. 168: Technical amendment whichdeletes House proposed punctuation and numbering asproposed by the Senate.Amendment No. 169: Deletes House proposed language which made unobligated funds available forprocurements for which requests for proposals have notbeen issued.Amendment No. 170: Reported in technical disagreement. The managers on the part of the House will offera motion to recede and concur in the amendment of theSenate which adds “not less than” to employment floorlanguage for PETC as proposed by the Senate. TheHouse had no such language.Amendment No. 171: Reported in technical disagreement. The managers on the part of the House will offera motion to recede and concur in the amendment of theSenate which adds “not less than” to employment floorlanguage for METC as proposed by the Senate. TheHouse had no such language.

Public Law 102-381Public Law 102-381, 106 Stat. 1374 (1992)

CLEAN COAL TECHNOLOGY

The first paragraph under this head in Public Law101-512, as amended, is further amended by strikingthe phrase “and $250,000,000 on October 1, 1992” andinserting “$150,000,000 on October 1, 1993, and$100,000,000 on October 1, 1994” and by striking thephrase “$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 $250,000,000on October 1, 1994”.Public Law 103-138Public Law 103-138, 107 Stat. 1379 (1993)

CLEAN COAL TECHNOLOGY

The first paragraph under this head in Public Law101-512, as amended, is further amended by strikingthe 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 onOctober 1, 1994, and $50,000,000 on October 1,1995” and by striking the phrase “$250,000,000 onOctober 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-Public Law 103-332

CLEAN CO

The first paragraph unde101-512, as amended, is the phrase “$100,000,00$50,000,000 on October “$18,000,000 on OctobeOctober 1, 1995, and $31996”; and by striking thOctober 1, 1994, and $11995” and inserting “$1$100,000,000 on Octobeon October 1, 1996”: Pr$18,000,000 available in for administrative oversiogy program.Public Law 104-Public Law 104-6, 1

CLEAN CO

(RE

Of the funds made availobligation in fiscal year scinded and of the funds heading for obligation in $150,000,000 are rescinmade available in previoavailable for any ongoinseparate request for propwas selected.
Public Law 104-134Conference 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 fundsfor administration of the clean coal program.Public Law 104-208Public Law 104-208, 110 Stat. 3009 (1996)

CLEAN COAL TECHNOLOGY

(RESCISSION)

Of the funds made available under this heading for obligation in fiscal year 1997 or prior years, $123,000,000are rescinded: Provided, That funds made available inprevious appropriations Acts shall be available for anyongoing project regardless of the separate request forproposal 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 fiscal year 1997 or prior years, $123,000,000are rescinded: Provided, That funds made available inprevious appropriations Acts shall be available for anyongoing project regardless of the separate request forproposal under which the project was selected.

Senate Report (S. Rep. No. 319, 104thCong., 2nd Sess. [1996])The Committee does not object to the use of up to$16,000,000 in available funds for administration ofthe clean coal program in fiscal year 1997.House Report (H.R. Rep. No. 625, 104thCong., 2nd Sess. [1996])The Committee does not object to the use of up to$16,000,000 in available funds for administration ofthe clean coal program in fiscal year 1997.Public Law 105-18Public Law 105-18, 111 Stat. 158 (1997)

CLEAN COAL TECHNOLOGY

(RESCISSION)

Of the funds made available under this heading for obligation in fiscal year 1997 or prior years, $17,000,000are rescinded: Provided, That funds made available inprevious appropriations Acts shall be available for anyongoing project regardless of the separate request forproposal under which the project was selected.Public Law 105-83Public Law 105-83, 111 Stat. 37 (1997)Of the funds made available under this heading for obligation in fiscal year 1997 or prior years, $101,000,000are rescinded: Provided, That funds made available inprevious appropriations Acts shall be available for anyongoing project regardless of the separate request forproposal under which the project was selected.

Public Law 105Public Law 105-27

CLEAN C

(D

Of the funds made avaobligation in prior yearshall not be available u$15,000,000 shall not b2000; and $15,000,000 October 1, 2001: Proviin previous appropriatiany ongoing project refor proposal under whiConference Repor825, 105th Cong. 2

CLEAN C

The conference agreem$40,000,000 in previouclean coal technology pate. The House did not Committees agree that administration of the clPublic Law 106Public Law 106-11

CLEAN C

(D

Of the funds made avaobligation in prior yearavailable until October made available in prev
A-22 Program Update 2003

available for any ongoing project regardless of theseparate request for proposal under which the projectwas 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 theclean coal technology program as proposed by the Senate instead of a deferral of $256,000,000 as proposed bythe House. The managers agree that up to $14,400,00may be used for program direction.Public Law 106-291Public 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 availableuntil October 1, 2001: Provided, That funds made available in previous appropriations Acts shall be availablefor 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 energyresearch 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 facilityacquisition or expansion, and for conducting inquiries, technological investigations and research concerning the extraction, processing, use, and disposalof mineral substances without objectionable socialand environmental costs (30 U.S.C. 3, 1602, and1603), performed under the minerals and materialsscience programs at the Albany Research Center inOregon $ 540,653,000, to remain available untilexpended, of which $ 12,000,000 for oil technologyresearch shall be derived by transfer from funds appropriated in prior years under the heading “StrategicPetroleum Reserve, SPR Petroleum Account” and ofwhich $ 95,000,000 shall be derived by transfer fromfunds appropriated in prior years under the heading“Clean Coal Technology”, such funds to be availablefor a general request for proposals for the commercialscale demonstration of technologies to assure the reliability of the Nation’s energy supply from existingand new electric generating facilities for which theDepartment of Energy upon review may provide financial assistance awards: Provided, That the requestfor 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 daysafter the issuance of the request for proposals, and theDepartment of Energy shall make project selectionsno later than one hundred and sixty days after thereceipt of proposals: Provided further, That no fundsare to be obligated for selected proposals prior toSeptember 30, 2001: Provided further, That fundsprovided shall be expended only in accordance withthe provisions governing the use of funds containedunder the heading under which they were originallyappropriated: Provided further, That provisions forrepayment of government contributions to individualprojects shall be identical to those included in theProgram Opportunity Notice (Solicitation Number

DE-PS01-89FE61825), Energy on May 1, 1989sale or licensing of techdomestic and foreign traThat such repayments shto be retained for future That any project approvconsidered a Clean Coal Project, for the purposes title 40 of the Code of Ffurther, That no part of shall be used for the fiesives in the recovery of That up to 4 percent of able to the National Enmay be used to support ties not included in this Public Law 107-Public Law 107-63, 

CLEAN CO

(DE

Of the funds made availabtion in prior years, $40,00until October 1, 2002: Proable in previous appropriaany ongoing project regarproposal under which the 

FOSSIL ENERGY RES

(INCLUDING T

For necessary expenses research and developmeity of the Department of (Public Law 95-91), inclest, including defeasible 
real property or any facility or for plant or facility acquisition or expansion, and for conducting inquiries,technological investigations and research concerningthe extraction, processing, use, and disposal of mineralsubstances without objectionable social and environmental costs (30 U.S.C. 3, 1602, and 1603),$616,490,000, to remain available until expended, ofwhich $11,000,000 is to begin a 7-year project for construction, renovation, furnishing, and demolition orremoval of buildings at National Energy TechnologyLaboratory facilities in Morgantown, West Virginia andPittsburgh, 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 fundsappropriated in prior years under the heading ‘CleanCoal Technology’, and of which $150,000,000 andsuch sums as may be appropriated in fiscal year 2003are to be made available, after coordination with theprivate sector, for a request for proposals for a CleanCoal Power Initiative providing for competitivelyawarded demonstrations of commercial scale technologies to reduce the barriers to continued and expandedcoal use: Provided, That the request for proposals shallbe issued no later than 120 days following enactmentof this Act, proposals shall be submitted no later than150 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 selectedfor which sufficient funding is not available to providefor the total project: Provided further, That funds shallbe expended in accordance with the provisions governing the use of funds contained under the heading ‘CleanCoal Technology’ in prior appropriations: Provided further, That the Department may include provisions forrepayment of Government contributions to individualprojects in an amount up to the Government contribution

to the project on terms and conditions that are acceptable to the Department including repayments from saleand licensing of technologies from both domestic andforeign transactions: Provided further, That such repayments shall be retained by the Department for futurecoal-related research, development and demonstrationprojects: Provided further, That any technology selectedunder this program shall be considered a Clean CoalTechnology, and any project selected under this programshall be considered a Clean Coal Technology Project,for the purposes of 42 U.S.C. Sec. 7651n, and Chapters51, 52, and 60 of title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations: Provided further, That funds excess to the needs ofthe Power Plant Improvement Initiative procurementprovided for under this heading in Public Law 106-291shall 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 madeavailable shall be used for the field testing of nuclearexplosives in the recovery of oil and gas: Providedfurther, That up to 4 percent of program direction fundsavailable to the National Energy Technology Laboratory may be used to support Department of Energyactivities not included in this account.

Public Law 108-7Public Law 108-7, 117 Stat. 11 (2003)

CLEAN COAL TECHNOLOGY

(DEFERRAL)

Of the funds made available under this heading forobligation in prior years, $87,000,000 shall not beavailable until October 1, 2003: Provided, That fundsmade available in previous appropriations Acts shall beavailable for any ongoing project regardless of theseparate request for proposal under which the projectwas selected.

FOSSIL ENERGY RE

For necessary expenses research and developmof the Department of EnLaw 95-91), including ting defeasible and equierty or any facility or foexpansion, and for condinvestigations and reseaprocessing, use, and disout objectionable sociaU.S.C. 3, 1602, and 160available until expendecontinue a multi-year ption, furnishing, and deat National Energy TechMorgantown, West Virgnia; and of which $150able, after coordination request for proposals foproviding for competitiment, and demonstratioto continued and expanproject may be selected not available to provide further, That funds shalthe provisions governinunder the heading “Cleappropriations: Providemay include provisions contributions to individthe Government contribconditions that are acceing repayments from safrom both domestic and further, That such repayDepartment for future cment and demonstration 
A-24 Program Update 2003

any technology selected under this program shall beconsidered a Clean Coal Technology, and any projectselected under this program shall be considered a CleanCoal Technology Project, for the purposes of 42 U.S.C.7651n, and Chapters 51, 52, and 60 of title 40 of theCode of Federal Regulations: Provided further, That nopart of the sum herein made available shall be used for thefield testing of nuclear explosives in the recovery of oiland gas: Provided further, That up to 4 percent of programdirection funds available to the National Energy Technology Laboratory may be used to support Department ofEnergy activities not included in this account.
Appendix B. Program HistoryCCTDP Solicitation HistoryThe objective of the CCTDP-I solicitation, issuedFebruary 17, 1986, was to seek cost-shared projects todemonstrate the feasibility of clean coal technologiesfor commercial applications. The Clean Coal Technology Demonstration Program (CCTDP) ProgramOpportunity Notice (PON) elicited 51 proposals. Nineprojects were selected and 14 projects were placed ona list of alternatives in the event negotiations on theoriginal 9 projects were unsuccessful; 8 alternativeprojects were eventually selected as replacementprojects. Projects were selected from the list ofalternatives on three separate occasions.The CCTDP-II PON, issued February 22, 1988,solicited cost-shared, innovative clean coal technologyprojects to demonstrate technologies that were capableof being commercialized in the 1990s, more costeffective than current technologies, and capable ofachieving significant reductions in SO2 and/or NOxemissions from existing coal-burning facilities, particularly those that contribute to transboundary air pollution.The CCTDP-II PON was the first solicitation implementing the recommendations of the U.S. and CanadianSpecial Envoys’ report on acid rain. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) received 55 proposals andselected 16 as best furthering the goals and objectives ofthe PON (no alternatives were selected).

