By Jamey Dunn
Four Illinois counties are finalists to house a carbon storage facility as part of the revamped FutureGen “clean coal” project.
The original FutureGen project called for building coal-burning power plant in Coles County that would pump most of the carbon it created underground for storage. However, the project stalled and costs grew. The U.S. Department of Energy announced a new plan in August to retrofit an existing shuttered Ameren plant in Meredosia with carbon-capture technology. The carbon would be pumped through an underground pipeline to a storage facility at another location. Mattoon bowed out as a potential storage area shortly after “FutureGen 2.0” was announced.
The FutureGen Alliance, a group of investors backing the project, announced in November six areas for that could potentially host a storage site. The list has been narrowed down to four finalists — Douglas, Christian, Fayette and Morgan counties. The city of Quincy and Pike County were eliminated from the running.
“This next step in the site selection process keeps FutureGen 2.0 on track,” U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin said in a written statement. “While the geology was not ideal in the communities that received disappointing news today, the four communities that remain in competition will now have the opportunity to strengthen their proposals. Hosting FutureGen 2.0 in Illinois will create thousands of good-paying jobs and put our state on the forefront of clean coal research and technology.”
The FutureGen Alliance plans to choose a location for carbon storage in early 2011.
Showing posts with label FutureGen. Show all posts
Showing posts with label FutureGen. Show all posts
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
Mattoon drops out of FutureGen 2.0
By Jamey Dunn
Mattoon has dropped out of the revamped FutureGen 2.0 carbon capture project, which is intended to trap greenhouse gases from coal-fired electrical generation underground to slow global warming.
Mattoon was chosen in 2007 as the site for a first-of-it-kind “clean coal" power plant, which would sequester its carbon emissions underground and theoretically become a proving ground for a relatively untested technology. But politics and rising construction costs stalled the project, and many in the area had grown skeptical about whether the plant would ever be built.
Their skepticism was confirmed last Thursday, when U.S. Sen. Richard Durbin unveiled a new plan, dubbed FutureGen 2.0, which does not include the plant. Instead, the plan calls for an out-of-commission Ameren plant in Meredosia to be retrofitted for a new technology known as “oxy-burn,” which involves burning coal in pure oxygen. Carbon emissions from that plant would have been pumped through a subterranean pipeline and stored underground in Mattoon.
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act allocated about $1 billion for coal research, which many assumed would go toward construction of the Mattoon plant. However, the U.S. Department of Energy estimated the construction costs could be as high as $2.3 billion.
Durbin said that during the time the plan has been on hold, private industry has started to test the technology that would have been studied there. So, he said there was no longer a strong enough justification for a new plant with such a high pricetag.
Durbin added, “So we had to find another way to create this opportunity for Coles County and Illinois, … one that fit into the existing budget.”
The new plan would have constructed a training center on or near the site where the Mattoon plant would have been built. Workers there would learn how to retrofit power plants for “oxy-burn” and build pipelines to transport carbon.
Angela Griffin, president of Coles Together — a county economic development group that has worked closely on the project —said that she first heard of the new plan when Durbin announced it on Thursday. She said an outpouring of public sentiment against the town’s potential involvement in the plan came soon after. The DOE gave Mattoon until Friday as the deadline for a decision.
Griffin sent a letter to Durbin today to inform him that the town would not be a part of the new plan. From the letter:
While I have nothing but the highest level of regard for the time and effort that you and the FutureGen Alliance expended to make this project viable, our challenges with FutureGen 2.0, as proposed by the Department of Energy, are too big to overcome.
I want to emphasize that the concept of carbon capture and sequestration has nothing whatsoever to do with the reasons we have chosen not to pursue what is known as FutureGen 2.0. As a citizenry, we embraced that technology and believe it to be a safe and practical approach to removing CO2 from the atmosphere.
The simple fact remains that we agreed to host what was presented as the world’s first near-zero emissions research and demonstration facility – the latest in power generation technology paired with underground storage for the facility’s greenhouse gas emissions. Hosting the original FutureGen was something this community embraced with great pride. Ours would be a distinct and honorable mission in an emerging scientific field. Mattoon was to be a focal point for smart, forward-looking solutions in a carbon constrained world.
Unfortunately, our role in FutureGen 2.0 does not support that effort. If FutureGen 2.0 moves ahead with the revised structure described today, it must be without Coles County.
Sen. Dale Righter, a Mattoon Republican, said that the people of the area have been disappointed by developments in the project before, so they are suspicious of the new proposal. “What [the DOE and Durbin] underestimated is that the local officials and their constituents, they have a memory.”
Righter said that promises of potential benefits to the area, such as job creation and the construction of training facility, seemed to be shaky, and residents were concerned that they would not pan out.
He said he would have preferred to have a public hearing on the issue, but the accelerated timeline and lack on a detailed plan made it difficult to bring the issue directly to the people of the area. “A public hearing means that you present what you know, and then you get the public’s input on it. It was tough to know what is real and what was fiction.”
However, Griffin said that no matter how much explanation was given, the town would not have signed on. “Not in this format. Time would not have changed the decision here. This project is not right for this community. … There is a feeling of betrayal, I think, from the residents. They had sacrificed a lot to partner on this project, and we felt we weren’t being taken seriously as a partner.”
Durbin said in a written statement that the plan will move ahead without Mattoon: “This week, I will ask the Department of Energy to solicit other Illinois communities to take on the role envisioned for Mattoon. Both my office and the Department of Energy have heard from a number of communities throughout the state expressing their interest. I wish cost overruns, project delays and rapid advances in science in other parts of the country had not necessitated a change in the FutureGen project. But we must face reality.”
