American Electric Power 2008 Corporate Sustainability Report

2008 Corporate Sustainability Report 39 Coal Delivery to AEP’s Power Plants Rail Direct 40% . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ULTRA-SUPERCRITICAL PULVERIZED COAL In 2006, we proposed building two ultra-supercritical pulverized coal power plants – in Arkansas and in Oklahoma. Ultra-supercritical coal plants are more efficient than tradiBarge Direct 28% . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . tional coal plants. Because they burn less coal per kilowatt hour produced, they also emit less CO2 on a per-kilowatt hour basis. Arkansas regulators approved the 600-MW $1.3 billion John W. Turk Plant last year with conditions we accepted, giving us room to develop technology while meeting our obligation to serve our customers’ needs. Louisiana regulators approved it in March 2008. (We are awaiting approval from regulators in Texas.) One of the conditions is that we report annually on our progress on carbon capture and storage technologies. The plant, to be built in Arkansas, could serve customers in all three states. Turk Plant will emit carbon dioxide, which we plan to largely offset with reductions elsewhere in the system. CARBON CAPTURE & STORAGE Rail/Barge* 17% . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Truck 9% . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conveyor Belt 6% . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *Reflects coal delivery by rail and barge. posed Oklahoma plant was turned down, one of 59 U.S. plants that were cancelled, delayed, or abandoned in 2007 because of objections to coal. Such setbacks make it increasingly likely that demand for electricity will outstrip supply in the next decade. Given the aging infrastructure we have today, these delays may well cause higher prices and supply concerns – without creating any major environmental benefits. We believe that climate change will not be solved through a single solution, but rather through multiple options and public policies to support them. Advanced coal technologies such as Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC), ultra-supercritical pulverized coal, renewable energy sources, energy efficiency and DSM programs for consumers, new nuclear power plants, and new transmission and distribution infrastructure are all needed to make our electricity system more efficient and must all be part of the solution. PROGRESS & CHALLENGES WITH TECHNOLOGY We are working on two different types of carbon capture technology for coal-fired power plants. The first is a 20-MW AEP’s Carbon Capture & Storage Initiative Climate Change 2009 Validation Project MOU (Alstom & RWE) Mountaineer Plant (WV) Chilled Ammonia CO2 Storage (Battelle) While we actively support programs to reduce the growth in demand, that still leaves us with a need for new generation capacity – a need that is particularly imminent for our southwestern operating companies. Balancing this need alongside our responsibility to protect the environment will require the development of new technology, an area in which AEP has excelled. AEP Plant 2012 Commercial Operation MOU (Alstom) Chilled Ammonia CO2 Storage EOR (SemGreen) AEP will install carbon capture on two coal-fired power plants – the first commercial use of this technology.

Table of Contents Feed for the Digital Edition of American Electric Power 2008 Corporate Sustainability Report

American Electric Power 2008 Corporate Sustainability Report Contents Leadership, Management & Strategy A Message from Michael G. Morris A Message from Dennis E. Welch About This Report Environmental Performance Work Force Issues Public Policy Climate Change Energy Security, Reliability & Growth Stakeholder Engagement Glossary GRI Table of Contents

For optimal viewing of this digital publication, please enable JavaScript and then refresh the page. If you would like to try to load the digital publication without using Flash Player detection, please click here.