Stimulating near-term IGCC deployment with 3Party covenant financing

EM: Air and Waste Management Association's Magazine for Environmental Managers

Volumn , Issue DEC., 2004, Pages 34-39

  Rosenberg, William G ^a,b,c,d   Alpern, Dwight C ^e   Walkar, Michael R ^f  

^a HARVARD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b Michigan Public Service Commission   (United States)

^c Federal Energy Administration

^d U S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY   (United States)

^e EPA's Clean Air Markets Division   (United States)

^f NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ECONOMIC VIABILITY; INTEGRATED GASIFICATION COMBINED CYCLE (IGCC) DEPLOYMENT; RISK-SHARING ARRANGEMENT;

BUDGET CONTROL; COAL GASIFICATION; COMPETITION; COSTS; ENERGY POLICY; FINANCE; PROJECT MANAGEMENT; RISK ASSESSMENT;

COMBINED CYCLE POWER PLANTS;

EID: 10844255826     PISSN: 10889981     EISSN: None     Source Type: Trade Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (14)

1. Rosenberg, W.G.; Alpern, D.C.; Walker, M.R. Deploying IGCC in This Decade with 3Party Covenant Financing; Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, 2004; available at www.ksg.harvard.edu/bcsia/enrp.
2. International Energy Annual; Energy Information Administration, Washington, DC, 2002.
3. Fast Facts About Coal; National Mining Association, Washington, DC, 2003; available at www.nma.org/statistics.
4. Annual Electric Generator Report, Form EIA 860; Energy Information Administration, Washington, DC, 2001.
5. The economic consequences of high prices are described in the House Speaker's report, Task Force for Affordable Natural Gas, which states: "Because domestically produced natural gas is so vital to our nation's energy balance, rising prices make our nation less competitive. When prices rise, factories close. Good, high paying jobs are imported over-seas. Today's high natural gas prices are doing just that. We are losing manufacturing jobs in the chemicals, plastics, steel, automotive, glass, fertilizer, fabrication, textile, pharmaceutical, agribusiness and high tech industries." The Task Force for Affordable Natural Gas, Natural Gas: Our Current Situation; House Energy and Commerce, Sept. 30, 2003.
6. See New York Times, Oct. 13, 2003, p. W1 and Dec. 9, 2003, p. C4.
7. Electric Power Monthly; Energy Information Administration, Washington, DC, Apr. 2004; Table ES1.A.
8. Tracking New Coal-Fired Power Plants: Coal's Resurgence in Electric Power Generation; National Energy Technology Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, DC, 2004.
9. For descriptions of the FutureGen and Vision 21 programs, see www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/powersystems.
10. Ratafia-Brown, J.; Manfredo, L.; Hoffmann, J.; Ramezan, M. Major Environmental Aspects of Gasification-Based Power Generation Technologies; U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, DC, 2002; available at www.netl.doe.gov/coal/gasification/pubs/pdf/final%20env.pdf.
11. Berg, D.; Patterson, A. IGCC Risk Framework Study: Policy Office, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, DC. Presented to the Gasification Technology Council, May 20, 2004.
12. Baron, R.M. U.S. Power and Energy Credit Outlook Not Promising; Few Bright Spots; Standard & Poors, Washington, DC, Nov. 11, 2003.
13. Wisconsin Electric Power Co., 228 PUR4th 444, 459, 2003 WL 22663829 (Wise. P.S.C. Nov. 10, 2003).
14. The cost of capital is used to calculate a levelized carrying charge for capital to estimate the generating cost of a new power plant. The levelized carrying charge is the average annual capital cost over the life of the plant, taking into account loan amortization, financing costs (construction and long-term), taxes, and depreciation. The authors calculated levelized carrying charges based on the EPRI Technical Assessment Guide 1993 methodology with the help of Professor Robert Williams of Princeton University.