The objective of the CCTDP-III PON, issued May 1,1989, was to solicit cost-shared clean coal technologyprojects to demonstrate innovative, energy-efficienttechnologies capable of being commercialized in the1990s. These technologies were to be capable of (1)achieving significant reductions in emissions of SO2

and/or NOx from existing facilities to minimize

environmental impacts, such as transboundary andinterstate air pollution; and/or (2) providing for futureenergy needs in an environmentally acceptable manner.DOE received 48 proposals and selected 13 projects asbest furthering the goals and objectives of the PON.The CCTDP-IV PON, issued January 17, 1991, solicitedproposals to conduct cost-shared clean coal technologyprojects to demonstrate innovative, energy-efficient,economically competitive technologies. These technologies were to be capable of (1) retrofitting, repowering, orreplacing existing facilities while achieving significantreductions in the emissions of SO2, NOx, or both, and/or

(2) providing for future energy needs in an environmentally acceptable manner. A total of 33 proposals weresubmitted in response to the PON. Nine projects wereselected.The objective of the CCTDP-V PON, issued July 6, 1992,was to solicit proposals to conduct cost-shared demonstration projects that significantly advance the efficiency andenvironmental performance of coal-using technologiesand are applicable to either new or existing facilities. Inresponse to the solicitation, DOE received proposals for24 projects and selected 5 projects.

CCTDP SelNegotiation The following is a histtions for the CCTDP PJuly 1986Nine projects were selealternative projects selprojects if negotiations March 1987DOE signed cooperativI participants, Coal TecCyclone Combustor wAsh Control) and The PFBC Demonstration PJune 1987DOE signed a cooperaparticipant, The BabcoMcDermott TechnologProject Extension and July 1987DOE signed a cooperaparticipant, Energy and Corporation (EnhancinReburning and Sorben
B-2 Program Update 2003

September 1987General Electric Company withdrew its proposal(Integrated Coal Gasification Steam Injection GasTurbine Demonstration Plants with Hot Gas Cleanup).October 1987Weirton Steel Corporation withdrew its proposal,Direct Iron Ore Reduction to Replace Coke Oven/BlastFurnace for Steelmaking, from further consideration.Four more CCTDP-I projects were selected: ColoradoUte Electric Association, Inc. (Nucla CFB DemonstrationProject); TRW, Inc. (Advanced Slagging Coal CombustorUtility Demonstration Project); Minnesota Department ofNatural Resources (COREX Ironmaking DemonstrationProject); and Foster Wheeler Power Systems, Inc. (CleanEnergy IGCC Demonstration Project).December 1987DOE signed cooperative agreements with two moreCCTDP-I participants, Ohio Ontario Clean Fuels, Inc.,(Prototype Commercial Coal/Oil CoprocessingProject) and Energy International, Inc. (UndergroundCoal Gasification Demonstration Project).January 1988DOE signed a cooperative agreement with The M.W.Kellogg Company and Bechtel Development Companyfor a CCTDP-I project, The Appalachian IGCCDemonstration Project.September 1988Sixteen projects were selected under CCTDP-II.November 1988DOE signed a cooperative agreement with CCTDP-Iparticipant, TRW, Inc. (Advanced Slagging CoalCombustor Utility Demonstration Project).

December 1988Negotiations were terminated with Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (COREX IronmakingDemonstration Project) under CCTDP-I.DOE selected three more CCTDP-I projects: ABBCombustion Engineering, Inc. and CQ Inc. (Development of the Coal Quality ExpertTM); Western EnergyCompany (formerly Rosebud SynCoal Partnership,now Western SynCoal LLC; Advanced Coal Conversion Process Demonstration); and United CoalCompany (Coal Waste Recovery Advanced Technology Demonstration).June 1989The City of Tallahassee CCTDP-I project, ACFBRepowering, was selected from the alternative list.The M.W. Kellogg Company and Bechtel Development Company withdrew their CCTDP-I project, CleanEnergy IGCC Demonstration Project.September 1989United Coal Company withdrew its CCTDP-Iproject, Coal Waste Recovery Advanced TechnologyDemonstration.November 1989DOE signed a cooperative agreement with CCTDPII participant, Bethlehem Steel Corporation (Innovative Coke Oven Gas Cleaning System for RetrofitApplications).Combustion Engineering, Inc., (CCTDP-II) withdrewits Postcombustion Sorbent Injection DemonstrationProject.December 1989Thirteen projects were selected under CCTDP-III.DOE signed cooperative agreements with five CCTDPII participants: ABB Combustion Engineering, Inc.

(SNOXTM Flue Gas CleaThe Babcock & Wilcox 

BoxTM Flue Gas Cleanup Passamaquoddy Tribe (Cery Scrubber); Pure Air Flue Gas Desulfurization Southern Company ServAdvanced Combustion TBoiler).Energy International, Incproject, Underground CoProject.February 1990Foster Wheeler Power SCCTDP-I proposal, Cletion Project.April 1990DOE signed cooperative CCTDP-II participants: Company (PFBC Utility Babcock & Wilcox ComReburning for Cyclone B

Southern Company ServInnovative Applications FGD Process).

June 1990DOE signed cooperative participants of one CCTtion Engineering, Inc. anthe Coal Quality ExpertTMparticipants: Southern Constration of Selective Cfor the Control of NOx E

Coal-Fired Boilers) and ment Corporation (LNS Boilers Demonstration P
September 1990DOE signed cooperative agreements with one CCTDPI participant, Western Energy Company (formerlyRosebud SynCoal Partnership, now Western SynCoalLLC) (Advanced Coal Conversion Process Demonstration); one CCTDP-II participant, Southern CompanyServices, Inc. (180-MWe Demonstration of AdvancedTangentially Fired Combustion Techniques for theReduction of NOx Emissions from Coal-Fired Boilers);and one CCTDP-III participant, ENCOAL Corporation(ENCOAL® Mild Coal Gasification Project).

Negotiations were terminated with CCTDP-II participant, Southwestern Public Service Company (NicholsCFB Repowering Project).

October 1990DOE signed cooperative agreements with four CCTDPIII participants: AirPol, Inc. (10-MWe Demonstration ofGas Suspension Absorption); The Babcock & WilcoxCompany (Full-Scale Demonstration of Low-NOx CellBurner Retrofit); Bechtel Corporation (Confined ZoneDispersion Flue Gas Desulfurization Demonstration);and Energy and Environmental Research Corporation(Evaluation of Gas Reburning and Low-NOx Burners on

a Wall-Fired Boiler).

November 1990DOE signed cooperative agreements with one CCTDP-Iparticipant, The City of Tallahassee (Arvah B. HopkinsCirculating Fluidized-Bed Repowering Project; nowJEA and the JEA Large-Scale CFB CombustionDemonstration Project); one CCTDP-II participant,ABB Combustion Engineering, Inc. (CombustionEngineering IGCC Repowering Project); and twoCCTDP-III participants, Bethlehem Steel Corporation(Blast Furnace Granular-Coal Injection System Demonstration Project) and LIFAC–North America (LIFAC

Sorbent Injection Desulfurization DemonstrationProject).

December 1990Negotiations terminated with CCTDP-II participant,Otisca Industries, Ltd. (Otisca Fuel DemonstrationProject) and CPICORTM.March 1991DOE signed cooperative agreements with threeCCTDP-III participants: MK-Ferguson Company (nowNOXSO Corporation) (Commercial Demonstration ofthe NOXSO SO2/NOx Removal Flue Gas CleanupSystem); Public Service Company of Colorado(Integrated Dry NOx/SO2 Emissions Control System);

and Tampa Electric Company (formerly Clean PowerCogeneration Limited Partnership; now TampaElectric) (Integrated Gasification Combined-CycleProject).TRW, Inc., withdrew its CCTDP-I project (AdvancedSlagging Coal Combustor Utility DemonstrationProject).

April 1991DOE signed a cooperative agreement with CCTDP-IIIparticipant, Alaska Industrial Development and ExportAuthority (Healy Clean Coal Project).June 1991DOE withdrew its sponsorship of the Ohio OntarioClean Fuels, Inc., CCTDP-I project, PrototypeCommercial Coal/Oil Coprocessing Plant.August 1991DOE signed a cooperative agreement with CCTDP-IIIparticipant, DMEC-1 Limited Partnership (formerlyDairyland Power Cooperative) (PCFB DemonstrationProject).

TransAlta Resources Inits CCTDP-II project, LBoilers Demonstration 

September 1991Nine projects were seleCoal Tech CorporationCyclone Combustor wiAsh Control, final repoApril 1992Tri-State Generation anInc.’s (formerly ColoraInc.) CCTDP-I projectProject, final reports isJune 1992The City of Tallahasserestructured and transfPartners, L.P. (York Cotion Project).July 1992DOE signed cooperativIV participants: TennesYork State Electric & GCoal Reburning Demo

175-MWe Wall-Fired UCoal Gasification Repo(Wabash River Coal G

August 1992DOE signed a cooperaparticipant, Sierra PaciIGCC Power Project).Cordero Mining Compfor its CCTDP-IV projDemonstration Project
B-4 Program Update 2003

At the participant’s request, Union Carbide Chemicalsand Plastics Company, Inc. (CCTDP-IV) was grantedan extension of one year to the DOE deadline forcompleting negotiations of its Demonstration of theUnion Carbide CANSOLVTM System at the AlcoaGenerating Corporation Warrick Power Plant.October 1992DOE signed cooperative agreements with one CCTDPIII participant, Air Products and Chemicals, Inc.(Commercial-Scale Demonstration of the Liquid PhaseMethanol [LPMEOHTM] Process) and with fourCCTDP-IV participants: Custom Coals International(Self-Scrubbing CoalTM: An Integrated Approach toClean Air); New York State Electric & Gas Corporation (Milliken Clean Coal Technology DemonstrationProject); TAMCO Power Partners (Toms Creek IGCCDemonstration Project); and ThermoChem, Inc. (PulseCombustor Design Qualification Test).November 1992The Babcock & Wilcox Company’s (now McDermottTechnology, Inc.) CCTDP-I project, LIMB Demonstration Project Extension and Coolside Demonstration,final reports issued and project completed.May 1993Five projects were selected under CCTDP-V: FourRivers Energy Partners, L.P. (Four Rivers EnergyModernization Project; (formerly Calvert City AdvancedEnergy Project, now McIntosh Unit 4B Topped PCFBDemonstration Project); Duke Energy Corporation(Camden Clean Energy Demonstration Project);Centerior Energy Corporation, on behalf of CPICORTMManagement Company LLC (Clean Power fromIntegrated Coal/Ore Reduction [CPICORTM]); Arthur D.Little, Inc. (Clean Coal Combined-Cycle Project;formerly Demonstration of Coal Diesel Technology at

Easton Utilities; now Clean Coal Diesel DemonstrationProject); and Pennsylvania Electric Company (WarrenStation Externally Fired Combined-Cycle Demonstration Project).

