§_§gAvF;;>gF llllllllll I Jlllllfljjfl jllllllll lllllll , COAL GASIFICATION AND LIQUEFACTION ISSUE BRIEF NUMBER IB77l05 AUTHOR: Paul R. Rothberg Science POli,CY Research DiViSiOl'l THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE MAJOR ISSUES SYSTEM DATE ORIGINATED l0/O3/77 DATE UPDATED O3/O3/82 FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION CALL 287-5700 0303 cRs» 1 1377105 UPDATE-03/03/82 SUE DEFINITION If begun today, commercial plants could be producing coal-based synthetic fuels (synfuels) within about four to five years. Even if massive Federal iincentives were provided tO mitigate economic uncertainties, commercial production levels by l992 are projected to be 50,000 to 150,000 barrels of oil equivalent per day of coal-derived liquids and .5 to .75 billion cubic feet per day of high-Btu coal gas, which is equivalent to approximately 88,000 to 132,000 barrels of oil per day. To expedite the commercialization of these and other types of synfuels plants, Congress established in P.L. 96-126, P.L. 96-294, P.L. 96-304, and P.L. 97-12 a National synfuels Production Program. This national effort consists of two major parts: an interim program conducted primarily by the Department of Energy (DOE) and a long-range program conducted by the United States Synthetic Fuels Corporation (SFC). Under the interim program, DOE provided a $2.02 billion loan guarantee to a commercial-scale high-Btu coal gasification facility. The SFC is now considering whether to provide financial assistance to other coal-based synfuels projects. The Reagan Administration wants to rely more heavily upon private investment to support synfuels projects and less on Federal tax dollars. The Administration is reducing much of DOE's fossil energy research and development program, including support for five coal-based synfuels ‘demonstration projects. However, the Administration's Program for Economic V covery and its National Energy Policy Plan have provided the emerging t,al-based synfuels industry with several substantial financial incentives, ’including accelerated depreciation schedules for capital investments. Attention is now focused on (1) the status ~of rthe emerging coal-based synfuels industry and the commercial readiness of the various processing technologies; (2) oversight of Federal programs designed to expedite the rate of growth of the industry; and (3) the expected environmental impacts and regulatory concerns associated with synfuels production. BACKGROUND AND POLICY ANALYSIS STATUS AND OUTLOOK FOR COAL GASIFICATION Coal gasification is a chemical technology in which crushed coal is converted into combustible gas that may be of low-, medium-, or high-Btu (heat) content per cubic foot. The process of coal gasification requires first, the heating of the coal and second, the reaction of its carbon and hydrogen components with steam to produce carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, hydrogen, and methane. Using this technology, environmentally dirty coal can be converted into environmentally acceptable fuel gases. V High-Btu Coal Gasification Technical status. High-Btu coal gasification results in the production of pipeline quality gas from coal. The gas produced, mostly methane, has a heating value (1 million Btu/1000 standard cubic feet) nearly equivalent to natural gas and could be distributed through existing pipeline systems to the CRS- 2 1377105 UPDATE=O3/O3/82 user. High-Btu gasification could supply energy for the industrial sector (f direct process heat applications requiring a clean fuel and feedstock supply) and for the residential/commercial sector (for conventional space heating). Nearly all of the proposed commercial facilities designed to produce high-Btu gas, also referred to as synthetic natural gas (SNG), would employ the Lurgi process followed by, methanation and gas purification systems. Although the technology for all components of a first-generation, high=Btu gasification system is proven and available commercially, there are some technical risks involved with a commercial plant. For example, the integration of all components into a working commercial system that can meet U.S. environmental standards has not yet been accomplished. Commercialization activities. Currently about five projects are seeking t0 advance proposals t0 build high-Btu coal gas plants. Some companies are applying for Federal and State certificates and regulatory approvals as well as for acceptable financing packages t0 construct and operate commercial plants. DOE has provided some projects With financial assistance t0 ‘conduct - project feasibility studies or t0 proceed With other pre-commercialization activities. other projects are applying for SFC funding. A consortium of some of the Nation's largest gas pipeline companies started construction during l98l on the Great Plains Gasification Project in Mercer County, North Dakota. If this project were successfully completed by 1984 or l985, it would be the Nationfs first commercial scale high-Btu coal gas plant. Current design plans and financial analyses indicate that t plant would cost at least $2.6 billion and would produce about l25 million cubic feet of SNG daily, which is equivalent to about 22,000 barrels of oil per day. The project participants have thus