Using TRLs we developed for these technologies, we found  consensus among stakeholders that CCS is less mature than efficiency  technologies. While DOE  officials reported that individual programs are aware of the maturity of  technologies and DOE publishes reports that assess the technical and  economic feasibility of advanced coal technologies, we found that the  Office of Fossil Energy does not use a standard set of benchmarks or  terms to describe or report on the maturity of technologies. The lack of such benchmarks or an assessment of the  maturity of key coal technologies and whether they are achieving planned  or desired results limits:    DOE’s ability to provide a clear picture of the maturity of these  technologies to policymakers, utilities officials, and others;   congressional and other oversight of the hundreds of millions of dollars  DOE is spending on these technologies; and   policymakers’ ability to assess the maturity of CCS and the resources that  might be needed to achieve commercial deployment. DOE has acknowledged that TRLs can play a key role in assessing the  maturity of technologies during the contracting process. Consensus among Key Stakeholders Is That CCS Is Less Mature than Efficiency Technologies

In the absence of an assessment from DOE, we asked stakeholders to  gauge the maturity of coal technologies using a scale we developed based  on TRLs. for EOR use. However, this plant does not produce electricity. plants have already been demonstrated commercially. Commercial Deployment of Key Coal Technologies Is Possible, but Contingent on Overcoming Economic, Technical, and Legal Challenges

Commercial deployment of CCS within 10 to 15 years is possible according  to DOE and other stakeholders, but is contingent on overcoming a variety  of economic, technical, and legal challenges. Many technologies to  improve plant efficiency have been used and are available for commercial  use now, but still face challenges. In addition, some higher efficiency plant designs also face technical  challenges in that they require more advanced materials than are currently  available. CCS Offers More Potential to Reduce CO

emissions than  efficiency improvements alone but could raise electricity costs, increase  demand for water, and could affect the ability of individual plants to  operate reliably. CCS Could Help Meet Emissions Limits but Raises Key Concerns

According to key reports and stakeholders, the successful deployment of  CCS technologies is critical to helping the United States meet potential  limits in greenhouse gas emissions. In addition, CCS could allow coal to  remain part of the nation’s diverse fuel mix. On the other hand, most stakeholders told us that CCS would increase  electricity prices, and key reports raise similar concerns. Specifically, DOE estimated  that post-combustion capture technology could almost double water  consumption at a coal plant, while pre-combustion capture would increase  water use by 73 percent. Plant Efficiency Improvements Offer More Potential for Near-Term Emissions Reductions but Also Raise Concerns

Emission Goals with 21st Century Technologies (Washington, D.C., December 2009). Agency Comments and Our Evaluation

We provided a draft of our report to the Secretary of Energy and the  Administrator of  EPA for review and comment. To identify stakeholders’ views on these technologies, we conducted  initial scoping interviews with power plant operators, technology vendors,  and federal officials from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and  DOE. Following this initial round of interviews, we selected a group of 19  stakeholders with expertise in carbon capture and storage (CCS) or  technologies to improve coal plant efficiency and asked them a set of  standard questions. Specifically, EPRI developed specific  benchmarks to describe TRLs in the context of a commercial scale coal  power plant. We based this definition on some of the key reports we  reviewed, which used 500 MW as a standard power plant, and stated that  such a plant would emit about 3 million tons of CO emissions  from a power plant can vary based on a variety of factors, including the  amount of time that a power plant is operated.
Why GAO Did This Study

Coal power plants generate about half of the United States' electricity and are expected to remain a key energy source. Coal power plants also account for about one-third of the nation's emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2 ), the primary greenhouse gas that experts believe contributes to climate change. Current regulatory efforts and proposed legislation that seek to reduce CO2 emissions could affect coal power plants. Two key technologies show potential for reducing CO2 emissions: (1) carbon capture and storage (CCS), which involves capturing and storing CO2 in geologic formations, and (2) plant efficiency improvements that allow plants to use less coal. The Department of Energy (DOE) plays a key role in accelerating the commercial availability of these technologies and devoted more than $600 million to them in fiscal year 2009. Congress asked GAO to examine (1) the maturity of these technologies; (2) their potential for commercial use, and any challenges to their use; and (3) possible implications of deploying these technologies. To conduct this work, GAO reviewed reports and interviewed stakeholders with expertise in coal technologies.

What GAO Found

DOE does not systematically assess the maturity of key coal technologies, but GAO found consensus among stakeholders that CCS is less mature than efficiency technologies. Specifically, DOE does not use a standard set of benchmarks or terms to describe the maturity of technologies, limiting its ability to provide key information to Congress, utilities, and other stakeholders. This lack of information limits congressional oversight of DOE's expenditures on these efforts, and it hampers policymakers' efforts to gauge the maturity of these technologies as they consider climate change policies. In the absence of this information from DOE, GAO interviewed stakeholders with expertise in CCS or efficiency technologies to identify their views on the maturity of these technologies. Stakeholders told GAO that while components of CCS have been used commercially in other industries, their application remains at a small scale in coal power plants, with only one fully integrated CCS project operating at a coal plant. Efficiency technologies, on the other hand, are in wider commercial use. Commercial deployment of CCS is possible within 10 to 15 years while many efficiency technologies have been used and are available for use now. Use of both technologies is, however, contingent on overcoming a variety of economic, technical, and legal challenges. In particular, with respect to CCS, stakeholders highlighted the large costs to install and operate current CCS technologies, the fact that large scale demonstration of CCS is needed in coal plants, and the lack of a national carbon policy to reduce CO2 emissions or a legal framework to govern liability for the permanent storage of large amounts of CO2. With respect to efficiency improvements, stakeholders highlighted the high cost to build or upgrade such coal plants, the fact that some upgrades require highly technical materials, and plant operators' concerns that changes to the existing fleet of coal power plants could trigger additional regulatory requirements. CCS technologies offer more potential to reduce CO2 emissions than efficiency improvements alone, and both could raise electricity costs and have other effects. According to reports and stakeholders, the successful deployment of CCS technologies is critical to meeting the ambitious emissions reductions that are currently being considered in the United States while retaining coal as a fuel source. Most stakeholders told GAO that CCS would increase electricity costs, and some reports estimate that current CCS technologies would increase electricity costs by about 30 to 80 percent at plants using these technologies. DOE has also reported that CCS could increase water consumption at power plants. Efficiency improvements offer more potential for near term reductions in CO2 emissions, but they cannot reduce CO2 emissions from a coal plant to the same extent as CCS.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that DOE develop a standard set of benchmarks to gauge and report to Congress on the maturity of key technologies. In commenting on a draft of this report, DOE concurred with our recommendation.