July 1993Union Carbide Chemicals and Plastics Company, Inc.,withdrew its CCTDP-IV proposal, Demonstration ofthe Union Carbide CANSOLVTM System at the AlcoaGenerating Corporation Warrick Power Plant.February 1994The Passamaquoddy Tribe’s CCTDP-III project,Cement Kiln Flue Gas Recovery Scrubber, final reportsissued and project completed.March 1994The Babcock & Wilcox Company’s CCTDP-II project,Demonstration of Coal Reburning for Cyclone BoilerNOx Control, final reports issued and project completed.June 1994DOE signed a cooperative agreement with CCTDP-Vparticipant, Arthur D. Little, Inc. (Coal Diesel Combined-Cycle Project).Southern Company Services’ CCTDP-III project, 180-MWe Demonstration of Advanced Tangentially FiredCombustion Techniques for the Reduction of NOxEmissions from Coal-Fired Boilers, final reports issuedand project completed.Bechtel Corporation’s CCTDP-III project, ConfinedZone Dispersion Flue Gas Desulfurization Demonstration, final reports issued and project completed.August 1994DOE signed cooperative agreements with two CCTDPV participants, Four Rivers Energy Partners, L.P. (Four

Rivers Energy Moderniznia Electric Company (WCombined-Cycle DemonThe CCTDP-III project, the NOXSO SO2/NOx R

System, was relocated aCorporation.September 1994The Air Products and ChCommercial-Scale DemMethanol (LPMEOHTM) Air Products Liquid PhaDecember 1994DOE signed a cooperativparticipant, Clean Energ(formerly Duke Energy CIGCC Demonstration PrIGCC Demonstration PrMarch 1995TAMCO Power PartnerCreek IGCC Demonstrafurther extension and the April 1995Bethlehem Steel CorporaInnovative Coke Oven GApplications, was terminDOE because coke produdemonstration facility.June 1995AirPol, Inc.’s CCTDP-II tion of Gas Suspension Aand project completed.
September 1995The Babcock & Wilcox Company’s CCTDP-II project,SOx-NOx-Rox BoxTM Flue Gas Cleanup DemonstrationProject, final reports issued and project completed.December 1995The Tennessee Valley Authority and New York StateElectric & Gas Corporation finalized an agreement toallow the project, Micronized Coal Reburning Demonstration for NOx Control, to be conducted at both

Milliken Station in Lansing, NY and Eastman KodakCompany in Rochester, NY.The Babcock & Wilcox Company’s CCTDP-II project,Full-Scale Demonstration of Low-NOx Cell Burner

Retrofit, final reports issued and project completed.The Ohio Power Company’s CCTDP-I project, TiddPFBC Demonstration Project, final reports issued andproject completed.May 1996The ABB Combustion Engineering, Inc. CCTDP-IIproject, Combustion Engineering IGCC RepoweringProject, was concluded.June 1996Pure Air on the Lake’s CCTDP-II project, AdvancedFlue Gas Desulfurization Project, final reports issuedand project completed.August 1996The Arthur D. Little, Inc., CCTDP-V project wasrestructured and retitled as the Clean Coal DieselDemonstration Project.September 1996The Appalachian Power Company CCTDP-II project,PFBC Utility Demonstration Project, was concluded.

October 1996DOE signed a cooperative agreement with CCTDP-Vparticipant, CPICORTM Management Company LLC(Clean Power from Integrated Coal/Ore Reduction[CPICORTM]).November 1996Southern Company Services’ CCTDP-II project,Demonstration of Selective Catalytic ReductionTechnology for the Control of NOx Emissions from

High-Sulfur, Coal-Fired Boilers, final reports issuedand project completed.

December 1996ABB Environmental Systems’ CCTDP-II project,SNOXTM Flue Gas Cleaning Demonstration Project,final reports issued and project completed.May 1997The Pennsylvania Electric Company CCTDP-Vproject, Warren Station Externally Fired CombinedCycle Demonstration Project, was concluded.September 1997DOE modified the cooperative agreement for JEA’s(formerly Jacksonville Electric Authority) CCTDP-Iproject, JEA Large-Scale CFB Combustion Project(formerly The City of Tallahassee project, then theYork County Energy Partners project).December 1997ENCOAL Corporation’s CCTDP-III project,ENCOAL® Mild Coal Gasification Project, final

reports issued and project completed.DOE signed a new cooperative agreement for therestructured City of Lakeland’s CCTDP-III project,McIntosh Unit 4A PCFB Demonstration Project(formerly the DMEC-1 Limited Partnership project).

January 1998DOE signed a new corestructured City of LMcIntosh Unit 4B TopProject (formerly the L.P. project).April 1998LIFAC–North AmericaSorbent Injection DesuProject, final reports isJune 1998Southern Company SerDemonstration of Innoogy for the CT-121 FGand project completedThe ABB Combustion CCTDP-I project, DevExpertTM, final reports September 1998Energy and EnvironmeCCTDP-I project, EnhReburning and Sorbenand project completedDOE signed a revised restructured ThermoChPulse Combustor DesigOctober 1998Energy and EnvironmeCCTDP-III project, EvLow-NOx Burners on a 

issued and project com
B-6 Program Update 2003

September 1999Energy and Environmental Research Corp.’s CCTDP-Iproject, Enhancing the Use of Coals by Gas Reburningand Sorbent Injection, final report issued and projectcompleted.DOE signed a revised cooperative agreement forSouthern Company Services, Inc.’s CCTDP-II project,Demonstration of Advanced Combustion Techniquesfor a Wall-Fired Boiler, extending the project.October 1999Southern Company Services, Inc.’s CCTDP-II project,Demonstration of Innovative Applications of Technology for the CT-121 FGD Process, final report issuedand project completed.New York State Electric & Gas Corporation’s CCTDPIV project, Milliken Clean Coal Technology Demonstration Project, final report issued and project completed.Bethlehem Steel Corporation’s CCTDP-III project,Blast Furnace Granular-Coal Injection System Demonstration Project, final report issued and project completed.December 1999New York State Electric & Gas Corporation’s CCTDPIV project, Micronized Coal Reburning Demonstrationfor NOx Control, final report issued and project

completed.NOXSO Corporation’s project, Commercial Demonstration of the NOXSO SO2/NOx Removal Flue Gas

Cleanup System, was terminated.

January 2000Custom Coals International’s CCTDP-IV project, SelfScrubbing CoalTM : An Integrated Approach to CleanAir, was terminated.

February 2000Public Service Company of Colorado’s CCTDP-IIIproject, Integrated Dry NOx/SO2 Emissions Control

System, final report issued and project completed.

September 2000Wabash River Coal Gasification Repowering ProjectJoint Venture’s CCTDP-IV project, Wabash River CoalGasification Repowering Project, final report issuedand project completed.January 2001Sierra Pacific Power Company’s CCTDP-IV project,Piñon Pine IGCC Power Project, final report issuedand project completed.June 2001Western SynCoal LLC’s CCTDP-I project, AdvancedCoal Conversion Process Demonstration, final reportissued and project completed.December 2002Tampa Electric Company’s CCTDP-III project, TampaElectric Integrated Gasification Combined-CycleProject, final report issued and project completed.April 2003Southern Company Services, Inc.’s CCTDP-II project,Demonstration of Advanced Combustion Techniquesfor a Wall-Fired Boiler, final report issued and projectcompleted.June 2003Air Products Liquid Phase Conversion Company,L.P.’s, CCTDP--III project, Commercial-Scale Demonstration of the Liquid Phase Methanol (LPMEOHTM)Process, final report issued and project completed.

July 2003DOE terminated The Citproject (McIntosh Unit 4Project) and CCTDP-V Topped PCFB DemonstrPPII SolicitaThe Department of Enertion taking lessons learntions with some modificFebruary 6, 2001 seekinimprovements in power enhanced electric reliabireceived 24 proposals. EPPII SelectioNegotiation HThe following is a histortions for PPII.September 2001Eight projects were seleMarch 2002DOE signed a cooperativAggregates, LLC (CommManufactured Aggregate Utilizing Spray Dryer A
March 2002Tampa Electric Company withdraws one of its proposals (Polk Power Station Plant Improvement Project).June 2002DOE signed a cooperative agreement with two PPIIparticipants: Otter Tail Power Company (Demonstration of a Full-Scale Retrofit of the Advanced HybridParticulate Collector Technology) and Tampa ElectricCompany (Big Bend Power Station Neural NetworkSootblower Optimization).December 2002DOE signed a cooperative agreement with SunflowerElectric Power Corp. (Achieving NSPS EmissionStandards Through Integration of Low-NOx Burnerswith an Optimization Plan for Boiler Combustion).April 2003Alliant Energy Corporate Services, Inc. withdrew itsproposal, Combustion Initiative for Innovative CostEffective NO

x

 Reduction.

CCPI Solicitation HistoryThe Department of Energy developed the first CCPIsolicitation (CCPI-I) taking lessons learned from theCCTDP solicitations with some modifications, including modifications directed by Congress. The PON wasissued on March 4, 2002, seeking advanced coal-basedpower generation technologies that result in efficiency,environmental, and economic improvements over stateof-the-art alternatives. On August 1, 2002, DOEreceived 36 proposals. Eight projects were selected.Planning for CCPI-II is now underway.

CCPI Selection andNegotiation HistoryThe following is a history of the selection and negotiations for CCPI.January 2003Eight projects were selected under CCPI-I.July 2003LG&E Energy Corporation withdraws its proposal(Commercial Demonstration of the Airborne Process).
B-8 Program Update 2003
environmental monitooperational compliancand environmental danated. Data to be collto meet federal, state, performance data to athe technology.

Appendix C. CCTDP Environmental Aspec

From 1987 through May 31, 2003, NEPA requirements were satisfied with a CX for 2 projects, MTFsfor 17 projects, EAs for 18 projects and EISs for 6projects (actions exceed 35 because of projectterminations, withdrawals, and restructuring).For each project cofunded by DOE under the CCTDP,the industrial participant is required to develop an

IntroductionThe U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) employs athree-step process to ensure that the Clean CoalTechnology Demonstration Program (CCTDP) and itsprojects comply with the procedural requirements ofthe National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), andthe regulations for NEPA compliance promulgated bythe Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) (40 CFRParts 1500–1508) and by DOE (10 CFR Part 1021).This process includes (1) preparation of a programmatic environmental impact statement (PEIS) in 1989;(2) preparation of preselection, project-specificenvironmental reviews; and (3) preparation ofpostselection, site-specific NEPA documentation.Several types of NEPA documents have been used inthe CCTDP, including memoranda-to-file (MTF;discontinued as of September 30, 1990), environmental assessments (EA), and environmental impactstatements (EIS). The Department of Energy’s NEPAregulations also provide for categorical exclusions(CX) for certain classes of actions.Exhibit C-1 shows the progress made through May 31,2003, to complete NEPA reviews of projects in theCCTDP. By May 31, 2003, NEPA reviews werecompleted for 35 of the 36 CCTDP projects remainingin the program. Two NEPA reviews were completedfor two projects: (1) Enhancing the Use of Coals byGas Reburning and Sorbent Injection—a MTF wascompleted for the Hennepin site and an EA for theLakeside site; (2) Kentucky Pioneer Energy IGCCDemonstration—an EIS for the Trapp, Kentucky, siteand a CX for the West Terre Haute, Indiana, site.

Exhibit C-1

NEPA Reviews Completed as of May 

02468

101214

1987 1988a 1989 a,c 1990 1991b 1992c 1993 1994 1995c 1996 1997 1998 

Fiscal Year

Number of Projects

a Includes an MTF (1988) and an

 EA (1989) required for one project

b Includes an EA for a project 

 that was withdrawn

Environmental assessmentsMemoranda-to-file Categorical exclus

Environmental imp
C-2 Program Update 2003

gathered by DOE, as thdocuments that are prepproject. These NEPA dconsidered, and publishCEQ and DOE regulatiCategorical Exclus“Subpart D—Typical CNEPA regulations provas a class of actions thaindividually or cumulaton the human environmMicronized Coal ReburControl and the Pulse Ction Test, were determinegorical exclusion in Au1998, respectively.Memoranda-to-FilThe MTF was establishguidelines were first issintended for circumstanof the proposed action wthe action had not been exclusion from NEPA dMTF was terminated as Exhibit C-2 lists the 17 was prepared.Environmental AssAn EA has the followin1. To provide sufficien

determining whethpreparation of an Ecant impact (FONS

The Role of NEPA in theCCTDPNEPA was initially enacted in 1969 as Public Law 91-190 and is codified at 42 U.S.C. §4321 et seq. The

applicability of NEPA to the CCTDP is encapsulatedin the following provision (Section 102):

[A]ll agencies of the Federal Government shall—. . .(C) include in every recommendation or report on proposals for legislation and other major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment, adetailed statement by the responsible official on—i. the environmental impact of the proposed action,ii. any adverse environmental effects which cannot be

avoided should the proposal be implemented,

iii. alternatives to the proposed action,iv. the relationship between local short-term uses of man’s

environment and the maintenance and enhancement oflong-term productivity, and

v. any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of

resources which would be involved in the proposedaction should it be implemented. . . .