far invested about $100 million of their own funds into the project, and they have been awarded a $2.02 billion loan guarantee from the DOE to continue construction efforts. (Legislative basis for this action is discussed below; see section on P.L. 96-126 and P.L. 96-304). If the Great Plains or a similar project were operating by 1985 and if the Federal Government or SFC were to provide substantial economic or regulatory incentives for several additional projects, it is possible that commercial production levels by 1992 may reach .5 to .75 billion cubic feet of high-Btu coal gas per day, which is equivalent to 88,000 to 132,000 barrels of oil per day. This projection takes into account industry's current and anticipated plans as well as the near-term availability of natural gas, the long lead times (4-5 years) involved in constructing a full scale gasification plant, and the numerous environmental and regulatory uncertainties facing this industry. This level of production could be reached if two to three projects, each producing about 250 million rcubic feet per day, were commercialized. By constructing and operating the Nation's first commercial high-Btu coal gas plant, industry and Government could learn to reduce or handle many of the impediments to commercialization. If a large scale project were commercialized, industry could obtain information on the actual costs of tr’s energy option, on the plant's air emissions and aqueous discharges, and n the effectiveness of environmental control systems. A data repository would be generated upon which further regulations, if needed, could be based. In addition, a successful plant might convince other companies to accelerate their commercialization efforts, whereas even an unsuccessful effort should CRS- 3 1377105 UPDATE-03/03/82 indicate if and where further work would be beneficial. On the other hand, there are several "downside risks" or potential costs r sociated with the commercialization of a high-Btu coal gas plant. For yeiample, if construction or operation were halted, the costs Of such an unsuccessful project could,be large and might have to be paid partly by the gas consumers of those companies participating in an unsuccessful project. Medium—Btu Coal Gasification Medium-Btu gas, which would be used primarily in the industrial market, is produced by the combustion of coal in the presence of steam and oxygen. The resulting gas, after clean—up, is composed primarily of carbon monoxide (CO) and hydrogen (H) and has a heating value of 300-600 Btu/cubic foot. Although there are over 100 medium-Btu "plants overseas, there area no operating commercial plants in the United States. Because these foreign systems have been producing gas for many years, the technical risks of commercialization in the United States are judged to be quite small. However, it is still uncertain whether medium-Btu gas plants can operate within the constraints of Federal and State environmental standards. Low-Btu Coal Gasification Low-Btu gas is produced by the combustion of coal in the presence of steam and air. The resulting gas, after clean-up, is composed primarily of nitrogen (N), carbon monoxide (CO), and hydrogen (H) and has a low heating value of less than 200 Btu/cubic foot. Because of this low heating value, up five times the volume of this gas is required to equal the heating value -of natural gas. Thus, to use low-Btu gas in existingv gas burners, retrofitting and piping changes are necessary. Low-Btu coal gas can be used in both the industrial and utility market sectors as a basic fuel where low—pressure supply is acceptable and also in the retrofit of oil, gas, or high sulfur, coal-fired generating plants. A variety of different facilities in the United States are currently using these processes; however, the combined output of these plants contributes only a negligible amount of energy to current U.S. supplies. The generation of low-Btu gas from coal requires a less complex plant than that required for synthesis of high—Btu gas. Consequently, capital and operating costs are expected to be lower per unit of energy. some of the barriers to extensive commercialization of low-Btu gasifiers include: the feasibility of conversion from existing systems and high costs of distributing and storing the gas. Federal Efforts t0 Advance Coal Gasification Technology Primarily over the last l5 years, the Federal Government and industry have worked on advanced processes, which are sometimes called second generation jtechnologies, t0 convert COal into useful gaseous energy products. several 7 lOt plants that can produce synthetic gas are in operation, under construction, or have been completed. The technologies used in these plants are based on modified versions Of older technology originally used in Europe or on new technology developed in the United States. The major differences CRS- 4 0 1377105 UPDATE=03/03/82 ’ I among various gasification technologies are in gasifier design and operating conditions. A summary of Federal funding over the last 9 fiscal years on the research, development, and demonstration of coal gasification technologies is presented below. Table I. Federal Coal Gasification Research, Development, and Demonstration Funding Levelsr (All figures include operating, plant and