Tuscola officials have voiced interest in taking Mattoon's place in the project. Tuscola was a runner-up for the original FutureGen plant.
Mattoon has dropped out of the revamped FutureGen 2.0 carbon capture project, which is intended to trap greenhouse gases from coal-fired electrical generation underground to slow global warming.
Mattoon was chosen in 2007 as the site for a first-of-it-kind “clean coal" power plant, which would sequester its carbon emissions underground and theoretically become a proving ground for a relatively untested technology. But politics and rising construction costs stalled the project, and many in the area had grown skeptical about whether the plant would ever be built.
Their skepticism was confirmed last Thursday, when U.S. Sen. Richard Durbin unveiled a new plan, dubbed FutureGen 2.0, which does not include the plant. Instead, the plan calls for an out-of-commission Ameren plant in Meredosia to be retrofitted for a new technology known as “oxy-burn,” which involves burning coal in pure oxygen. Carbon emissions from that plant would have been pumped through a subterranean pipeline and stored underground in Mattoon.
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act allocated about $1 billion for coal research, which many assumed would go toward construction of the Mattoon plant. However, the U.S. Department of Energy estimated the construction costs could be as high as $2.3 billion.
Durbin said that during the time the plan has been on hold, private industry has started to test the technology that would have been studied there. So, he said there was no longer a strong enough justification for a new plant with such a high pricetag.
Durbin added, “So we had to find another way to create this opportunity for Coles County and Illinois, … one that fit into the existing budget.”
The new plan would have constructed a training center on or near the site where the Mattoon plant would have been built. Workers there would learn how to retrofit power plants for “oxy-burn” and build pipelines to transport carbon.
Angela Griffin, president of Coles Together — a county economic development group that has worked closely on the project —said that she first heard of the new plan when Durbin announced it on Thursday. She said an outpouring of public sentiment against the town’s potential involvement in the plan came soon after. The DOE gave Mattoon until Friday as the deadline for a decision.
Griffin sent a letter to Durbin today to inform him that the town would not be a part of the new plan. From the letter:
While I have nothing but the highest level of regard for the time and effort that you and the FutureGen Alliance expended to make this project viable, our challenges with FutureGen 2.0, as proposed by the Department of Energy, are too big to overcome.
I want to emphasize that the concept of carbon capture and sequestration has nothing whatsoever to do with the reasons we have chosen not to pursue what is known as FutureGen 2.0. As a citizenry, we embraced that technology and believe it to be a safe and practical approach to removing CO2 from the atmosphere.
The simple fact remains that we agreed to host what was presented as the world’s first near-zero emissions research and demonstration facility – the latest in power generation technology paired with underground storage for the facility’s greenhouse gas emissions. Hosting the original FutureGen was something this community embraced with great pride. Ours would be a distinct and honorable mission in an emerging scientific field. Mattoon was to be a focal point for smart, forward-looking solutions in a carbon constrained world.
Unfortunately, our role in FutureGen 2.0 does not support that effort. If FutureGen 2.0 moves ahead with the revised structure described today, it must be without Coles County.
Sen. Dale Righter, a Mattoon Republican, said that the people of the area have been disappointed by developments in the project before, so they are suspicious of the new proposal. “What [the DOE and Durbin] underestimated is that the local officials and their constituents, they have a memory.”
Righter said that promises of potential benefits to the area, such as job creation and the construction of training facility, seemed to be shaky, and residents were concerned that they would not pan out.
He said he would have preferred to have a public hearing on the issue, but the accelerated timeline and lack on a detailed plan made it difficult to bring the issue directly to the people of the area. “A public hearing means that you present what you know, and then you get the public’s input on it. It was tough to know what is real and what was fiction.”
However, Griffin said that no matter how much explanation was given, the town would not have signed on. “Not in this format. Time would not have changed the decision here. This project is not right for this community. … There is a feeling of betrayal, I think, from the residents. They had sacrificed a lot to partner on this project, and we felt we weren’t being taken seriously as a partner.”
Durbin said in a written statement that the plan will move ahead without Mattoon: “This week, I will ask the Department of Energy to solicit other Illinois communities to take on the role envisioned for Mattoon. Both my office and the Department of Energy have heard from a number of communities throughout the state expressing their interest. I wish cost overruns, project delays and rapid advances in science in other parts of the country had not necessitated a change in the FutureGen project. But we must face reality.”
Tuscola officials have voiced interest in taking Mattoon's place in the project. Tuscola was a runner-up for the original FutureGen plant.
Thursday, August 05, 2010
FutureGen moves on without Mattoon plant
By Jamey Dunn
A drastically revamped version of the FutureGen project is moving forward without construction of a planned "clean-coal" power plant in central Illinois.
U.S. Sen. Richard Durbin announced today the U.S. Department of Energy will go ahead with a plan he called “FutureGen 2.0.” Instead of building a new plant to research a technology called gasification in Mattoon, an existing shuttered Ameren plant in Meredosia would be retrofitted to use a different so-called clean-coal technology referred to as oxy-combustion or “oxy-burn.”
Carbon dioxide emissions from the plant in western Illinois would be pumped through a 175-mile subterranean pipeline through Decatur and then down to Mattoon, where they would be sequestered deep underground in the same basin that the original FutureGen plant would have used to store emissions. Durbin said there is a chance that carbon emissions created by the Archer Daniels Midland plant in Decatur would also be pumped to Mattoon. He added that other carbon producers, such as power plants and oil refineries, might sequester their carbon at the Coles County site in the future.
The original FutureGen project was awarded to Mattoon in December 2007. The Bush administration stalled the project almost immediately after the announcement. As time passed, estimated costs for the plant grew. As of last year, U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu pegged the cost to build the plant at more than $2.3 billion. The American Reinvestment and Recovery Act included $1 billion funding for the project, but the feds continued to hold out on a final decision, and some financial backers dropped out.