(E) study, develop, and describe appropriate alternatives torecommended courses of action in any proposal whichinvolves unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses ofavailable resources[.]Through NEPA, Congress created the CEQ, which haspromulgated regulations that ensure compliance withthe Act.

Compliance with NEPAIn November 1989, a PEIS was completed for theCCTDP. This PEIS addressed issues such as potentialglobal climatic modification and the ecological andsocioeconomic impacts of the CCTDP. The PEISevaluated the following two alternatives:• “No action,” which assumed that conventional

coal-fired technologies with conventional flue gasdesulfurization controls would continue to beused, and

• “Proposed action,” which assumed that successfully demonstrated clean coal technologies would

undergo widespread commercialization by theyear 2010.

In preselection project-specific environmentalreviews, DOE evaluates the environmental aspects ofeach proposed demonstration project. Reviews areprovided to the Source Selection Official for consideration in the project selection process. The sitespecific environmental, health, safety, and socioeconomic issues associated with each proposed projectare examined during the NEPA review. As part of thecomprehensive evaluation prior to selecting projects,the strengths and weaknesses of each proposal arecompared with the environmental evaluation criteria.To the maximum extent possible, the environmentalimpacts of each proposed project and practicalmitigating measures are considered. Also, a list ofnecessary permits is prepared, to the extent known;these are permits that would need to be obtained inimplementing the proposed project.Upon selection, project participants are required toprepare and submit additional environmental information. This detailed site- and project-specific information is used, along with independent information
2. To aid an agency’s 

no EIS is necessaplinary review of potential impactsand mitigation m

3. To facilitate prepa

necessary.

An EA’s contents are basis and depend on thappropriate, a DOE Eor wetlands assessmenmay include analyses determinations.If an agency determinenot necessary to prepaCouncil on Environmethe FONSI as a documreasons why an action on the human environmtherefore will not be pthe EA, or a summary environmental documeregulations also providthat a FONSI has been copies of the EA and FExhibit C-3 lists the 1been prepared. The exproject that was subseprogram—TransAlta RCorporation’s Low-N

Utility Cyclone Boilerterminated—ABB Cobustion Engineering IBethlehem Steel CorpGas Cleaning System Pennsylvania ElectricFired Combined-Cycl

Project and Participant CompletedCCTDP-IDevelopment of the Coal Quality ExpertTM (ABB Combustion Engineering, Inc. and CQ Inc.) 4/27/90LIMB Demonstration Project Extension and Coolside Demonstration 6/2/87(McDermott Technology, Inc.)Advanced Cyclone Combustor with Internal Sulfur, Nitrogen, and Ash Control 3/26/87

(Coal Tech Corporation)Nucla CFB Demonstration Project (Colorado-Ute Electric Association, Inc.; now Tri-State 4/18/88Generation and Transmission Association, Inc.)Enhancing the Use of Coals by Gas Reburning and Sorbent Injection (Hennepin site) 5/9/88(Energy and Environmental Research Corporation)

Tidd PFBC Demonstration Project (The Ohio Power Company) 3/5/87CCTDP-IISNOXTM Flue Gas Cleaning Demonstration Project (ABB Environmental Systems) 1/31/90

SOx-NOx-Rox BoxTM Flue Gas Cleanup Demonstration Project 9/22/89(The Babcock & Wilcox Company)Demonstration of Advanced Combustion Techniques for a Wall-Fired Boiler 5/22/89

(Southern Company Services, Inc.)Demonstration of Selective Catalytic Reduction Technology for the Control of NOx 8/16/89

Emissions from High-Sulfur, Coal-Fired Boilers (Southern Company Services, Inc.)180-MWe Demonstration of Advanced Tangentially Fired Combustion Techniques for the 7/21/89

Reduction of NOx Emissions from Coal-Fired Boilers (Southern Company Services, Inc.)

CCTDP-III10-MWe Demonstration of Gas Suspension Absorption (AirPol, Inc.) 9/21/90

Full-Scale Demonstration of Low-NOx Cell Burner Retrofit (The Babcock & Wilcox Company) 8/10/90

Confined Zone Dispersion Flue Gas Desulfurization Demonstration (Bechtel Corporation) 9/25/90

Evaluation of Gas Reburning and Low-NOx Burners on a Wall-Fired Boiler (Energy and 9/6/90

Environmental Research Corporation)LIFAC Sorbent Injection Desulfurization Demonstration Project (LIFAC–North America) 10/2/90

Integrated Dry NOx/SO2 Emissions Control System (Public Service Company of Colorado) 9/27/90

Exhibit C-2

Memoranda-to-File Completed
C-4 Program Update 2003

Project and Participant CCTDP-IEnhancing the Use of Coals by Gas Reburning and Sorbent Injection (Lakeside site) (Energy and Environmental Research Corporation) Advanced Coal Conversion Process Demonstration (Western SynCoal LLC) CCTDP-IICombustion Engineering IGCC Repowering Project (ABB Combustion Engineering, Inc.) (project terminated) 

Demonstration of Coal Reburning for Cyclone Boiler NOx Control (The Babcock & Wilcox Company) 

Innovative Coke Oven Gas Cleaning System for Retrofit Applications (Bethlehem Steel Corporation) (project terminated) 

Cement Kiln Flue Gas Recovery Scrubber (Passamaquoddy Tribe) Advanced Flue Gas Desulfurization Demonstration Project (Pure Air on the Lake, L.P.) 

Demonstration of Innovative Applications of Technology for the CT-121 FGD Process (Southern Company Services, Inc.) 

Low-NO

x

/SO2 Burner Retrofit for Utility Cyclone Boilers (TransAlta Resources Investment Corporation) (project withdrawn) 

CCTDP-IIICommercial-Scale Demonstration of the Liquid Phase Methanol (LPMEOHTM) Process (Air Products Liquid Phase Conversion Company, L.P.) Blast Furnace Granular-Coal Injection System Demonstration Project (Bethlehem Steel Corporation) ENCOAL® Mild Coal Gasification Project (ENCOALCorporation) 

Commercial Demonstration of the NOXSO SO2/NOx Removal Flue Gas Cleanup System (NOXSO Corporation) 

CCTDP-IVSelf-Scrubbing CoalTM: An Integrated Approach to Clean Air (Custom Coals International) Milliken Clean Coal Technology Demonstration Project (New York State Electric & Gas Corporation) 

Warren Station Externally Fired Combined-Cycle Demonstration Project (Pennsylvania Electric Company) (Warren Station site) (project terminated) 

Wabash River Coal Gasification Repowering Project (Wabash River Coal Gasification Repowering Project Joint Venture) 

CCTDP-VClean Coal Diesel Demonstration Project (Arthur D. Little, Inc.) 

Exhibit C-3

Environmental Assessments Completed as of May 31, 2003
Project and Participant CCTDP-IYork County Energy Partners Cogeneration Project (York County, PA site) (York County Energy Partners, L.P.) (project relocated)JEA Large-Scale CFB Combustion Demonstration Project (JEA) 

CCTDP-IIIHealy Clean Coal Project (Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority) 

Tampa Electric Integrated Gasification Combined-Cycle Project 

(Tampa Electric Company)CCTDP-IVPiñon Pine IGCC Power Project (Sierra Pacific Power Company) 

CCTDP-V

Kentucky Pioneer Energy IGCC Demonstration Project (Kentucky Pioneer Energy, Note: Completion is the date DOE issued a record of decision.

Environmental Impact StatementsThe primary purpose of an EIS is to serve as anaction-forcing device to ensure that the policies andgoals defined in NEPA are infused into the programsand actions of the federal government. An EIScontains a full and fair discussion of all significantenvironmental impacts. The EIS should informdecision makers and the public of reasonable alternatives that would avoid or minimize adverse impacts orenhance the quality of the human environment.The CEQ regulations state that an EIS is to be morethan a disclosure document; it is to be used by federalofficials in conjunction with other relevant material toplan actions and make decisions. Analysis of alternatives is to encompass those alternatives to be considered by the ultimate decision maker, including acomplete description of the proposed action. In short,the EIS is a means of assessing the environmentalimpacts of a proposed DOE action (rather thanjustifying decisions already made), prior to making adecision to proceed with the proposed action. Consequently, before a record of decision (ROD) is issued,DOE may not take any action that would have anadverse environmental effect or limit the choice ofreasonable alternatives. As seen in Exhibit C-4, theEISs for three projects were completed in 1994. In1995, DOE issued a ROD on the EIS prepared for theYork County Energy Partners project located in YorkCounty, Pennsylvania. This project has been restructured, and a new NEPA compliance document for theJEA project site was completed in fiscal year 2000,and the ROD was issued in fiscal year 2001.NEPA Actions in ProgressExhibit C-5 lists the status of the only CCTDP project forwhich the NEPA process has not yet been completed.

Exhibit C-4

Environmental Impact Statements Comp

May 31, 2003

Project and Participant CCTDP-VClean Power from Integrated Coal/Ore Reduction (CPICORTM) (CPICORTM ManagemCompany LLC)

Exhibit C-5

NEPA Reviews in Progress as of May 
C-6 Program Update 2003

Proposers should coelements and compothe PON, “Specific tored”]. Proposers sinformation known emissions of these ttechnology. Some oproposed technology likely unregulated in present. The signifithe additional controtechnology for the cbe explained. An exbe one or more particontrolled by a techpower generation.

The CCTDP-V PON alair toxics be presented ition required by DOE. that provide for HAPs mprojects have completements. The objective ois to improve the qualitand to monitor a broadeand emissions control eThe CCTDP is coordinathe Electric Power ReseOhio Coal DevelopmenHAPs monitoring and aDOE Coal R&D Prograsource, distribution, and power plants were publreleased in July 1996, Ssions Testing at Sixteen assessment of HAPs memajor pollution control from the stack. A seconAssessment of Toxics EPower Plants: Phase I ment of Energy Study, w

Environmental MonitoringCCTDP project participants are required to developand implement an environmental monitoring plan(EMP) that addresses both compliance and supplemental monitoring. Exhibit C-6 lists the status of EMPsfor all 38 projects in the CCTDP. The EMP is intended to ensure collection and dissemination of thesignificant technology-, project-, and site-specificenvironmental data necessary for evaluation of impactsupon health, safety, and the environment. Further, thedata are used to characterize and quantify the environmental performance of the technology in order toevaluate its commercialization and deploymentpotential. In addition to collecting regulatory compliance data, further monitoring is required to fulfill thefollowing:• Ensure that emissions, ambient levels of pollutants, and environmental impacts do not exceed

expectations projected in the NEPA documents,

• Identify any need for corrective action,• Verify the implementation of any mitigative

measure that may have been identified in amitigation action plan pursuant to the provisionsof an EA or EIS, and

• Provide the essential data on the environmental

performance of the technology needed to evaluatethe potential impact of future commercialization,including the ability of the technology to meetrequirements of the Clean Air Act and the 1990amendments.