capital expenses) :1 (surface and in situ) 75 A $116,285,000 76 $ 96,053,000 Transition Quarter $ 21,650,000 77 ‘ $143,242,000 78 $208,180,000 79 $122,398,000 80 $123,250,000 81 $174,900,000 82 $ 61,344,000 83 request $ 11,200,000 *Information supplied by nor. Under the Carter Administration, a major part of DOE's high-Btu Ct gasification program was designed to advance various new processes from the pilot to the larger-scale demonstration facility. DOE supported two competing groups that were designing different second generation demonstration plants. As part of the Reagan Administration's energy program, DOE is terminating during FY82 its involvement in these demonstration projects. This change is consistent with the current Administration's policy to rely principally on the private sector, together with limited SFC support, to determine the rate of commercialization of synfuels technologies. (See section below on Reagan Administration Policies Affecting Coal-Based Synfuels). DOE also has funded several promising concepts for low— and medium-Btu gas generation. Laboratory and pilot plant projects have included work on: fluidized, entrained, and fixed-bed gasification systems; molten salt pressurized process; hydrogasification, and ash agglomeration. Coal Gasification for Electric Utilities The Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) states that, for electric utilities, the best prospective use for a coal gasification system appears to be its direct integration with a combined-cycle power plant. This technology, termed "Integrated Gasifier Combined Cycle (IGCC)," uses an approach fundamentally different from the conventional coal-fired power plant to generate electric power. In an IGCC plant, coal is processed into la combustible gas which is burned in-a gas turbine that powers an electi-c generator. The hot exhaust gas from the gas turbine furnishes heat to a boiler, which supplies steam to a steam turbine that powers another electric generator. According to EPRI, the IGCC process, when compared tot conventional coal-fired electric generating systems, may present potentially CR3" 5 IB77lO5 UPDATE-O3/O3/82 competitive costs of power, better resource utilization, the ability to meet more stringent emissions standards, and higher thermal efficiency. EPRI maintains that the emissions from IGCC are less harmful to the environment than conventional power plants. IGCC's pollution levels of S02, N02, and particulates are less than those of the conventional plant and its water requirement may be as much as 40% below that of the conventional coalwfired plant. Although capital costs for IGCC may prove to be higher than the costs for a conventional power plant, the higher efficiency of IGCC may result in a lower cost of electricity. At present, commercial-size IGCC facilities have not been constructed, but Southern California Edison Company, Bechtel Corp., Texaco, Inc., and others, are planning to build a $300 million large—scale demonstration facility near Barstow, California, which is scheduled to produce about lOOMW of electric power by 1984 or 1985. Project participants have applied to the SFC for financial support to construct this project. STATUS AND OUTLOOK FOR COAL LIQUEFACTION Coal liquefaction is the process of converting coal to such liquid products as boiler fuels, petrochemical feedstocks, or gasoline. Current State-of-Technology of Coal Liquefaction There are two basic routes to produce liquid products from coal. (l) Indirect liquefaction. In this approach, coal is first gasified to produce a synthesis gas (hydrogen and carbon monoxide) which is then catalytically converted to liquids. There are two different types of commercially available plants for converting synthesis gas to liquids: (a) Methanol plants which could use any of five different licensed processes and (b) Fischer-Tropsch plants, which convert synthesis gas to a variety of hydrocarbon and oxygenated products, During World War II, the Germans used this latter process to supply a large portion of their liquid fuel needs; an improved version of this process has been used for over 25 years in the Republic of South Africa. One advantage of indirect liquefaction is that the sulfur, oxygen, and nitrogen in the coal are removed as hydrogen sulfide, water, and ammonia. As a result, the liquid products are relatively pollutant free, but the thermal efficiency of this process, roughly 45-60%, is generally lower than that of advanced processes. Liquid yields are in the range of 1.6-1.7 barrels of fuel oil equivalent (FOE)/ton of coal for Fischer-Tropsch and 2.2-2.5 barrels from methanol synthesis. . Commercial scale, first generation plants based on the Fischer-Tropsch process or methanol synthesis could be constructed and ready for operation in the United States in about five years. (2) Direct Hydrogenation. The basis for this reaction is the addition or turation of hydrogen to broken down or degraded molecules of coal, some of which are liquefied to an oil—like fluid. In this approach, coal is mixed or slurried in a stream of coal liquids (or process-derived oil) and reacted in an atmosphere of hydrogen under high temperature and pressure conditions. CRS- 6 IB77105 UPDATE=03/03/82 Solid and liquid products must be separated from each other