Durbin says that during this time, the need for testing the technology that the Mattoon plant was planned to demonstrate has diminished. He says while the feds dragged their feet, private industry has made strides in testing the clean-coal technology that, at the time of the plant’s announcement, was billed as the first-of-its-kind.
“It became [a method] that was being proved out on a commercial basis,” Durbin said.
Durbin added: “So we had to find another way to create this opportunity for Coles County and Illinois. … One that fit into the existing budget” He called the “oxy-burn” process, where pure oxygen instead of air is used to burn coal, “the future.”
"The technology for repowering and retrofitting plants derived from FutureGen 2.0 will lead to a decade-long project of repowering and retrofitting the 52 coal-fired power plants in Illinois," a written statement released by Durbin said.
The federal government plans to sink $1.2 billion into retrofitting the power plant at Meredosia in Morgan County, as well as building the pipeline and the carbon dioxide storage facility. Federal officials are counting on support from the FutureGen alliance, a group of investors who backed the original project. Durbin says they responded favorably to the proposal. A representative of the alliance did not respond and had not returned a telephone call as of press time.
He says that the project is scheduled to start next year, but he does not have an estimate on a completion date. Durbin estimates it will create 1,000 construction jobs and 1,000 other jobs with business and suppliers serving the project. Meredosia would gain 47 to 50 full-time permanent positions when its plant reopens.
Durbin said there are also plans to build a training center on or near the site where the Mattoon plant would have been built, where workers would learn how to retrofit power plants for “oxy-burn” and build pipelines to transport carbon. Although money for the center has not been appropriated, he says it would come from funds funneled through the Department of Labor for “green” energy training programs.
Durbin acknowledged that the announcement might be disappointing to Coles County residents but said that many had already given up on the long-embattled project. He said that economically, the new plan could actually do more to benefit the area. “Ultimately, the number of jobs we are going to create — permanent jobs — is going to be more.”
Angela Griffin, president of Coles Together — a county economic development group that has worked closely on the project — declined to comment on the announcement. She said she just learned of the changes to the plan today. “We need to digest what we have heard.”
A drastically revamped version of the FutureGen project is moving forward without construction of a planned "clean-coal" power plant in central Illinois.
U.S. Sen. Richard Durbin announced today the U.S. Department of Energy will go ahead with a plan he called “FutureGen 2.0.” Instead of building a new plant to research a technology called gasification in Mattoon, an existing shuttered Ameren plant in Meredosia would be retrofitted to use a different so-called clean-coal technology referred to as oxy-combustion or “oxy-burn.”
Carbon dioxide emissions from the plant in western Illinois would be pumped through a 175-mile subterranean pipeline through Decatur and then down to Mattoon, where they would be sequestered deep underground in the same basin that the original FutureGen plant would have used to store emissions. Durbin said there is a chance that carbon emissions created by the Archer Daniels Midland plant in Decatur would also be pumped to Mattoon. He added that other carbon producers, such as power plants and oil refineries, might sequester their carbon at the Coles County site in the future.
The original FutureGen project was awarded to Mattoon in December 2007. The Bush administration stalled the project almost immediately after the announcement. As time passed, estimated costs for the plant grew. As of last year, U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu pegged the cost to build the plant at more than $2.3 billion. The American Reinvestment and Recovery Act included $1 billion funding for the project, but the feds continued to hold out on a final decision, and some financial backers dropped out.
Durbin says that during this time, the need for testing the technology that the Mattoon plant was planned to demonstrate has diminished. He says while the feds dragged their feet, private industry has made strides in testing the clean-coal technology that, at the time of the plant’s announcement, was billed as the first-of-its-kind.
“It became [a method] that was being proved out on a commercial basis,” Durbin said.
Durbin added: “So we had to find another way to create this opportunity for Coles County and Illinois. … One that fit into the existing budget” He called the “oxy-burn” process, where pure oxygen instead of air is used to burn coal, “the future.”
"The technology for repowering and retrofitting plants derived from FutureGen 2.0 will lead to a decade-long project of repowering and retrofitting the 52 coal-fired power plants in Illinois," a written statement released by Durbin said.
The federal government plans to sink $1.2 billion into retrofitting the power plant at Meredosia in Morgan County, as well as building the pipeline and the carbon dioxide storage facility. Federal officials are counting on support from the FutureGen alliance, a group of investors who backed the original project. Durbin says they responded favorably to the proposal. A representative of the alliance did not respond and had not returned a telephone call as of press time.
He says that the project is scheduled to start next year, but he does not have an estimate on a completion date. Durbin estimates it will create 1,000 construction jobs and 1,000 other jobs with business and suppliers serving the project. Meredosia would gain 47 to 50 full-time permanent positions when its plant reopens.
Durbin said there are also plans to build a training center on or near the site where the Mattoon plant would have been built, where workers would learn how to retrofit power plants for “oxy-burn” and build pipelines to transport carbon. Although money for the center has not been appropriated, he says it would come from funds funneled through the Department of Labor for “green” energy training programs.
Durbin acknowledged that the announcement might be disappointing to Coles County residents but said that many had already given up on the long-embattled project. He said that economically, the new plan could actually do more to benefit the area. “Ultimately, the number of jobs we are going to create — permanent jobs — is going to be more.”
Angela Griffin, president of Coles Together — a county economic development group that has worked closely on the project — declined to comment on the announcement. She said she just learned of the changes to the plan today. “We need to digest what we have heard.”