The objective of the CCTDP’s environmental monitoring efforts is to ensure that, when commercially available, clean coal technologies will be capable of responding fully to air toxics regulations that emerge from the

CAAA, and to the maximum extent possible, are in thevanguard of cost-effective solutions to concerns aboutpublic health and safety related to coal use.Air ToxicsTitle III of the CAAA lists known hazardous airpollutants (HAPs) and, among other things, calls forthe EPA to establish categories of sources that emitthese pollutants. Exploratory analyses suggest thatHAPs may be released by conventional coal-firedpower plants and, presumably, by plants using cleancoal technologies. It is expected that emissionsstandards will be proposed for the electric-powerproduction-source categories. However, there aremany uncertainties as to which HAPs will be regulated, their prevalence in various types and sources ofcoal, and their nature and fate as functions of combustion characteristics and the particular clean coaltechnology used.The CCTDP recognized the importance of monitoringHAPs in achieving widespread commercialization inthe late 1990s and beyond. For all projects withexisting cooperative agreements, DOE sought toinclude HAPs monitoring. A total of 20 projectscontain provisions for monitoring HAPs.The CCTDP-V Program Opportunity Notice (PON)acknowledged the importance of HAPs throughout thesolicitation, including them as an aspect of proposalevaluation. The PON addressed the control of airtoxics as an environmental performance criterion.Also, in the instructions on proposal preparation, thePON directed proposers as follows:

With respect to emission of air toxics,
Project and Participant StatCCTDP-IDevelopment of the Coal Quality ExpertTM (ABB Combustion Engineering, Inc. and CQ Inc.) ComLIMB Demonstration Project Extension and Coolside Demonstration (McDermott Technology, Inc.) ComAdvanced Cyclone Combustor with Internal Sulfur, Nitrogen, and Ash Control (Coal Tech Corporation) ComNucla CFB Demonstration Project (Colorado-Ute Electric Association, Inc.; now Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, Inc.) ComEnhancing the Use of Coals by Gas Reburning and Sorbent Injection (Energy and Environmental Research Corporation) Com

Com

Tidd PFBC Demonstration Project (The Ohio Power Company) ComAdvanced Coal Conversion Process Demonstration (Western SynCoal LLC) ComJEA Large-Scale CFB Combustion Demonstration Project (JEA) Com

CCTDP-IISNOXTM Flue Gas Cleaning Demonstration Project (ABB Environmental Systems) ComDemonstration of Coal Reburning for Cyclone Boiler NOx Control (The Babcock & Wilcox Company) Com

SOx-NOx-Rox BoxTM Flue Gas Cleanup Demonstration Project (The Babcock & Wilcox Company) ComCement Kiln Flue Gas Recovery Scrubber (Passamaquoddy Tribe) Com

Advanced Flue Gas Desulfurization Demonstration Project (Pure Air on the Lake, L.P.) ComDemonstration of Advanced Combustion Techniques for a Wall-Fired Boiler (Southern Company Services, Inc.) ComDemonstration of Innovative Applications of Technology for the CT-121 FGD Process (Southern Company Services, Inc.) ComDemonstration of Selective Catalytic Reduction Technology for the Control of NOx Emissions from High-Sulfur, Coal-Fired Com

Boilers (Southern Company Services, Inc.)180-MWe Demonstration of Advanced Tangentially Fired Combustion Techniques for the Reduction of NOx Emissions from Com

Coal-Fired Boilers (Southern Company Services, Inc.)

Exhibit C-6

Status of Environmental Monitoring Plans for CCTDP Projects as of May 
C-8 Program Update 2003

Project and Participant StaCCTDP-IIICommercial-Scale Demonstration of the Liquid Phase Methanol (LPMEOHTM) Process (Air Products Liquid Phase Conversion Company, L.P.) Com10-MWe Demonstration of Gas Suspension Absorption (AirPol, Inc.) ComHealy Clean Coal Project (Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority) ComFull-Scale Demonstration of Low-NO

x Cell Burner Retrofit (The Babcock & Wilcox Company) Com

Confined Zone Dispersion Flue Gas Desulfurization Demonstration (Bechtel Corporation) ComBlast Furnace Granular-Coal Injection System Demonstration Project (Bethlehem Steel Corporation) ComENCOAL® Mild Coal Gasification Project (ENCOAL Corporation) Com

Evaluation of Gas Reburning and Low-NOx Burners on a Wall-Fired Boiler (Energy and Environmental Research Corporation) Com

LIFAC Sorbent Injection Desulfurization Demonstration Project (LIFAC–North America) ComIntegrated Dry NOx/SO2 Emissions Control System (Public Service Company of Colorado) Com

Tampa Electric Integrated Gasification Combined-Cycle Project (Tampa Electric Company) Com

CCTDP-IVMicronized Coal Reburning Demonstration for NOx Control (New York State Electric & Gas Corporation) Com

Milliken Clean Coal Technology Demonstration Project (New York State Electric & Gas Corporation) ComPiñon Pine IGCC Power Project (Sierra Pacific Power Company) Com

Wabash River Coal Gasification Repowering Project (Wabash River Coal Gasification Repowering Project Joint Venture) ComPulse Combustor Design Qualification Test (ThermoChem, Inc.) Com

CCTDP-VClean Coal Diesel Demonstration Project (Arthur D. Little, Inc.) ComClean Power from Integrated Coal/Ore Reduction (CPICORTM) (CPICORTM Management Company LLC) On Kentucky Pioneer Energy IGCC Demonstration Project (Kentucky Pioneer Energy, LLC) To 

Exhibit C-6 (continued)

Status of Environmental Monitoring Plans for CCTDP Projects as of May 3
Coal Processing forClean Fuels

Application Category Participant Project 

ABB Environmental Systems SNOXTM Flue Gas Cleaning Demonstration Project AirPol, Inc. 10-MWe Demonstration of Gas Suspension Absorption The Babcock & Wilcox Company Demonstration of Coal Reburning for Cyclone Boiler NOx ContThe Babcock & Wilcox Company SOx-NOx-Rox BoxTM Flue Gas Cleanup Demonstration ProjecNew York State Electric & Gas Corporation Milliken Clean Coal Technology Demonstration Project Public Service Company of Colorado Integrated Dry NOx/SO2 Emissions Control System 

Pure Air on the Lake, L.P. Advanced Flue Gas Desulfurization Demonstration Project Southern Company Services, Inc. Demonstration of Advanced Combustion Techniques for a WalSouthern Company Services, Inc. Demonstration of Innovative Applications of Technology for th

CT-121 FGD Process

Southern Company Services, Inc. 180-MWe Demonstration of Advanced Tangentially Fired Com

Techniques for the Reduction of NOx Emissions from Coal-Fire

Arthur D. Little, Inc. Clean Coal Diesel Demonstration Project Kentucky Pioneer Energy, LLC Kentucky Pioneer Energy IGCC Demonstration Project The Ohio Power Company Tidd PFBC Demonstration Project Sierra Pacific Power Company Piñon Pine IGCC Power Project Tampa Electric Company Tampa Electric Integrated Gasification Combined-Cycle ProjecWabash River Coal Gasification Repowering Wabash River Coal Gasification Repowering Project Project Joint VentureJEA JEA Large-Scale CFB Combustion Demonstration Project ENCOAL Corporation ENCOAL® Mild Coal Gasification Project CPICORTM Management Company LLC Clean Power from Integrated Coal/Ore Reduction (CPICORTM) 

Exhibit C-7

Status of CCTDP Projects Monitoring Hazardous Air Pollutants as of May 

Advanced ElectricPower GenerationIndustrialApplicationsEnvironmentalControl Devices
C-10 Program Update 2003

and provided the raw data from the emissions testing.Emissions data were collected from 16 power plants,representing nine process configurations, operated byeight different utilities; several power plants were sitesfor CCTDP projects. The power plants represented arange of different coal types, process configurations,furnace types, and pollution control methods.The second phase of the DOE/EPRI effort currently inprogress is sampling at other sites, including theCCTDP’s Wabash River IGCC project. Further, theresults from the first phase will be used to determinewhat configuration and coal types require furtherassessment.In October 1996, EPA submitted to Congress an interimversion of its technical assessment of toxic air pollutantemissions from power plants, Study of Hazardous AirPollutant Emissions from Electric Utility SteamGenerating Units, Interim Final Report. EPA plans tocontinue evaluating the potential exposures andpotential public health concerns from mercury emissions from utilities. In addition, the agency was toevaluate information on various potential controltechnologies for mercury. If EPA were to decide thatHAPs pose a risk, then the agency was to propose airtoxic emissions controls by November 15, 1998, andmake them final two years later.Following up on the October 1996 report to Congress,a report was released by EPA focusing on mercuryemissions. The December 1997 report, MercuryStudy Report to Congress, estimates that U.S. industrial sources were responsible for releasing 158 tonsof mercury into the atmosphere in 1994 and 1995.The EPA estimates that 87 percent of those emissionsoriginate from combustion sources such as waste andfossil fuel facilities, 10 percent from manufacturingfacilities, 2 percent from area sources, and 1 percentfrom other sources. The EPA also identified fourspecific categories that account for about 80 percent

of the total anthropogenic sources: coal-fired powerplants, 33 percent; municipal waste incinerators, 18percent; commercial and industrial boilers, 18 percent;and medical waste incinerators, 10 percent. Morerecently, the National Academy of Sciences released areport in June 2000 reinforcing the importance,especially for women in their childbearing years, ofheeding consumption advisories on noncommercialfish to avoid methylmercury.The results of the HAPs program have significantlymitigated concerns about HAP emissions from coalfired generation and focused attention on but a fewflue gas constituents.
Appendix D. Project ContactsProject ContactsListed below are contacts for obtaining further information about specific active Clean Coal TechnologyDemonstration Program (CCTDP), Power Plant Improvement Initiative (PPII), and Clean Coal PowerInitiative (CCPI) demonstration projects. Listed arethe name, title, phone number, fax number, mailingaddress, and e-mail address, if available, for theproject participant contact person. In those instanceswhere the project participant consists of more thanone company, a partnership, or joint venture, the mailing address listed is that of the contact person. Inaddition, the names, phone numbers, and e-mail addresses for contact persons at DOE Headquarters andthe National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL)are provided.

CCTDPJEA Large-Scale CFB Combustion DemonstrationProjectParticipant:JEAContacts:Joey Duncan

(904) 714-4831(904) 714-4895 (fax)JEA4377 Heckscher Drive, NSRPCOJacksonville, FL 32226

Victor K. Der, DOE/HQ, (301) 903-2700

victor.der@hq.doe.gov

Jerry L. Hebb, NETL, (412) 386-6079

hebb@netl.doe.gov

Kentucky Pioneer IGParticipant:Kentucky Pioneer EneContacts:H. H. Graves, Preside

(513) 621-0077(513) 621-5947 (hhg@globalenergKentucky Pionee312 Walnut StreeCincinnati, OH 4

Victor K. Der, DOE/H

victor.der@hq.do

Jerry Hebb, NETL, (4

hebb@netl.doe.g

Clean Coal Diesel DeParticipant:TIAX, LLCContacts:Robert P. Wilson, Vic

(617) 498-5806(617) 498-7161 (wilson.r@tiax.bizTIAX, LLCBuilding 15, Roo25 Acorn ParkCambridge, MA 

Victor K. Der, DOE/H

victor.der@hq.do

Leo E. Makovsky, NE

leo.makovsky@n
D-2 Program Update 2003

Advanced Coal Conversion Process DemonstrationParticipant:Western SynCoal LLCContacts:Harry Bonner, General Manager

(406) 494-5119(406) 494-3317 (fax)Western Syncoal LLC120 North ParkmontButte, MT 59701

Douglas Archer, DOE/HQ, (301) 903-9443

douglas.archer@hq.doe.gov

Joseph B. Renk III, NETL, (412) 386-6406

joseph.renk@netl.doe.gov

Clean Power from Integrated Coal/Ore Reduction(CPICORTM)Participant:CPICORTM Management Company, LLCContacts:Les Jones

(801) 227-9273(801) 227-9198 (fax)ljones@geneva.comCPICORTM Management Company, LLCP.O. Box 2500Provo, UT 84603

C. Lowell Miller, DOE/HQ, (301) 903-9453

lowell.miller@hq.doe.gov

Leo E. Makovsky, NETL, (412) 386-5814

leo.makovsky@netl.doe.gov

PPIIDevelopment of Hybrid FLGR/SNCR AdvancedNOx Control

Participant:TIAX, LLCContacts:Howard B. Mason

(408) 517-1570(408) 517-1551 (fax)mason.howard@adlittle.comTIAX, LLC20 Acorn ParkCambridge, MA 02140

Victor K. Der, DOE/HQ, (301) 903-2700

victor.der@hq.doe.gov

James R. Longanbach, NETL, (304) 285-4659

james.longanbach@netl.doe.gov

Greenidge Multi-Pollutant Control ProjectParticipant:CONSOL, Inc.Contacts:Bob Statnick, Project Manager