to remove unreacted coal and waste ash. Hydrogen for the reaction can come from t gasification of unreacted coal. Examples of direct hydrogenation processes are the H-Coal and Solvent Refined Coal (SRC) processes. According to DOE, sulfur and nitrogen removal is not as effective by this route as by indirect liquefaction. However, thermal efficiencies for direct liquefaction products are higher, in the range of 65~70%. Liquid yields are in the range of 2.5-3.0 barrels of fuel oil equivalent (FOE)/ton of processed coal. Second generation, direct liquefaction technology is not yet ready for commercialization, but it is possible that a large-scale facility could be operating by the early 19905. Federal Efforts to Advance Coal Liquefaction Technology Over the last 15 years, industry and Government have intensified efforts to develop new or advanced liquefaction processes. DOE has supported pilot plant and laboratory projects to advance several of these processes, including solvent extraction, direct hydrogenation, and pyrolysis systems. These projects constituted the early stages of a Federal/industry program leading towards commercialization of new coal liquefaction processesTw—Table~ II indicates the level of Federal funding for research, development, and demonstration of coal liquefaction technologies over the last 9 fiscal years. Table II. Federal Coal Liquefaction Research, Development, and Demonstration Funding Levelsw (All figures include operating, plant and capital expenses) 31 ' Coal Liquefaction 75 $107,745,000 76 $140,884,000 Transition Quarter S 36,380,000 77 $111,357,000 78 $126,520,000 79 $217,900,000 80 $250,306,000 81 $521,400,000 82 $228,384,000 83 request $ 26,200,000 *Information supplied by DOE. As part of DOE's FY82 budget request, the Reagan Administration sought to CRS- 7 IB77lO5 UPDATE-O3/O3/82 terminate direct DOE funding for two coal liquefaction demonstration projects, the Solvent Refined Coal (SRC)-I project and the SRC II project. In general, the Congress agreed to this funding request; however, . proximately $135 million was provided during FY82 for the funding of Aproject design work on the SRC-I project. Development Timetable for Coal Liquefaction Large-scale construction of the first U.S. commercial liquefaction plant has not yet begun, nor has any company allocated the huge capital required to complete construction. Some companies, however, have announced their plans .to invest in commercial plants designed to produce liquid fuels or chemicals from coal. Most industry plans depend upon receiving substantial Federal support from SFC. Based on the current and anticipated level of industrial activity, it appears that an average daily commercial production level of 50,000 to 150,000 barrels of oil equivalent could be reached by 1992. However, to reach this level, SFC would have to provide substantial economic incentives, and Federal regulatory policies and practices would have to allow commercialization to proceed in a timely fashion. Much of this production could be obtained from about three to four plants using proven, first generation technology. If work proceeds satisfactorily on large-scale pilot facilities between now and l984 and decisions are made to scale up to commercial plants, advanced or second generation plants could also contribute yto this production level. Projections on the contribution of coal liquids to the U.S. energy supply J beyond 1992 are highly speculative. If coal liquefaction proves to be environmentally acceptable and economically feasible, and if the Federal Government promotes commercial activities, it seems possible that a production level of roughly .2-.5 million barrels per day could be reached by 2000. The upper range might be reached with major Federal support; whereas the lower range might be reached if environmental, regulatory, and economic factors continue to constrain production. ENVIRONMENTAL AND REGULATORY CONCERNS ASSOCIATED WITH COAL-BASED SYNFUELS PRODUCTION Environmental and Socioeconomic Concerns Many environmental problems associated with synfuels technologies are common to other energy processes that require coal. Among these are health and safety aspects of coal mining, reclamation of strip-mined lands, use of scarce water resources (especially in the West), and pollutants and particulates emitted to the environment. An important concern associated with synfuels processes is the possibility of adverse health effects on workers and residents of local communities. This concern is focused on speculation that unacceptable levels of r‘rcinogens and toxic trace elements may be released. In general, direct - quefaction operations may pose potentially greater risks to the work force than do gasification processes, because the chemical conversions involved in the liquefaction of coal generate larger quantities of products which are known or suspected carcinogenic agents. CRS- 8 1577105 UPDATE-O3/O3/82 A coal-based synfuel industry in the West may adversely affect small a ‘ relatively poor towns in rural areas. During construction of this industry, some "boom towns“ could be created. Under such conditions, local service institutions would be unable to handle increased populations associated with synfuel projects. Careful planning would facilitate