Saturday, January 30, 2010
FutureGen gets new backer
By Jamey Dunn
FutureGen, a “clean” coal plant proposed for construction in Mattoon, got backing today from an Illinois utility company. Exelon, based in Chicago, has joined the group of investors, known as the FutureGen alliance, that support the project.
As originally proposed the plant would use a first-of-its kind combination of technology to capture carbon emissions created from burning coal and trap them underground. (For more information on clean coal and FutureGen see Illinois Issues May 2009.)
The project stalled in January 2008, when former President George Bush’s administration pulled support because of concerns about growing costs and increasing risks to taxpayers. A federal report by the Government Accountability Office, however, later indicated that accounting errors overestimated the cost by $500 million.
“People were upset. Upset that we went through five years of competition for this coal research project and they pulled the rug out from under us as soon as Illinois won,” U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin said at a Chicago news conference.
The project awaits approval of more than $1 billion in stimulus funds from the U.S. Department of Energy. Including the cost of materials, recent estimates have said the total price could exceed $2 billion. The feds asked the alliance to find cost savings to reduce that price and more private investors to back the plan. Durbin said that is why support from Exelon helps the plant’s chances for moving forward.
“Exelon — in joining the FutureGen alliance — not only brings more credibility to the project, more resources to the project, they bring their expertise to the project and move us closer to approval,” Durbin said.
Two investors, Electric Power Co. and Southern Co, dropped out of the project last year, citing concerns over rising costs. With Exelon on board, the alliance is up to 10 members.
The goal of the plant is to capture 90 percent of the carbon emissions by the third year of a five-year test period, according to the Department of Energy.
“We can’t ignore the scientific consensus that suggests that we have to find a way to control carbon emissions if we are to move forward in combating global warming and climate change,” said Doyle Beneby, senior vice president of Exelon Power. “It’s clear that we need to do everything we can as an industry to make sure that coal continues to become part of the energy mix here and part of the mix in a low carbon future.”
A decision from the DOE is expected in February. Check back for further details.
FutureGen, a “clean” coal plant proposed for construction in Mattoon, got backing today from an Illinois utility company. Exelon, based in Chicago, has joined the group of investors, known as the FutureGen alliance, that support the project.
As originally proposed the plant would use a first-of-its kind combination of technology to capture carbon emissions created from burning coal and trap them underground. (For more information on clean coal and FutureGen see Illinois Issues May 2009.)
The project stalled in January 2008, when former President George Bush’s administration pulled support because of concerns about growing costs and increasing risks to taxpayers. A federal report by the Government Accountability Office, however, later indicated that accounting errors overestimated the cost by $500 million.
“People were upset. Upset that we went through five years of competition for this coal research project and they pulled the rug out from under us as soon as Illinois won,” U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin said at a Chicago news conference.
The project awaits approval of more than $1 billion in stimulus funds from the U.S. Department of Energy. Including the cost of materials, recent estimates have said the total price could exceed $2 billion. The feds asked the alliance to find cost savings to reduce that price and more private investors to back the plan. Durbin said that is why support from Exelon helps the plant’s chances for moving forward.
“Exelon — in joining the FutureGen alliance — not only brings more credibility to the project, more resources to the project, they bring their expertise to the project and move us closer to approval,” Durbin said.
Two investors, Electric Power Co. and Southern Co, dropped out of the project last year, citing concerns over rising costs. With Exelon on board, the alliance is up to 10 members.
The goal of the plant is to capture 90 percent of the carbon emissions by the third year of a five-year test period, according to the Department of Energy.
“We can’t ignore the scientific consensus that suggests that we have to find a way to control carbon emissions if we are to move forward in combating global warming and climate change,” said Doyle Beneby, senior vice president of Exelon Power. “It’s clear that we need to do everything we can as an industry to make sure that coal continues to become part of the energy mix here and part of the mix in a low carbon future.”
A decision from the DOE is expected in February. Check back for further details.
Thursday, July 16, 2009
FutureGen on track to a 2010 decision
By Bethany Jaeger and Jamey Dunn
The east-central Illinois’ site for the first-of-its-kind, cleaner-burning power plant meets all environmental standards needed for FutureGen to continue, according to a recent decision by the federal government.
The U.S. Department on Energy issued a formal opinion called a record of decision, one regulatory step needed for the public-private partnership to move forward. Any small step forward is a big relief for a group of investors, as well as state and local officials, who have worked since at least 2004 to secure support of the technology called fully integrated carbon capture and sequestration. Simply, it would capture carbon dioxide pollutants and trap them underground. The goal is to capture 90 percent of the carbon emissions by the third year of a five-year test period, according to the record of decision.
The entire project and design of the Mattoon plant stalled in January 2008, when former President George Bush’s administration pulled support because of concerns about growing costs and increasing risks to taxpayers. A federal report by the Government Accountability Office, however, later indicated accounting errors overestimated the cost by $500 million.
The Mattoon site and the project were revived last month when U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu of President Barack Obama’s administration committed to working toward constructing FutureGen in Mattoon and contributing $1.073 billion, $1 billion of which is expected to come from the federal stimulus package. Including the cost of materials, recent estimates have said the total price tag could exceed $2 billion.
A group of investors and energy industry stakeholders called FutureGen Alliance would have to foot at least $400 million to $600 million of the remaining costs. The goal was for at least 20 partners to contribute a total of $20 million throughout the next four to six years.
But two partners recently dropped out of the alliance, reducing membership to nine. American Electric Power Co. and Southern Co. cited concerns about costs. Steve Higginbottom, spokesman for Southern Co., added that the company pulled out to focus on other technology research being conducted by the government and industry partners. The uncertainty of FutureGen also contributed, he said, but added: “We’re supportive of the FutureGen project. We think it has the potential to lead to some developments.”