(412) 854-6758(412) 854-6613bobstatnick@consolenergy.comCONSOL Energy, Inc.4000 Brownsville RoadSouth Park, PA 15129

Victor K. Der, DOE/HQ, (301) 903-2700

victor.der@hq.doe.gov

Sharon K. Marchant, NETL (412) 386-6008

marchant@netl.doe.gov

Achieving NSPS EmisIntegration of Low-NOOptimization Plan for Participant:Sunflower Electric PowContacts:Wayne E. Penrod

(620) 275-5418(620) 272-5413 (fawepenrod@sunflowSunflower Electric 2075 W. St. John SGarden City, KS 6

Victor K. Der, DOE/HQ

victor.der@hq.doe

Leo E. Makovsky, NET

leo.makovsky@net

Demonstration of a FuAdvanced Hybrid ParParticipant:Otter Tail Power CompContacts:Bill Swanson

(605) 862-6300(605) 862-6344 (fawswanson@otpco.Otter Tail Power C48450 144th Street

Big Stone City, SD 

Victor K. Der, DOE/HQ

victor.der@hq.doe

John M. Rockey, NETL

john.rockey@netl.
Big Bend Power Station Neural NetworkSootblower OptimizationParticipant:Tampa Electric CompanyContacts:Ronald L. Boehm, Manager

(813) 641-5214(813) 641-5281 (fax)rlboehm@tecoenergy.comTECO EnergyP.O. Box 111Tampa, FL 33601

Victor K. Der, DOE/HQ, (301) 903-2700

victor.der@hq.doe.gov

John Rockey, NETL, (412) 386-4711

john.rockey@netl.doe.gov

Commercial Demonstration of the ManufacturedAggregate Processing Technology Utilizing SprayDryer AshParticipant:Universal Aggregates, LLCContacts:Roy O. Scandrol

(412) 854-6643(412) 854-6521 (fax)royscandrol@universalaggregates.comUniversal Aggregates, LLCSuite 3004000 Brownsville RoadP.O. Box 300South Park, PA 15129

Victor K. Der, DOE/HQ, (301) 903-2700

victor.der@hq.doe.gov

James Longanbach, NETL, (304) 285-4659

james.longanbach@netl.doe.gov

CCPINext Generation CFB Coal Generating UnitParticipant:Colorado Springs UtilitiesContacts:Greg Berwick

(719) 668-5653(719) 668-3990 (fax)gberwick@csu.orgColorado Springs Utilities215 Nichols Blvd., M/C 1328Colorado Springs, CO 80907

Victor K. Der, DOE/HQ, (301) 903-2700

victor.der@hq.doe.gov

James Longanbach, NETL, (412) 386-4659

james.longanbach@netl.doe.gov

Lignite Fuel EnhancementParticipant:Great River EnergyContacts:Charles Bullinger

(701) 442-7201cbullinger@grenergy.comGreat River Energy2875 Third St., SWUnderwood, ND 58576-9659

C. Lowell Miller, DOE/HQ, (301) 903-9453

lowell.miller@hq.doe.gov

James Longanbach, NETL, (412) 386-4659

james.longanbach@netl.doe.gov

Demonstration of InSoftware at the BaldParticipant:NeuCo, Inc.Contacts:Peter J. Kirk

(617) 425-3370(617) 425-3151 (kirk@neuco.netNeuCo, Inc.200 Clarendon StHancock Tower, Boston, MA 021

Victor K. Der, DOE/H

victor.der@hq.do

Soung-Sik Kim, NET

soung-sik.kim@n

Advanced Multi-ProProduct Processing PParticipant:University of KentuckContacts:Dr. Thomas L. Robl

(859) 257-0272(895) 257-0360 (robl@caer.uky.edUniversity of KenEnergy Research2540 Research PaLexington, KY 4

C. Lowell Miller, DO

lowell.miller@hq

Leo E. Makovsky, NE

leo.makovsky@n
D-4 Program Update 2003

Western Greenbrier Co-ProductionDemonstration ProjectParticipant:Western Greenbrier Co-Generation, LLCContacts:Wayne D. Brown

(304) 645-5227(304) 645-5400 (fax)wayne@areal125.comWestern Greenbrier Co-Generation, LLC125 Alta Mountain RoadLewisburg, WV 24901

Victor K. Der, DOE/HQ, (301) 903-2700

victor.der@hq.doe.gov

John Rockey, NETL, (412) 386-4711

john.rockey@netl.doe.gov

TOXECON Retrofit for Mercury and MultiPollutant Control on Three 90 MW Coal-FiredBoilersParticipant:Wisconsin Electric Power CompanyContacts:Richard Johnson

(414) 221-4234(414) 221-2024 (fax)dick.johnson@we-energies.comWe Energies333 W. Everett Street, MC P-145Milwaukee, WI 53203

Victor K. Der, DOE/HQ, (301) 903-2700

victor.der@hq.doe.gov

Ted McMahon, NETL, (412) 386-4865

ted.mcmahon@netl.doe.gov

Gilberton Coal-to-Clean Fuels and Power CoProduction ProjectParticipant:WMPI PTY., LLCContacts:John W. Rich Jr.

(570) 874-1602(570) 874-2625 (fax)jwrich@ultracleanfuels.comWMPI PTY., LLC10 Gilberton RoadGilberton, PA 17934

Victor K. Der, DOE/HQ, (301) 903-2700

victor.der@hq.doe.gov

Diane Madden, NETL, (412) 386-5931

diane.madden@netl.doe.gov
Appendix E. Acronyms, Abbreviations, aSymbols¢ cent°C degrees Celsius°F degrees Fahrenheit$ dollars (U.S.)$/kW dollars per kilowatt$/ton dollars per ton% percent® registered trademarkTM trademarkABB CE ABB Combustion Engineering, Inc.ABB ES ABB Environmental SystemsACCP advanced coal conversion processACFB atmospheric circulating fluidized-bedADL Arthur D. Little, Inc.A/E architect/engineeringAEO2002 Annual Energy Outlook 2002AER2001 Annual Energy Review 2001AFBC atmospheric fluidized-bed

combustion

AFGD advanced flue gas desulfurizationAIDEA Alaska Industrial Development and

Export Authority

AOFA advanced overfire airAPEC Asia Pacific Economic CooperationAPF advanced particulate filterARIL Advanced Retractable Injection

Lances

ASFE Assistant Secretary for Fossil EnergyASME American Society of Mechanical

Engineers

Ass’n. AssociationATCF after tax cash flowsatm atmosphere(s)avg. averageB&W The Babcock & Wilcox CompanyBFGCI blast furnace granular-coal injectionBG British GasBtu British thermal unit(s)Btu/kWh British thermal units per kilowatthour

BOD biological oxygen demandCAAA Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990CaCO3 calcium carbonate (calcitic

limestone)

CAG Coal Advisory GroupCa/N calcium-to-nitrogenCaO calcium oxide (lime)Ca(OH)2 calcium hydroxide (calcitic hydrated

lime)

Ca(OH)2•MgO dolomitic hydrated lime

CAPI Clean Air Power InitiativeCa/S calcium-to-sulfurCaSO3 calcium sulfite

CaSO4 calcium sulfateCCOFA close-coupled overfire airCCT clean coal technologyCCTDP Clean Coal Technology

Demonstration Program

CCTDP-I First CCTDP solicitationCCTDP-II Second CCTDP solicitation

CCTDP-III Third CCTDP-IV FourCCTDP-V Fifth CCPI CleaCCPI-I First CCPI-II SecoCCRI ChinCDL® Coal

CD-ROM ComCEED Cent

Deve

CEM contiCenPEEP Cent

Envi

CEQ CounCFB circuCFD ComC/H carboCHP combCKD cemeCO carboCO2 carboCOP ConfCQETM Coal CQIMTM Coal CSC convCSI CleaCT-121 ChiyCTI Clim
E-2 Program Update 2003

CUB coal utilization by-product(s)CURC Coal Utilization Research CouncilCX categorical exclusionCZD confined zone dispersiondB decibelsDER discrete emissions reductionDME dimethyl etherDOE U.S. Department of EnergyDOE/HQ U.S. Department of Energy

Headquarters

DRI direct reduction of ironDSE dust stabilization enhancementDSI dry sorbent injectionEA environmental assessmentEE Eastern EuropeEE/FSU Eastern Europe/Former Soviet UnionEEI Edison Electric InstituteEER Energy and Environmental Research

Corporation

EERC Energy and Environmental Research

Center, University of North Dakota

EETC Energy and Environmental

Technology Center

EFCC externally fired combined-cycleEIA U.S. Energy Information

Administration

EIS environmental impact statementEIV Environmental Information VolumeEMP environmental monitoring planEPA U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency

EPAct Energy Policy Act of 1992EPCRA Emergency Planning and Community

Right-To-Know Act

EPDC Japan’s Electric Power Development

Company

EPRI Electric Power Research InstituteESP electrostatic precipitatorEU European UnionEWG exempt wholesale generatorext. extensionFBC fluidized-bed combustionFCCC Framework Convention on Climate

Change

FE Office of Fossil EnergyFeO iron oxideFe2S pyritic sulfurFERC Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission

FETC Federal Energy Technology Center

(now NETL)

FGD flue gas desulfurizationFLGR flue gas recirculationFLGR/SNCR flue gas recirculation/selective

noncatalytic reduction

FONSI finding of no significant impactFRP fiberglass-reinforced plasticFSU Former Soviet Unionft, ft2, ft3 foot (feet), square feet, cubic feet

FY fiscal yeargal gallon(s)gal/ft3 gallons per cubic footGB gigabyte(s)GDP gross domestic productGE General ElectricGEP Greenhouse Gas Pollution

Prevention

GHG greenhouse gasesGNOCIS Generic NOx Control Intelligent

System

GPC Gilberton Power Companygpm gallons per minute

gr grainsGR gas rebGRI Gas RGR-LNB gas reb

GR-SI gas rebGSA gas suGVEA GoldeGW gigawGWe gigawH elemeH2 molec

H2S hydrog

H2SO4 sulfur

HAPs hazardHCl hydroHF hydrogHg mercuHGPFS hot gaHHV higher hr. hour(sHRSG heat reICCR Intern

Resea

ICR informID InduceIEA InternIEAT Indust

Thaila

IEO2003 InternIGCC integr

cycle

IGFC integrin, in2, in3 inch(e

inch(e

JBR Jet Bu
KCl potassium chlorideK2SO4 potassium sulfatekW kilowatt(s)kWh kilowatt-hour(s)LAC Latin America and the Caribbeanlb pound(s)L/G liquid-to-gasLHV lower heating valueLIMB limestone injection multistage

burner

LNB low-NOx burnerLNCB® low-NOx cell burnerLNCFS Low-NOx Concentric-Firing SystemLNG liquefied natural gasLOI loss-on-ignitionLPMEOHTM Liquid phase methanolLRCWF low-rank coal-water-fuelLSDE Laboratorium Sumderdaya EnergiLSFO limestone forced oxidationMACT maximum achievable control

technology

MASB multi-annular swirl burnerMB megabyte(s)MCFC molten carbonate fuel cellMCR Maximum Continuous RatingMDEA methyldiethanolamineMgCO3 magnesium carbonateMgO magnesium oxideMHz megahertzmills/kWh mills per kilowatt hourmin minute(s)mo month(s)MOST Ministry of Science and TechnologyMPF multiphase flowMSW municipal solid waste

MTBE methy tertiary butyl etherMTCI Manufacturing and Technology

Conversion International

MTF memorandum (memoranda)-to-fileMW megawatt(s)MWe megawatt(s)-electricMWt megawatt(s)-thermalN elemental nitrogenN2 molecular nitrogen

n.d. not datedN/A not applicableNAAQS National Ambient Air Quality

Standards

Na/Ca sodium-to-calciumNa2/S sodium-to-sulfurNaHCO3 sodium bicarbonateNaOH sodium hydroxideNa2CO3 sodium carbonateNARSTO North American Research Strategy

for Tropospheric Ozone

NEDO New Energy Development

Organization

NEP National Energy PolicyNEPA National Environmental Policy ActNETL National Energy Technology