reduction of the adverse effects of boom/bust cycles. In the Federal Coal Leasing Amendment Act of l975 (P.L. 94-377), the Congress has already taken some action to reduce the social and economic impacts of new coalwbased synfuels projects. Under this legislation, an additional l2-1/2% of all monies received from sales, bonuses, royalties, and rentals of certain public lands (including Federal coal and oil shale deposits) is returned to the State where the leased lands or deposits are located. These additional funds, if directed to the local community in a timely fashion, can be used in a variety of ways to reduce the adverse effects of rapid growth. Several environmental advantages are also associated with the commercial production of synfuels. Some of the pollutants in coal would be concentrated and removed in synfuels plants. Thus, provided that adequate pollution control technology is used, the overall potential for pollution appears to be less for synfuels production than if coal were burned in power plants scattered over wide geographical areas. For example, a high-Btu coal gas plant is expected to emit fewer air pollutants, such as particulates, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, and hydrocarbons and to consume less water than an equivalent—sized conventional coal-fired electric plant. Regulatory Concerns Companies seeking to build and operate coal-based synfuels plants face a two-to five-year process of acquiring roughly 100 or more Federal, State, or local regulatory approvals or permits. Associated Federal, State, and regional hearings, application procedures, and administrative rulings can be both complicated and time consuming and can increase the total costs of synfuels plants and products. Although most of the regulatory laws were enacted years ago, Federal officials are still determining how these laws will be implemented in relation to synfuels production. ’ For example, under the current regulatory system, industry does not know all of the ground rules that must be met in the design and operation of synfuels plants. synfuels developers are wary that environmental control regulations could be changed during plant construction or operation. If and when these regulations are placed into the Federal Code, either industry or the environmental community could challenge their validity in the courts. Lawsuits, court injunctions, or other delays stemming from unresolved issues associated with the Federal regulatory system could adversely affect both SFC's program and industry's production efforts. Thus, these laws and the regulations to be issued pursuant to them are the least developed and least specified parts of our National synfuels Policy. However, some coal-based synfuels plants, e.g., the Great Plains Project and the H—Coal pilot project, are proceeding under the current Federal regulatory system. ‘ Many in the environmental community are concerned over the Administration's reduction in the level and nature Of EPA'S synfuels-related activities. In light Of the Administration's desire t0 reduce burdensome Federal regulations, it is not surprising that EPA iS not working on new CRS- 9 IB77lO5 UPDATE-O3/O3/82 standards for synfuels plants. In fact, EPA has stopped work on its Pollution Control Guidance Documents, which were to be the initial cornerstone of EPA's regulatory efforts. These documents may have provided ; formation on the measurement and modeling of environmental impacts and the ‘design of cost-effective control technologies. On the other hand, some synfuels developers have questioned the usefulness of much of the Federal Government's work to promote an environmentally acceptable industry. some industry groups argue that a reduced Federal role would be appropriate because commercial plants would incorporate the best available control technology and that production would be conducted in an environmentally acceptable manner. " LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK FOR THE NATIONAL SYNFUELS PRODUCTION PROGRAM Committees of the 97th Congress are conducting oversight hearings on the various Federal laws that establish the National Synfuels Production Program. These laws influence the rate of growth of the emerging synfuels industry by affecting the economics of production as well as providing Federal support for research and development activities. The principal laws pertaining to this program include: P.L. 96-126, Department of Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations bill, 1980. P.L. 96-126 created a special fund designated the Energy Security Reserve and appropriated $19 billion to this fund to expedite the domestic development and production of alternative fuels, such as coal gas f i liquids. Out of this fund, P.L. 96-126 provided the Secretary of Energy with $2.2 billion for the development of synfuels. DOE used funds appropriated under this law and P.L. 96-304 (see below) to fund the pre-commercialization activities of several coal-based synfuels projects, as well as to guarantee a $2.02 billion dollar loan guarantee for the Great Plains project. P.L. 96-294, Energy Security Act. Title I of the Energy Security Act created an independent Federal entity, the SFC, which is authorized to provide several forms of financial assistance to foster