The state’s involvement has included the Illinois Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity, which now will contribute to more behind-the-scenes work, said Marcelyn Love, agency spokeswoman. That will include helping to prepare the final design and the site layout. “But we will continue to do whatever is needed to ensure that FutureGen can become a reality,” she said.
The east-central Illinois’ site for the first-of-its-kind, cleaner-burning power plant meets all environmental standards needed for FutureGen to continue, according to a recent decision by the federal government.
The U.S. Department on Energy issued a formal opinion called a record of decision, one regulatory step needed for the public-private partnership to move forward. Any small step forward is a big relief for a group of investors, as well as state and local officials, who have worked since at least 2004 to secure support of the technology called fully integrated carbon capture and sequestration. Simply, it would capture carbon dioxide pollutants and trap them underground. The goal is to capture 90 percent of the carbon emissions by the third year of a five-year test period, according to the record of decision.
The entire project and design of the Mattoon plant stalled in January 2008, when former President George Bush’s administration pulled support because of concerns about growing costs and increasing risks to taxpayers. A federal report by the Government Accountability Office, however, later indicated accounting errors overestimated the cost by $500 million.
The Mattoon site and the project were revived last month when U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu of President Barack Obama’s administration committed to working toward constructing FutureGen in Mattoon and contributing $1.073 billion, $1 billion of which is expected to come from the federal stimulus package. Including the cost of materials, recent estimates have said the total price tag could exceed $2 billion.
A group of investors and energy industry stakeholders called FutureGen Alliance would have to foot at least $400 million to $600 million of the remaining costs. The goal was for at least 20 partners to contribute a total of $20 million throughout the next four to six years.
But two partners recently dropped out of the alliance, reducing membership to nine. American Electric Power Co. and Southern Co. cited concerns about costs. Steve Higginbottom, spokesman for Southern Co., added that the company pulled out to focus on other technology research being conducted by the government and industry partners. The uncertainty of FutureGen also contributed, he said, but added: “We’re supportive of the FutureGen project. We think it has the potential to lead to some developments.”
The state’s involvement has included the Illinois Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity, which now will contribute to more behind-the-scenes work, said Marcelyn Love, agency spokeswoman. That will include helping to prepare the final design and the site layout. “But we will continue to do whatever is needed to ensure that FutureGen can become a reality,” she said.
Illinois' recent enactment of a capital construction program includes $17 million, which Love said is intended to help pay for site development or construction.
The next stages in the project will start at the end of this month and continue through early 2010. The U.S. Energy Department listed the following steps:
The next stages in the project will start at the end of this month and continue through early 2010. The U.S. Energy Department listed the following steps:
- Restart preliminary design activities.
- Complete a site-specific preliminary design and update the cost estimate.
- Expand the alliance sponsorship program.
- Develop a complete funding plan.
- Consider adding “subsurface characterization.”
Friday, March 06, 2009
Tax talk and FutureGen update
Income tax talk
By Bethany Jaeger
Senate Democrats are considering ways to trim the budget at the same time they’re considering revenue ideas to help alleviate the $9 billion to $11 billion budget deficit. At least one revenue idea includes an increase in the state income tax by as much as 2 percentage points, which would bring the rate to 5 percent for individuals.
Sen. Donne Trotter, budget negotiator for the Senate Democrats, said that for every percentage point increase, the state could collect an extra $3.3 billion, meaning 1 percentage point wouldn't plug the expanding budget gap. “If you’re going to do something as dramatic as raise the income tax, you might as well make it workable. Let’s not just do it and still have a hole and have to come back and do it next year.”
Trotter said early internal discussions about changing the tax structure include establishing a progressive system that would levy a higher tax rate on people who made more money and giving tax credits to families who made less money.
He said the idea to grant tax credits to lower-income families would allow the legislature to get around having to change the state Constitution, which established a flat income tax rate. Illinois lawmakers would have to propose a constitutional amendment to levy the tax on a sliding scale based on ability to pay.
FutureGen still being considered by the Feds
By Jamey Dunn
The U.S. Department of Energy has not taken the proposed FutureGen plant in Mattoon off the table, but the overall plan and the details of the bureaucratic process remain in flux.
According to the New York Times, Energy Secretary Steven Chu said yesterday that he still is considering the Mattoon plant as part of a “modified” project that could include international partners. “We are taking, certainly, a fresh look at FutureGen, how it would fit into this expanded portfolio,” Chu was quoted as saying.
Illinois lawmakers have focused on the record of decision, a statement that says the plan for the Mattoon site has met all environmental standards for construction. U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin recently called for Chu to sign the document so the project can move forward.
However, John Grasser, a spokesman for the Fossil Energy Division of the Department of Energy, said that being concerned with the record of decision at this point is “putting the cart before the horse.” Grasser said that the project must be resurrected before the record can be signed. He said that Chu is still open to the possibility of breathing new life into the project that was abandoned by former President George Bush's administration in January 2008. Grasser said that if the Mattoon site becomes part of a new plan, it could require a new record of decision and some administrative planning that will be worked out when, and if, the time comes.
By Bethany Jaeger
Senate Democrats are considering ways to trim the budget at the same time they’re considering revenue ideas to help alleviate the $9 billion to $11 billion budget deficit. At least one revenue idea includes an increase in the state income tax by as much as 2 percentage points, which would bring the rate to 5 percent for individuals.
Sen. Donne Trotter, budget negotiator for the Senate Democrats, said that for every percentage point increase, the state could collect an extra $3.3 billion, meaning 1 percentage point wouldn't plug the expanding budget gap. “If you’re going to do something as dramatic as raise the income tax, you might as well make it workable. Let’s not just do it and still have a hole and have to come back and do it next year.”
