Duke's Edwardsport plant slows to crawl in January

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Mechanical problems caused Duke Energy Indiana’s $3.5 billion power plant in Edwardsport to generate a mere 4 percent of its maximum capacity in January, according to company officials and regulatory filings.
The plant’s electricity output was by far the lowest since Duke declared the facility commercially operational in June.

edwardsport duke plant 15colConstruction of Duke's Edwardsport coal gasification plant was beset by massive cost overruns. (File photo)

Edwardsport generated 19,644 megawatt hours of electricity, enough to power about 20,000 homes, in one of the most frigid months on record, according to a Feb. 28 filing with the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission.
The new plant, at its maximum capacity, could have generated almost 460,000 megawatt hours in January.

The most electricity the plant has generated in a single month to date was about 278,000 megawatt hours, or about 60 percent of capacity, in August. That was in line with what Duke expected as the plant ramps up to full service over the 15 months following its debut.
The plant suffered a variety of mechanical failures in January, said Duke spokeswoman Angeline Protogere. They included leaks in a few systems—the lock hopper flush valve, which is part of a system that handles mineral slag, and the performance heater boiler feed water system, which heats the synthesized gas and optimizes fuel burn in combustion turbines.

The plant also went offline once in January when outdoor equipment froze in frigid temperatures.
“While the problems weren't major, they did limit our generation,” Protogere said. “We believe we have addressed those issues.”
However, the slowdown continued into February, she acknowledged.

With machinery down in February, Duke decided to bump up a maintenance shutdown scheduled for March. That kept Edwardsport offline longer than it would otherwise have been in February.
Duke won’t report the plant’s February performance until the end of March.

Protogere said that Duke has not yet assessed whether the work would fall under the heading of a design problem, in which case it would be covered by shareholders, or whether it was regular maintenance and repairs, the cost of which could be passed onto customers. All costs are subject to regulatory review, she added.
One critic blasted the Edwardsport plant’s technical woes, saying the facility is proving that fears about its viability were valid.
“I hate to paint this thing with a broad, 40,000-foot brush, but this goes back to everything we've been saying since 2006,” said Kerwin Olson, executive director of the Citizens Action Coalition, an Indianapolis lobby for utility consumers.
The project, originally billed in 2006 as an efficient way to generate electricity by converting coal to gas, has struggled with billion-dollar cost overruns and ethical breaches that resulted in high-profile firings at both Duke and the IURC. The plant's original cost estimate was $1.9 billion.

In late 2012, state utility regulators capped the amount Duke could collect from ratepayers for construction at about $2.6 billion, with Duke having to cover about $900 million itself.
Duke edwardsport plant onlineOlson said this week that Citizens Action Coalition soon would file a complaint with the state about the January troubles. He would not reveal what the filing would say.

Duke Energy Indiana provides electricity to about 790,000 homes and businesses in Indiana. The company has said ratepayers can expect a 14-percent to 16-percent increase in their monthly bills for construction of the Edwardsport plant through 2015.

Parent firm Duke Energy Corp., based in Charlotte, N.C., operates dozens of power plants and serves 7.2 million electric retail customers in six states in the Southeast and Midwest.


  • Free Market
    This plant produces power at ~11-12 cents per kilowatt hour, still emits CO2, and generates a fraction of its listed capacity. 4% is not exactly "base load." For contrast, wind power is now contracted on fixed, 20 year contracts for ~4-5 (7-8 with no tax credits) cents per kilowatt hour. Allowing these monopolistic utilities to pass along excessive billions because of political will is criminal. Doing it all over with Rockport is insane. We sorely need to inject any amount of competition and transparency into this system.
  • Wait wut?
    Max energy production is only 630MW? So just to set it up it was $5.5 per Watt. And on top of that cost they still need to pay for the coal? And, all that coal still ends up as CO2 by the end of the day. This plant is more expensive than photovoltaic solar in Indiana. Ridiculous. I can see why they wanted to include coal gasification as a form of "alternative energy" in the most recent bills in the State house.
  • Trying not to be smug
    If you have twenty minutes to understand fully this story, please go to this link and listen to my testimony at the 2007 IURC public hearing on the Edwardsport plant - http://valleywatch.net/?page_id=861. I personally warned the IURC almost exactly what has taken place. Sadly, the Indiana Office of Utility Consumer Counsel and the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission have sold that State's citizens out by following the political machinations of the former governor instead of doing their statutory duty of protecting ratepayers from the excesses of a well healed monopoly. IN the end, people of Indiana got the shaft and the people responsible get a pass. Sad, indeed.
  • Not Surprising
    My lock hopper flush valves always go bad.
  • Expand Coal
    Let's just hope Indiana Gasification can keep their plant's hope alive with their lawsuits. It would be great for Indiana to have two of these plants supported by both electric and gas ratepayers! Keep pushing on, Mr Lubbers.

Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
Subscribe to IBJ