the production of synfuels. SFC-supported projects will be designed to convert the Nation's coal, oil shale, and tar sands resources into synfuels. The financial resources available to SFC over its 12-year lifetime are limited to a maximum of $88 billion. Additional information on the SFC is presented in CRS Issue Brief #81139, Synthetic Fuels Corporation and National Synfuels Policy. ' P.L. 96-304, Supplemental Appropriations and Recission Act, 1980. P.L. 96-304 appropriated to the Secretary of Energy an additional amount of $3.31 billion from the $19 billion in the Energy Security Reserve to continue funding DOE's Alternative Fuels Production Program. Of this money. $3 billion was appropriated for the purchase or production of selected alternative fuels by way of purchase commitments or price guarantees, and also for a reserve to cover any defaults from loan guarantees issued under the amendments to the Defense Production Act of 1950 (P.L. 96-294). P.L. 97-12, Supplemental Appropriations and Rescission Act, 1981 .CRS-10 IB77lO5 UPDATE°O3/O3/82 with lrespect to fossil energy construction activities, P.L. 97=l2 rescinded $89.4 million and deferred $235 million until Oct. 1, 1981. of + s funds rescinded, $44.0 million was for a high—Btu coal gasification demonstration facility, ands $45.4 million was for a medium/low~Btu gasification demonstration facility. Of the funds deferred, $135 million pertained to the SRC-I coal liquefaction demonstration project, and $100 million to the SRC-II project. Congress also specified that $22.5 million was to be made available for FY81 for the SRC-I demonstration project to continue detailed design work and other activities. According to P.L. 96-304, the DOE was to transfer to the SFC on June 30, 1981, certain of its remaining funds that were intended to promote synfuels commercialization. P.L. 97-12 amends P.L. 96-304 and states that only upon a Presidential determination that the SFC is fully operational shall certain remaining funds not to exceed $5.3 billion be transferred from DOE to SFC. DOE's responsibility for management of the $2.02 billion loan guarantee for the Great Plains project will not transfer to SFC. REAGAN ADMINISTRATION'S POLICIES AFFECTING COAL-BASED SYNFUELS The Reagan. Administration is steadily modifying the Carter Administration's version of National synfuels Policy. Consistent with its other economic objectives, the current Administration wants to rely more heavily upon private investment to support synfuels projects and less on Federal tax dollars. In light of this policy, it is not surprising that x 2 Administration is effectively terminating much of DOE's fossil energy research and development program, including support for five coal-based synfuels demonstration projects. The Reagan Administration wants DOE's funds to support only high-risk, long~term, high-payoff research and development projects, and SFC's funds to be used to aid large scale synfuels projects. However, the Administration's Program for Economic Recovery and its National Energy Policy Plan have provided the emerging coal-based synfuels industry with several substantial incentives. First, the Administration's action to end oil price controls has provided the petroleum industry with additional capital. Some of this capital could be funneled into synfuels projects. Second, the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 has specified accelerated depreciation schedules that would make capital investment in synfuels projects more attractive for most companies. Third, the Administration wants to inventory Federal lands and waters to determine the available quantities of these resources. If these policies work as projected by the Reagan Administration, a business environment is likely to be created over the long term that will promote more investment in synfuels projects than is forthcoming today. LEGISLATION P.L. 97-100, H.R. 4035 Amendment 539 (Mcclure) provides that of the funds deferred in the Supplemental Appropriations and Rescission Act, 1981, $135,000,000 shall be available for continuing design of «the Solvent Refined Coal-I (SRC~I) demonstration facility (Project No. 78-2-D). Amendment introduced June 25, 1981; bill signed into law Dec.23, 1981. CRS=1l 1377105 UPDATE=03/03/82 H.R. 3447 (Fuqua) Authorizes appropriations to the Department of Energy for civilian ‘programs for fiscal years 1982 and 1983. Introduced May 5, 1981; referred to Committee on Science and Technology. Reported May 19, 1981 (H.Rept. 97-103, ,Part I). H.Con.Res. 65 (Applegate) Expresses the sense of Congress that funding continue for the coal gasification demonstration plants in Noble County, Ohio, and Perry Country, Illinois. Introduced Feb. 6, 1981; referred to Committee on Science and Technology. S. 434 (Matsunga) Directs the Secretary of Energy to prepare a comprehensive program management plan for research, development, and demonstration activities for underground coal gasification and unconventional natural gas production. Introduced Feb. 6, 1981; referred to Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. 8. 