Trotter said early internal discussions about changing the tax structure include establishing a progressive system that would levy a higher tax rate on people who made more money and giving tax credits to families who made less money.
He said the idea to grant tax credits to lower-income families would allow the legislature to get around having to change the state Constitution, which established a flat income tax rate. Illinois lawmakers would have to propose a constitutional amendment to levy the tax on a sliding scale based on ability to pay.
FutureGen still being considered by the Feds
By Jamey Dunn
The U.S. Department of Energy has not taken the proposed FutureGen plant in Mattoon off the table, but the overall plan and the details of the bureaucratic process remain in flux.
According to the New York Times, Energy Secretary Steven Chu said yesterday that he still is considering the Mattoon plant as part of a “modified” project that could include international partners. “We are taking, certainly, a fresh look at FutureGen, how it would fit into this expanded portfolio,” Chu was quoted as saying.
Illinois lawmakers have focused on the record of decision, a statement that says the plan for the Mattoon site has met all environmental standards for construction. U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin recently called for Chu to sign the document so the project can move forward.
However, John Grasser, a spokesman for the Fossil Energy Division of the Department of Energy, said that being concerned with the record of decision at this point is “putting the cart before the horse.” Grasser said that the project must be resurrected before the record can be signed. He said that Chu is still open to the possibility of breathing new life into the project that was abandoned by former President George Bush's administration in January 2008. Grasser said that if the Mattoon site becomes part of a new plan, it could require a new record of decision and some administrative planning that will be worked out when, and if, the time comes.
Tuesday, March 03, 2009
FutureGen confusion
By Jamey Dunn
With speculation running rampant about how federal stimulus funds will be spent, it seems that Illinois lawmakers and the U.S. Department of Energy may not be on the same page when it comes to FutureGen, a one-of-its kind project slated for Mattoon that got the kibosh at the last minute in late 2007.
Supporters of the near-zero-emission power plant that would use Illinois coal say they are waiting on Energy Secretary Steven Chu to sign the record of decision, a statement that says the plant has met all required environmental standards for construction. “I think this is the best project to move quickly in coal research, good for Illinois, good for the United States and the world,” said U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin, who appeared in Springfield last week. “And so what we’re looking for is [Secretary Chu’s] signature on something called a record of decision. And if he would sign that document, we’d be ready to move forward. And so I’m going to do everything I can to urge him to do so.”
Meanwhile, John Grasser, a spokesman for the department’s Fossil Energy Division, says the project has been restructured, so the record of decision no longer matters. “The original FutureGen does not exist right now as a federal project. The record of decision is moot.”
Regardless of the record of decision, FutureGen is eligible for the $1 billion in grants included in the stimulus package for fossil fuel research. The money could be given to one project or split up over several. Chu could hand it out as he sees fit, or several projects may be given the opportunity to compete for the money. According to a timeline on the federal stimulus Web site, agencies must start reporting on these competitive grants by May 20. Even if FutureGen got all the funding, it would not be enough to cover the plant’s estimated $1.8 billion dollar price tag.
Warren Ribley, new director of the Illinois Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity, says that FutureGen has a good chance to receive funding, partially because the project has potential to stimulate the economy almost immediately.
With speculation running rampant about how federal stimulus funds will be spent, it seems that Illinois lawmakers and the U.S. Department of Energy may not be on the same page when it comes to FutureGen, a one-of-its kind project slated for Mattoon that got the kibosh at the last minute in late 2007.
Supporters of the near-zero-emission power plant that would use Illinois coal say they are waiting on Energy Secretary Steven Chu to sign the record of decision, a statement that says the plant has met all required environmental standards for construction. “I think this is the best project to move quickly in coal research, good for Illinois, good for the United States and the world,” said U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin, who appeared in Springfield last week. “And so what we’re looking for is [Secretary Chu’s] signature on something called a record of decision. And if he would sign that document, we’d be ready to move forward. And so I’m going to do everything I can to urge him to do so.”
Meanwhile, John Grasser, a spokesman for the department’s Fossil Energy Division, says the project has been restructured, so the record of decision no longer matters. “The original FutureGen does not exist right now as a federal project. The record of decision is moot.”
Regardless of the record of decision, FutureGen is eligible for the $1 billion in grants included in the stimulus package for fossil fuel research. The money could be given to one project or split up over several. Chu could hand it out as he sees fit, or several projects may be given the opportunity to compete for the money. According to a timeline on the federal stimulus Web site, agencies must start reporting on these competitive grants by May 20. Even if FutureGen got all the funding, it would not be enough to cover the plant’s estimated $1.8 billion dollar price tag.
Warren Ribley, new director of the Illinois Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity, says that FutureGen has a good chance to receive funding, partially because the project has potential to stimulate the economy almost immediately.
Friday, February 01, 2008
Ready for Super Tuesday
Super Bowl Sunday will lead into Super Tuesday, when more than 20 states including Illinois will hold primary elections. That invites this fun fact: U.S. Sen. Barack Obama collected enough donations in January alone to pay for 13 TV advertisements during the game. That's a lot, considering a 30-second ad goes for $2.4 million.
Obama's campaign officials reported that the Democratic presidential hopeful raised $32 million just in January. (We'll have more on Obama's campaign donations linked to the federally indicted Tony Rezko later.) Obama's camp also attracted 170,000 new donors, bringing his total to 650,000, according to David Plouffe, his national campaign manager. He said in a conference call that the strongest day was the day after the New Hampshire primary, when Obama came in second to U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York.
Clinton's campaign said it wasn't releasing its January donations yet. You can see older contribution summaries for all candidates here. Obama's campaign said it's now able to run advertisements in every state with a February 5 primary, as well as in states with later primary dates.