Laboratory (formerly FETC)

NGCC natural gas combined cycleNH3 ammoniaNm3 normal cubic meterNMA National Mining AssociationNO2 nitrogen dioxideNOPR Notice of Proposed RulemakingNOx nitrogen oxidesNRC National Research CouncilNSPS New Source Performance Standards

NSR New NSR normNTHM net toNTIS Natio

Serv

NTPC NatioNYSEG New 

Corp

O elemO2 mole

O3 ozonO&M operOC&PS OfficOECD Orga

oper

OSTI Offic

Infor

OTAG OzonOTC OzonPASS Pilot PC persoPCAST Presi

on S

PCFB pressPDF® ProcPEIA prog

asses

PEIS prog

state

PEOATM Plan

Advi

PENELEC PennPEP progPFBC press

comb

PJBH pulse 
E-4 Program Update 2003

PM particulate matterPM10 particulate matter less than 10

microns in diameter

PM2.5 particulate matter less than 2.5

microns in diameter

PON program opportunity noticePPA Pollution Prevention ActPPII Power Plant Improvement InitiativePRB Powder River Basinppm parts per million (mass)ppmv parts per million by volumePRC People’s Republic of ChinaPSCC Public Service Company of ColoradoPSD Prevention of Significant

Deterioration

PSDF Power Systems Development Facilitypsi pound(s) per square inchpsia pound(s) per square inch absolutepsig pound(s) per square inch gaugePUHCA Public Utility Holding Company Act

of 1935

PURPA Public Utility Regulatory Policies

Act of 1978

QF qualifying facilityRAM random access memoryR&D research and developmentRD&D research, development, and

demonstration

RDF refuse derived fuelREA Rural Electrification AdministrationROD Record of DecisionROM run-of-mineRP&L Richmond Power & Lightrpm revolutions per minuteRUS Rural Utility ServiceS sulfur

SAP sulfuric acid plantSBIR Small Business Innovation ResearchSCADA supervisory control and data

acquisition

scf standard cubic feetscfm standard cubic feet per minuteSCR selective catalytic reductionSCS Southern Company Services, Inc.SDA spray dryer absorberSER Schuylkill Energy ResourcesSFC Synthetic Fuels CorporationS-H-U Saarberg-Hölter-UmwelttechnikSI sorbent injectionSIP State Implementation PlanSM service markSNCR selective noncatalytic reductionSNRBTM SOx-NOx-Rox BoxTMSO2 sulfur dioxide

SO3 sulfur trioxideSOFA separated overfire airSOFC solid oxide fuel cellSOW statement of workSPG Shangdong Power GroupSPPC Sierra Pacific Power Companystd ft3 standard cubic feetSTTR Small Business Technology Transfer

Program

SVGA super video graphics adapterSVOC semi-volatile organic compoundsTAGTM Technical Assessment GuideTMTCLP toxicity characteristics leaching

procedure

TRI Toxics Release InventoryTVA Tennessee Valley AuthorityUAF University of Alaska, Fairbanks

UARG Utility UBC unburnUBCL unburnU.K. United UNDEERC Unive

and En

UNESCO United 

Scient

URL UniforU.S. United USAID U.S. A

Devel

VFB vibratV·I voltagVOC volatilw.c. water WDNR Wisco

Resou

WES wasteww.g. water WLFO wet limWMPI Waste WPFF Workiwt. weighyr. year(sZPEG Zhejia

State AbbrevAK AlaskaAL AlabaAR ArkanAZ Arizon
CA CaliforniaCO ColoradoCT ConnecticutDC District of ColumbiaDE DelawareFL FloridaGA GeorgiaHI HawaiiIA IowaID IdahoIL IllinoisIN IndianaKS KansasKY KentuckyLA LouisianaMA MassachusettsMD MarylandME MaineMI MichiganMN MinnesotaMO MissouriMS MississippiMT MontanaNC North CarolinaND North DakotaNE NebraskaNH New HampshireNJ New JerseyNM New MexicoNV NevadaNY New YorkOH OhioOK OklahomaOR Oregon

PA PennsylvaniaPR Puerto RicoRI Rhode IslandSC South CarolinaSD South DakotaTN TennesseeTX TexasUT UtahVA VirginiaVI Virgin IslandsVT VermontWA WashingtonWI WisconsinWV West VirginiaWY Wyoming

OtherSome companies have adopted an acronym as theircorporate names. The following corporate namesreflect the former name of the company.BG/L British Gas LurgiJEA Jacksonville Electric AuthorityKRW Kellogg Rust Westinghouse
E-6 Program Update 2003
Index of Projects and ParticipantsSymbols10-MWe Demonstration of Gas Suspension Absorption

ES-3, ES-12, 2-6, 3-8, 3-10, 4-8, B-3,B-4, C-3, C-8, C-9

180-MWe Demonstration of Advanced Tangentially

Fired Combustion Techniques for the Reductionof NOx Emissions from Coal-Fired Boilers ES-3, ES-13, 2-6, 3-8, 4-9, B-3, B-4, C-3,C-7, C-9

AABB Combustion Engineering, Inc. ES-3, ES15, ES-17, 2-6, 3-10, 4-3, 4-5, 4-10, 4-12,

4-13, B-2, B-3, B-5, C-3, C-4, C-7, E-1

ABB Environmental Systems ES-3, ES-13, 2-6,

4-10, B-5, C-3, C-7, C-9, E-1

ACFB Repowering B-2Achieving NSPS Emission Standards Through Integration of Low-NOx Burners with an Optimization

Plan for Boiler combustion ES-5, ES-19,ES-20, 2-13, 3-13, 5-4, 5-5, 5-12, B-7, D-2

Advanced Coal Conversion Process Demonstration

ES-3, ES-15, ES-19, ES-20, 2-6, 3-9, 4-12,5-4, 5-5, 5-48, B-2, B-3, B-6, C-4, C-7, D-2

Advanced Cyclone Combustor with Internal Sulfur,

Nitrogen, and Ash Control ES-3, ES-15, 2-6,3-9, 4-12, B-1, B-3, C-3, C-7

Advanced Flue Gas Desulfurization Demonstration

Project ES-3, ES-12, ES-17, 2-6, 3-8,3-10, 4-8, 4-13, B-2, B-5, C-4, C-7, C-9

Advanced Multi-Product Coal Utilization By-Product

Processing Plant ES-5, ES-19, ES-20, 2-17,3-13, 5-4, 5-5, 5-58, D-3

Advanced Slagging Coal Combustor Utility Demonstration Project B-2, B-3Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. B-4

Air Products Liquid Phase Conversion Company, L.P.

ES-3, ES-15, 2-6, 4-5, B-4, B-6, C-4, C-8

AirPol, Inc. ES-3, ES-12, 2-6, 3-10, 4-2, 4-8,

B-3, B-4, C-3, C-8, C-9

Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority

ES-3, ES-14, 2-6, B-3, C-5, C-8, E-1

Alliant Energy Corporate Services, Inc. ES-19,

ES-20, 5-4, 5-5, 5-10, B-7

Appalachian IGCC Demonstration Project, The B-2Appalachian Power Company, The B-2, B-5Arthur D. Little, Inc. ES-4, 5-14, 5-40, B-4,

B-5, C-4, C-8, C-9, E-1

Arvah B. Hopkins Circulating Fluidized-Bed Repowering Project B-3

BBabcock & Wilcox Company, The ES-3, ES-12,

ES-13, ES-17, 2-6, 3-10, 4-3, 4-9, 4-10,4-13, B-1, B-2, B-3, B-4, B-5, C-3, C-4,C-7, C-8, C-9, E-1

Bechtel Corporation ES-4, ES-12, 2-7, 4-2, 4-8,

B-3, B-4, C-3, C-8

Bechtel Development Company B-2Bethlehem Steel Corporation ES-4, ES-15, 2-7,

4-5, B-2, B-3, B-4, B-6, C-3, C-4, C-8

Big Bend Power Station Neural Network-Sootblower

Optimization ES-5, ES-19, ES-20, 2-13,3-13, 5-4, 5-5, 5-20, B-7, D-3

Blast Furnace Granular-Coal Injection System Demonstration Project ES-4, ES-15, 2-7, 3-9,

4-12, B-3, B-6, C-4, C-8

CCalvert City Advanced Energy Project B-4Camden Clean Energy Demonstration Project B-4Cement Kiln Flue Gas Recovery Scrubber ES-3,

ES-15, 2-6, 3-9, 4-12, B-2, B-4, C-4, C-7

Centerior Energy CorpCity of Lakeland, Lake

City of, Lakeland 

City of Tallahassee. SeClean Coal Combined-Clean Coal Diesel Dem

ES-19, ES-20, 25-40, B-4, B-5, 

Clean Energy IGCC DClean Energy Partners Clean Power CogeneraClean Power from Inte

(CPICORTM) ES-5-4, 5-5, 5-54, B

Coal Diesel CombinedCoal Tech Corporation 

4-12, B-1, B-3, 

Coal Waste Recovery A

stration B-2

Colorado Springs Utili

2-17, 5-4, 5-5, 5

Colorado-Ute Electric 

C-3, C-7

Combustion Engineeri

B-3, B-5, C-3, C

Combustion EngineeriCombustion Initiative f

NOx Reduction E

5-10, B-7

Commercial Demonstr

ES-19, ES-20, 3

Commercial Demonstr

Aggregate ProcesDryer Ash ES-5, 5-4, 5-5, 5-56, B

Commercial Demonstr

Removal Flue GaB-6, C-4
Index-2 Program Update 2003

Commercial-Scale Demonstration of the Liquid Phase

Methanol (LPMEOHTM) Process ES-2,ES-3, ES-15, 2-6, 3-9, 4-1, 4-12, B-4,B-6, C-4, C-8

Confined Zone Dispersion Flue Gas Desulfurization

Demonstration ES-4, ES-12, 2-7, 3-8, 4-8,B-3, B-4, C-3, C-8

CONSOL Energy, Inc. ES-5, ES-19, ES-20, 2-13,

5-4, 5-5, 5-16, D-2

Cordero Coal-Upgrading Demonstration Project B-3Cordero Mining Company B-3COREX Ironmaking Demonstration Project B-2CPICORTM Management Company LLC ES-4,

ES-19, ES-20, 2-7, 4-5, 5-4, 5-5, 5-54,B-3, B-4, B-5, C-5, C-8, C-9, D-2

CQ Inc. ES-3, ES-15, ES-17, 2-6, 3-10, 4-5,

4-12, 4-13, B-2, B-5, C-7

Custom Coals International B-4, B-6, C-4DDairyland Power Cooperative B-3Demonstration of a Full-Scale Retrofit of the Advanced

Hybrid Particulate Collector Technology ES-5, ES-19, ES-20, 2-13, 3-13, 5-4, 5-5,5-18, B-7, D-2

Demonstration of Advanced Combustion Techniques

for a Wall-Fired Boiler ES-2, ES-3, ES-13,2-6, 3-8, 4-1, 4-9, B-2, B-6, C-3, C-7, C-9

Demonstration of Coal Diesel Technology at Easton

Utilities B-4

Demonstration of Coal Reburning for Cyclone Boiler

NOx Control ES-3, ES-12, 2-6, 3-8, 4-9,B-2, B-4, C-4, C-7, C-9

Demonstration of Innovative Applications of Technology for the CT-121 FGD Process ES-3,