1244 (Hart) Amends the Powerplant and Industrial Fuel Use Act of 1978 to establish an energy impact assistance program for States, local governments, and Indian tribes to mitigate the social and economic impacts caused by major energy velopments. Introduced May 20, 1981; referred to Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. HEARINGS U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Energy and Commerce. Subcommittee on Fossil and Synthtic Fuels. DOE budget review and policy implications. Hearings, 97th Congress, lst session. Hearings held Mar. 19, 24, 25, 26 and May 6, 1981. "Serial no. 97-6" U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Science and Technology. Subcommittee on Energy Development and Applications. 1980 Department of Energy Authorization. Hearings, 96th Congress, lst session. vol. IV, no. 8 Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off. 1264 p. Hearings held Feb. 15, 16, 20; Mar. 5, 14, 20, 1979. U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Science and Technology. Subcommittee on Science, Research and Technology. Review of 1980 five-year outlook report on science and technology. Hearing, 96th Cong., 2d sess.. June 13, 1980. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1981. 97 p. "No. 180" U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Synthetic fuels legislation. Hearings, 96th Congress, lst session. July 23, 24, 1979. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off. 407 p. U.S. REPORTS U.S. cns-12 IE77105 UPDATE-03/03/82 Hearings held on S. 932 (Report no. 96-166), S. 1308 (Titles III, IV, V), and S. 1377. "Publication no. 96-88." Congress. Resources. Senate. Committee on Energy and Natural Subcommittee on Energy Regulation. Energy Supply Act (Title IX). Hearings, 96th Congress, lst session, on S. 1308. July 10, 12, 1979. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off. 535 p. "Publication no 96-87" Committee on Governmental Affairs. Synthetic fuels. Hearings, 96th Congress, lst session, on S. 1377. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off. 410 p. Hearings held July 17, 18, and 20, 1979. Congress. Senate. AND CONGRESSIONAL DOCUMENTS Congress. House. Committee on Appropriations. Public Works for Water and Power Development and Energy Research Appropriation Bill, 1979. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. 1978. (95th Congress, 2nd session. House. Report no. Off., 95-1247) Congress. House. Committee on Education and Labor. Development of domestic energy resources; report together with dissenting views to accompany H.R. 4514. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1979. 89 p. (96th Congress, lst session. House. Report no. 96-333) Congress. Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs. Subcommittee on Economic Stabilization. Achieving a production goal of one million barrels per day of coal liquids by 1990. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1980. 105 p. Committee print 96-19. Congress. House. Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce. Subcommittee on Energy and Power. U.S. energy demand and supply 1976-1985: limited options, unlimited contraints. Final report prepared by the Congressional Research Service. March 1978. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off. 1978. At head of title: print 95-43. 95th Congress, 2d session. Committee Congress. House. Committee on Science and Technology. Report authorizing appropriations for the Department of Energy for FY79. Report, together with additional views, to accompany H.R. 12163. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1978 357 p. (95th Congress, 2d session. House. Report no. 95-1078) Report authorizing appropriations for the Department of Energy (DOE) for FY81. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1980. (96th Congress, 2d session. House. Report no. 96-967) synthetic 2d session, fuel loan guarantees. Mar. 31; Apr. 1. 6-8. Hearing, and 13, 94th Congress, 1976 (two CRS-l3 IB77lO5 UPDATE~O3/O3/82 vols.) Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1976. U.S. Congress. Joint Economic Committee. Pursuing energy supply options: cost effective R&D strategies. Apr. 27, 1981. See chapters on Coal Gasification, p. 73-81; High—Btu Coal Gasification, p. 82-89; and Oil Shale, p. 176-84. At head of title: 97th Congress, lst session. Joint Committee print. U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. synfuels from coal and the national synfuels production program: technical, environmental, and economic aspects. January 1981. Publication no. 97-3. At head of title: 97th Congress, lst session. Committee print. CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS 01/29/82 —- Participants in the Great Plains Coal Gasification project -received their first installment on the 75% of the project _beingifinancedithroughaam$2-02 billion DOE loan guarantee. 08/18/80 ~- Existing oil-and natural gas-fired major fuel burning sources could be ordered to convert to synthetic fuels under rules issued last week by DOE. The final Fuel Use Act rules stipulated that DOE may order conversions from oil and gas at utilities and major industrial sources that have the "technical capability" to burn coal or an alternative fuel. 07/30/79 -- The Carter Administration proposed the creation of a Government-owned corporation, which would be given the authority to invest $88 billion in commercial-size projects to develop synfuels. This corporation, to be called the Energy Security Corporation, would finance a limited number of Government~owned synfuels plants and would support the private sector's synfuels efforts through price guarantees, purchase agreements, direct loans, and loan guarantees. The Carter Administration also proposed the creation of an Energy Mobilization Board which would have the power to waive procedural steps necessary to obtain environmental permits for the construction of non—nuclear energy projects. 