Kent Redfield, political scientist at the University of Illinois at Springfield, has a good point about moving up Illinois' primary to February 5 from its original date in March. “There's a certain irony in the fact that we moved our primary up so we could be a major player, and now states that didn't move actually may be more important than Illinois. If we'd have stuck to mid-March, we might have been this huge battleground all by ourselves instead of one of all of these other states.”
That's an indication the Democratic race has some legs. While Redfield predicts that the Republican race between U.S. Sen. John McCain and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney could be decided on Super Tuesday, he doesn't think the Democratic nominee will be as clear-cut. It is likely that Obama will win the majority of delegates in Illinois, he says, but it's still a really tight race because every delegate counts.
FutureGen factsAnd to keep FutureGen discussion going, the FutureGen Alliance released this fun fact sheet in response to the federal government's kibosh on the Mattoon project announced Wednesday.
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
Feds recast FutureGen's future
FutureGen isn’t dead, yet. But it’s dead as we know it. The 13 energy companies that formed the FutureGen Alliance and selected Mattoon as the host of the groundbreaking project also isn’t dead, yet. In fact, Mattoon and the Alliance could land another version of the multibillion-dollar project with state-of-the art technology for cleaner energy production if they go through another long, detailed, competitive bidding process. And the Alliance would have to come up with a way to fund it other than borrowing, as it proposed in the original FutureGen deal with the federal government.
The U.S. Department of Energy announced in a conference call Wednesday that a new approach to FutureGen would be an “all around better deal for America” for less money and less risk. Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman said the department would start from scratch, seeking new bids for new projects that would a) allow for commercial operation of clean coal plants, b) use multiple locations and c) sequester “double the amount” of carbon dioxide emissions than proposed in 2003. (That’s when President George W. Bush unveiled the original FutureGen plan.) The restructured FutureGen also would aim to generate enough electricity to power 400,000 homes, more than the FutureGen projection, and faster.
New plants would be operational by 2015. Interested applicants have until March 3 to submit proposals.
The halt on federal funding for the original FutureGen site started to trickle down when the FutureGen Alliance announced Mattoon as the selected site in December. In fact, the Energy Department urged the Alliance not to continue with the announcement because of funding and feasibility concerns and didn’t attend the unveiling in Washington, D.C.
The concerns, according to DOE’s Deputy Secretary Clay Sell, focus on the cost estimates nearly doubling to $1.8 billion and drastic changes in clean-coal technology in the past five years. He said more than 33 companies are seeking permits to build plants that use similar technology that could do what made FutureGen so promising: generate electricity and hydrogen from coal and then sequester the carbon dioxide emissions underground rather than releasing them as air pollutants. The costs and the market changes underpinned the decision to take a different approach, Sell said.
It really didn’t help that the FutureGen Alliance proposed that its share of the costs would be financed by mortgage loans. “Quite simply, the financing approach advanced by the FutureGen Alliance would place interests of U.S. taxpayers at risk to that of private mortgage holders,” Sell said. “This would represent a substantial departure from DOE practice for projects which the government bears a majority of costs. And we think it would significantly and unduly increase taxpayer risk.” Ultimately, the feds and the Alliance couldn’t agree on a way to restructure FutureGen.
But what if costs escalate just as they did for the original project? “I can’t guarantee anything five years in the future, and neither can anyone in the Congress,” Sell said. Responding to the Illinois delegation’s harsh words that the feds put the kibosh on Mattoon’s version of the FutureGen, Sell added that the administration has much more confidence that the new approach wouldn’t suffer the same fate.
He also quashed skepticism that the administration pulled the plug on the Mattoon site as retribution for the project not landing in the president’s home state of Texas, as well as the notion that the DOE conveniently set a timeline that coincides with the end of Bush’s term. “Had I wanted to just wash my hands of this, I would have let it go. And the folks of Mattoon, Ill., could have continued to celebrate this for a year or maybe two years. And then when the thing went south, I could have blamed it on the next administration for failing to bring this great idea to fruition. But we recognized that we had a problem. We recognized that we needed to restructure it.”
So now the feds have to deal with the persistent Illinois Congressional delegation, as well as the state legislature and the governor, who all vow to fight for Mattoon and FutureGen.
The U.S. Department of Energy announced in a conference call Wednesday that a new approach to FutureGen would be an “all around better deal for America” for less money and less risk. Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman said the department would start from scratch, seeking new bids for new projects that would a) allow for commercial operation of clean coal plants, b) use multiple locations and c) sequester “double the amount” of carbon dioxide emissions than proposed in 2003. (That’s when President George W. Bush unveiled the original FutureGen plan.) The restructured FutureGen also would aim to generate enough electricity to power 400,000 homes, more than the FutureGen projection, and faster.
New plants would be operational by 2015. Interested applicants have until March 3 to submit proposals.
The halt on federal funding for the original FutureGen site started to trickle down when the FutureGen Alliance announced Mattoon as the selected site in December. In fact, the Energy Department urged the Alliance not to continue with the announcement because of funding and feasibility concerns and didn’t attend the unveiling in Washington, D.C.
The concerns, according to DOE’s Deputy Secretary Clay Sell, focus on the cost estimates nearly doubling to $1.8 billion and drastic changes in clean-coal technology in the past five years. He said more than 33 companies are seeking permits to build plants that use similar technology that could do what made FutureGen so promising: generate electricity and hydrogen from coal and then sequester the carbon dioxide emissions underground rather than releasing them as air pollutants. The costs and the market changes underpinned the decision to take a different approach, Sell said.