ES-12, ES-17, 2-6, 3-8, 4-2, 4-8, 4-13,4-15, B-2, B-5, B-6, C-4, C-7, C-9

Demonstration of Integrated Optimization Software at

the Boldwin Energy Complex ES-5, ES-19,ES-20, 2-17, 3-13, 5-4, 5-5, 5-24, D-3

Demonstration of Selective Catalytic Reduction

Technology for the Control of NOx Emissionsfrom High-Sulfur, Coal-Fired Boilers ES-3,ES-13, 2-6, 3-8, 4-2, 4-9, 4-15, B-2, B-5,C-3, C-7

Demonstration of the Union Carbide CANSOLVTM

System at the Alcoa Gnerating CorporationWarrick Power Plant B-4

Development of Hybrid FLGR/SNCR/SCR Advanced

NOx Control ES-5, ES-19, ES-20, 2-13,3-13, 5-4, 5-5, 5-14, D-2

Development of the Coal Quality ExpertTM ES-3,

ES-15, ES-17, 2-6, 3-9, 3-10, 4-12, 4-13,B-2, B-5, C-3, C-7

Direct Iron Ore Reduction to Replace Coke Oven/Blast

Furnace for Steelmaking B-2

DMEC-1 Limited Partnership B-3, B-5Duke Energy Corporation B-4

EENCOAL Corporation ES-4, ES-15, 2-7, 4-5,

4-12, B-3, B-5, C-4, C-8, C-9

ENCOAL® Mild Coal Gasification Project ES-4,

ES-15, 2-7, 3-9, 4-12, B-3, B-5, C-4, C-8,C-9

Energy and Environmental Research Corporation 

ES-3, ES-4, ES-12, ES-13, ES-17, 2-6,2-7, 4-3, 4-9, 4-10, 4-23, B-1, B-3, B-5,B-6, C-3, C-4, C-7, C-8, E-2

Energy International, Inc. B-2Enhancing the Use of Coals by Gas Reburning and

Sorbent Injection ES-3, ES-13, ES-17, 2-6,3-8, 4-10, 4-13, B-1, B-5, B-6, C-1, C-3,C-4, C-7

Evaluation of Gas Reburning and Low-NOx Burners on

a Wall-Fired Boiler ES-4, ES-12, ES-17,2-7, 3-8, 4-9, 4-10, 4-13, B-3, B-5, C-3, C-8

FFoster Wheeler Power Systems, Inc. 4-3, B-2

Four Rivers Energy ModFour Rivers Energy PartFull-Scale Demonstratio

Retrofit ES-3, ES-3-10, 4-9, 4-13, B

GGeneral Electric CompaGilberton Coal-to-Clean 

tion Project ES-5, 3-13, 5-4, 5-5, 5-

Great River Energy ES-

5-4, 5-5, 5-44, D-

Greenidge Multi-Polluta

ES-19, ES-20, 2-1

HHealy Clean Coal Projec

3-9, 4-4, 4-11, B-

IInnovative Coke Oven G

Retrofit Application

Integrated Coal Gasifica

Turbine DemonstraCleanup B-2

Integrated Dry NOx/SO2 

ES-4, ES-13, 2-7, B-3, B-6, C-3, C-

Integrated Gasification CJJacksonville Electric AuJEA ES-3, ES-17, ES-

4-13, 5-4, 5-5, 5-C-9, D-1, E-5

JEA Large-Scale CFB C

Project ES-2, ES-2-6, 3-9, 4-1, 4-25-34, B-3, B-5, C
KKentucky Pioneer Energy IGCC Demonstration Project

ES-4, ES-19, ES-20, 2-7, 3-9, 4-4, 5-4,5-5, 5-38, B-4, C-1, C-5, C-8, C-9, D-1

Kentucky Pioneer Energy, LLC ES-4, ES-19,

ES-20, 2-7, 5-4, 5-5, 5-38, C-5, C-8, C-9,D-1

LLakeland, City of, Lakeland Electric ES-19,

ES-20, 5-4, 5-5, 5-30, 5-32, B-5, B-6

LG&E Energy Corporation ES-19, ES-20, 5-4,

5-5, 5-22, B-7

LIFAC Sorbent Injection Desulfurization Demonstration Project ES-4, ES-12, 2-7, 3-8, 4-8,

B-3, B-5, C-3, C-8

LIFAC–North America ES-4, ES-12, 2-7, 4-2,

4-8, B-3, B-5, C-3, C-8

Lignite Fuel Enhancement ES-5, ES-19, ES-20,

2-17, 3-13, 5-4, 5-5, 5-44, D-3

LIMB Demonstration Project Extension and Coolside

Demonstration ES-3, ES-13, 2-6, 3-8, 4-10,B-1, B-4, C-3, C-7

LNS Burner for Cyclone-Fired Boilers Demonstration

Project B-2, B-3

Low-NOx/SO2 Burner Retrofit for Utility Cyclone

Boilers C-3, C-4

MM.W. Kellogg Company B-2McDermott Technology, Inc. 2-6, B-1, B-4, C-3,

C-7

McIntosh Unit 4A PCFB Demonstration Project 

ES-2, ES-19, ES-20, 4-1, 5-4, 5-5, 5-30,B-5,B-6

McIntosh Unit 4B Topped PCFB Demonstration

Project ES-2, ES-19, ES-20, 4-1, 5-4, 5-5,5-32, B-4, B-5, B-6

Micronized Coal Reburning Demonstration for NOx

Control Co ES-4, ES-12, 2-7, 3-8, 4-9,B-3, B-5, B-6, C-2, C-8

Milliken Clean Coal Technology Demonstration

Project ES-4, ES-13, 2-7, 3-8, 4-2, 4-10,4-15, B-4, B-6, C-4, C-8, C-9

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources B-2MK-Ferguson Company B-3

NNeuCo, Inc. ES-5, ES-19, ES-20, 2-17, 5-4, 5-5,

5-24, D-3

New York State Electric & Gas Corporation 

ES-4, ES-12, ES-13, 2-7, 4-3, 4-9, 4-10,B-3, B-4, B-5, B-6, C-4, C-8, C-9, E-3

Next Generation CFB Coal Generating Unit 

ES-5, ES-19, ES-20, 2-17, 3-13, 5-4, 5-5,5-36, D-3

Nichols CFB Repowering Project B-3NOXSO Corporation B-3, B-4, B-6, C-4Nucla CFB Demonstration Project ES-3, ES-14,

2-6, 3-9, 3-10, 4-11, B-2, B-3, C-3, C-7

OOhio Ontario Clean Fuels, Inc. B-2, B-3Ohio Power Company, The ES-3, ES-14, ES-17,

2-6, 4-4, 4-11, 4-13, B-1, B-5, C-3, C-7, C-9

Otisca Fuel Demonstration Project B-3Otisca Industries, Ltd. B-3Otter Tail Power Company ES-5, ES-19, ES-20,

2-13, 5-4, 5-5, 5-18, B-7, D-2

PPassamaquoddy Tribe ES-3, ES-15, 2-6, 4-6,

4-12, B-2, B-4, C-4, C-7

PCFB Demonstration Project B-3Pennsylvania Electric Com 4, B-5, C-3, C-4, E-3PFBC Utility Demonstration Project B-2, B-5Piñon Pine IGCC Power Project ES-4, 2-7, 3-9,

4-4, B-3, B-6, C-5, C-8, C-9

Polk Power Station PlaPostcombustion Sorben

Project B-2

Prototype Commercial 

B-2, B-3

Public Service Compan

ES-13, 2-7, 4-3, C-8, C-9

Pulse Combustor Desig

2-7, 3-9, B-4, B

Pure Air on the Lake, L

2-6, 3-10, 4-2, 4C-7, C-9

RRosebud SynCoal PartSSelf-Scrubbing CoalTM

Clean Air B-4, B

Sierra Pacific Power C

B-3, B-6, C-5, C

SNOXTM Flue Gas Cle

ES-3, ES-13, 2-6C-3, C-7, C-9

Southern Company Ser

ES-13, ES-17, 24-13, 4-21, B-2, C-4, C-7, C-9, E

Southwestern Public SSOx-NOx-Rox BoxTM 

tion Project ES-34-10, B-2, B-5, 

Sunflower Electric Pow

ES-19, ES-20, 2

TTallahassee, City of BTAMCO Power Partne
Index-4 Program Update 2003

Tampa Electric Company ES-4, ES-5, ES-14,

ES-17, ES-19, ES-20, 2-7, 2-13, 4-11,4-13, 4-21, 5-4, 5-5, 5-20, B-3, B-6, B-7,C-5, C-8, C-9, D-3

Tampa Electric Integrated Gasification CombinedCycle Project ES-4, ES-14, ES-17, 2-7, 3-9,

4-4, 4-11, 4-13, B-6, C-5, C-8, C-9

Tennessee Valley Authority B-3, B-5, E-4ThermoChem, Inc. ES-4, 2-7, 4-6, B-4, B-5, C-8TIAX, LLC ES-5, ES-19, ES-20, 2-13, 5-4, 5-5,

5-14, 5-40, D-1, D-2

Tidd PFBC Demonstration Project ES-3, ES-14,

ES-17, 2-6, 3-9, 4-11, 4-13, B-1, B-5,C-3, C-7, C-9

Toms Creek IGCC Demonstration Project B-4TOXECON Retrofit for Mercury and Multi-Pollutant

Control on Three 90 MW Coal-Fired Boilers ES-5, ES-19, ES-20, 2-17, 3-13, 5-4, 5-5,5-26, D-4

TransAlta Resources Investment Corporation B-2,

B-3, C-3, C-4

Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association,

Inc. ES-3, ES-14, 2-6, 3-10, 4-4, 4-11,B-3, C-3, C-7

TRW, Inc. B-2, B-3UUnderground Coal Gasification Demonstration Project

B-2

Union Carbide Chemicals and Plastics Company, Inc.

B-4

United Coal Company B-2Universal Aggregates, LLC ES-5, ES-19, ES-20,

2-13, 5-4, 5-5, 5-56, B-6, D-3

University of Kentucky Research Foundation 

ES-5, ES-19, ES-20, 2-17, 5-4, 5-5, 5-58, D-3

WWabash River Coal Gasification Repowering Joint

Venture ES-4, ES-14, ES-17, 2-7, 4-11,4-13, B-3, B-6, C-4, C-8, C-9

Wabash River Coal Gasification Repowering Project

ES-4, ES-14, ES-17, 2-7, 3-9, 3-10, 4-2,4-4, 4-11, 4-13, 4-15, B-3, B-6, C-4, C-8,C-9, C-10

Warren Station Externally Fired Combined-Cycle

Demonstration Project B-4, B-5, C-3, C-4

Weirton Steel Corporation B-2Western Energy Company 5-50, B-2, B-3Western Greenbrier Co-Generation, LLC ES-5,

ES-19, ES-20, 2-17, 5-4, 5-5, 5-60, D-4

Western Greenbrier Co-Production Demonstration

Project ES-5, ES-19, ES-20, 2-17, 3-13,5-4, 5-5, 5-60, D-4

Western SynCoal LLC ES-3, ES-15, ES-19,

ES-20, 2-6, 4-5, 4-12, 5-4, 5-5, 5-48, B-2,B-3, B-6, C-4, C-7, D-2

Wisconsin Electric Power Company ES-5,

ES-19, ES-20, 2-17, 5-4, 5-5, 5-26, D-4

WMPI PTY., LLC ES-5, ES-19, ES-20, 2-17,

5-4, 5-5, 5-46, D-4

YYork County Energy Partners Cogeneration Project 

B-3, C-5

York County Energy Partners, L.P. B-3, B-5, C-5
Contents

Executive SummarySection 1. Role of the Clean Coal TechnologySection 2. ImplementationSection 3. Funding and CostsSection 4. AccomplishmentsSection 5. Projects

Environmental Control DevicesAdvanced Electric Power GenerationCoal Processing for Clean FuelsIndustrial Applications

Appendix A. Historical Perspective and Legislative HistoryAppendix B. Program HistoryAppendix C. CCTDP Environmental AspectsAppendix D. Project ContactsAppendix E. Acronyms, Abbreviations, and SymbolsIndex of Projects and Participants