03/15/79 -- DOE issued a Notice of Program Interest for a low/medium-Btu coal gasification assessment program for potential users. The notice seeks information on a method to obtain a realistic Jassessment of the feasibility of utilizing low/medium-Btu coal gas in industrial applications. 01/23/79 -- DOE authorized both the Conoco Coal Development Company and the Illinois Coal Gasification Group to continue with detailed designs of two demonstration plants that each would convert coal into synthetic pipeline gas. While the designs are being CRS-14 IB77lO5 UPDATE=O3/O3/82 completed, estimates on the cost, funding, market potential, and product economics of each project will be determined in order to allow DOE to select one project for construction. 07/l0/78 =- DOE and industry have cooperated in a $240 million research and development program to advance Exxon's Donor Solvent Coal liquefaction process. Designed to process 250 tons of coal a day into liquids, the pilot plant is under construction in Baytown, Texas. 04/l9/78 -- Currently working under contract to DOE, Westinghouse Electric Corporation has completed ll00 hours of testing an advanced "pressurized fluidized bed" process that converts eastern caking coals into synthetic fuel gas, while, at the same time, separating ash from the coal. Success of the test runs, conducted at the company's Waltz Hill 15 ton-per=day facility, will permit scale-up of the process to larger-size equipment. ADDITIONAL REFERENCE SOURCES. Analysis of industrial markets for low and medium Btu coal gasification. Prepared for U.S. Department of Energy. Assistant Secretary for Resource Applications. July 30, l979. (Contract no. El-78-C-01-2625) DOE/RA-2625-1 Coal technologies market analysis. Prepared by the Engineering Societies Commission on Energy Inc. for the U.S. Department of Energy. January 1980, Washington, D.C. 47 p. (Contract no. EF-77—C0l-2468) FE-2468-64 EPRI Journal. Coal gasification for electric utilities. Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, California. v. 4, no. 3. April 1979. 8 p. ESCOE ECHO. Advanced gasifier funded. The Newsletter of the engineering societies commission on energy. inc. Washington, D.C. v. 3, no. 4. Feb. 12, l979: 2. =---~ Coal to pipeline gas. The Newsletter of the engineering societies commission on energy: inc. Washington, D.C. v. 2, no. 23. Dec. 4, 1978. 4 p. Fact book: synthetic pipeline. Gas from coal. Policy Evaluation and Analysis Group of the American Gas Association. Arlington, Va. September 1979. 31 p. National CO3]. Board Report. Liquid fuels from coal. Planning assessment and development branch Of the coal research establishment, Stoke Orchard, Gloucester, United Kingdom With Operational research executive, Harrow, Middlesex, cns-15 IB77lO5 UPDATE—O3/O3/82 United Kingdom, August 1978. 70 p. Office of the White House Press Secretary. The White House. Fact sheet on the President's import reduction program. July 16, 1979. 28 p. Perry, Harry and Hans H. Landsberg. Factors in the development of a major U.S. synthetic fuels industry. Ann. Rev. Energy. 1981. 6:233-66. Proceedings of the 5th Underground Coal Conversion Symposium. June l8+2l, 1979. Alexandria, Virginia. Sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy: Division of Fossil Fuel Extraction. May 1979. Conf. no. 790630. 449 p. Synthetic fuels data handbook. Cameron Engineers, Inc. 2nd edition. 438 p. Synthetic fuels summary. Prepared by the Engineering Societies Commission on Energy Inc. for the U.s. Department of Energy. August 1980, Washington, D.c. 145 p. (Contract no. EF—77eC-O1-2468) FE-2468-82 U.s. Department of Energy. Assistant Secretary for Resource Applications. Analysis of industrial markets for low and medium Btu coal gasification. July 30, 1979. Washington. 169 p. DOE/RA/2625-1 (Contract no. ET-78-C-01-2625) -——-- Assistant Secretary for Energy Technology. Fossil energy research and development program. FY79. March 1978. Washington. 475 p. DOE-ET-00l3(78) —---- Coal conversion comparisons by K.A. Rogers and R.F. Hill. Prepared by the Engineering Societies Commission on Energy Inc. July l979. Washington. 93 p. FE-2468-51. (Contract no. EF-77-C-01-2468) ----- Division of Fossil Fuel Extraction. Proceedings of the 5th underground coal conversion symposium. June 18-21, 1979. Alexandria, Virginia. Washington, May 1979. 449 p. (Conf. no. 790630) ----- Science Policy Research Division. Fact book on non-conventional energy technologies. Prepared for a seminar on new energy technologies: policies and problems. Feb. 21, 1979. Washington, 1979. 198 p. (Report no. 79-47 SPR) Wilk, Adrian S. Integrated gasifier combined cycle. ESCOE ECHO. The Newsletter of the engineering societies commission on energy. inc. Washington, D.C. v. 3, no. 14. July 2, 1979. 4 p. LIBRARY OF WASHINGTON UNlVe:'.R€o‘|TY ST. LOUIS - MO.