It really didn’t help that the FutureGen Alliance proposed that its share of the costs would be financed by mortgage loans. “Quite simply, the financing approach advanced by the FutureGen Alliance would place interests of U.S. taxpayers at risk to that of private mortgage holders,” Sell said. “This would represent a substantial departure from DOE practice for projects which the government bears a majority of costs. And we think it would significantly and unduly increase taxpayer risk.” Ultimately, the feds and the Alliance couldn’t agree on a way to restructure FutureGen.
But what if costs escalate just as they did for the original project? “I can’t guarantee anything five years in the future, and neither can anyone in the Congress,” Sell said. Responding to the Illinois delegation’s harsh words that the feds put the kibosh on Mattoon’s version of the FutureGen, Sell added that the administration has much more confidence that the new approach wouldn’t suffer the same fate.
He also quashed skepticism that the administration pulled the plug on the Mattoon site as retribution for the project not landing in the president’s home state of Texas, as well as the notion that the DOE conveniently set a timeline that coincides with the end of Bush’s term. “Had I wanted to just wash my hands of this, I would have let it go. And the folks of Mattoon, Ill., could have continued to celebrate this for a year or maybe two years. And then when the thing went south, I could have blamed it on the next administration for failing to bring this great idea to fruition. But we recognized that we had a problem. We recognized that we needed to restructure it.”
So now the feds have to deal with the persistent Illinois Congressional delegation, as well as the state legislature and the governor, who all vow to fight for Mattoon and FutureGen.
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Energy bust
It very well could be too good to be true for Mattoon and the state, which lost federal support of the groundbreaking FutureGen coal power plant one month after winning the project. I thought something was peculiar when I listened to President George W. Bush’s last State of the Union speech Monday night. He mentioned the need “to build a future of energy security” and pioneering “a new generation of clean energy technology,” but he didn’t name FutureGen, an international project touted to do just that.
Mattoon was selected by the energy industry group, FutureGen Alliance, to host the $1.75 billion project capable of generating energy with much less pollution. It was to be an economic boon and an environmental breakthrough. The blow to Mattoon and the entire state came Tuesday after news of a meeting between the U.S. delegation of Sen. Dick Durbin and Rep. Tim Johnson and U.S. Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman, according to published reports.
Durbin said in a statement that the feds’ move was unmatched in “cruel deception.”
Mattoon was selected by the energy industry group, FutureGen Alliance, to host the $1.75 billion project capable of generating energy with much less pollution. It was to be an economic boon and an environmental breakthrough. The blow to Mattoon and the entire state came Tuesday after news of a meeting between the U.S. delegation of Sen. Dick Durbin and Rep. Tim Johnson and U.S. Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman, according to published reports.
Durbin said in a statement that the feds’ move was unmatched in “cruel deception.”
“After our meeting today it is clear that Secretary of Energy Sam Bodman has misled the people of Illinois, creating false hope in a FutureGen project which he has no intention of funding or supporting.”
Gov. Rod Blagojevich said in a statement that the state will not give up the fight to make FutureGen a reality in Illinois.
Even if Illinois were to fight and win a scaled-down version of FutureGen or another kind of clean coal technology project, it likely would cost a lot more than the original estimate. FutureGen Alliance’s Michael Mudd gave an online interview about the unknown reason the U.S. Department of Energy had yet to issue a decision by mid-January. But he also said the more delay, the higher the cost — as much as $10 million a month — because of inflation.
Editor’s note: The upcoming February issue of Illinois Issues has an article about FutureGen that was printed before it could be updated with today’s news. Watch the blog and our March issue for more updates.
Utility debate returns
Get ready for another round of energy debates involving natural gas and electricity rates for Commonwealth Edison and Ameren Illinois customers. A group of consumer advocates gathered Tuesday to say consumers have a voice and should get involved in the rate-setting debates before the Illinois Commerce Commission.
Ameren proposes collecting about $245 million from customers of all three subsidiaries to deliver natural gas and electricity. The utility also proposes something called “decoupling,” which would allow it to add a surcharge on natural gas delivery rates to make up for a decline in the average amount of therms used by customers. For instance, Beth Bosch of the Illinois Commerce Commission gave this example: If Illinois has a warm winter and Ameren Illinois customers use less heat, then the utility would lose money. There is a cost to deliver the natural gas no matter how much or little customers use, says Leigh Morris, Ameren Illinois spokesman. He adds the amount of the surcharge would be minimal. The proposal also could benefit customers in the opposite scenario: If Illinois had a colder than normal winter and the utility made more money, then customers could get a credit on their bills.
The Illinois attorney general opposes that billing scheme. Janice Dale, chief of the public utilities bureau in the AG’s office, says it’s “a plan to have customers pay for natural gas service that they won’t use.”
Dale joined AARP at a Statehouse news conference Tuesday. Along with the Citizens Utility Board, they want to organize opposition to proposed rate increases and ask customers to attend public hearings before the Illinois Commerce Commission accepts some, all or none of the rate increases. Any rate changes wouldn’t be effective until at least this fall, according to Bosch.
Morris says Ameren Illinois asks customers to participate with an open mind about the company’s proposal, considering those rates apply only to the cost of delivering the power, amounting to about 25 percent of customers’ bills. Last year’s political turmoil contributed to the company’s poor credit rating, which makes it more expensive to borrow money when other costs — equipment, operations, fuel — are increasing. The company also plans to spend $900 million on infrastructure through 2010. “A rate increase is essential to our ability to meet our mission,” he says.
Public hearings are scheduled for 7 p.m. throughout Ameren’s service area:
- February 4 at the Decatur Public Library
- February 6 at Marion’s Williamson County Pavilion
- February 13 at the Belleville City Council chambers
- February 19 at Peoria City Hall
- February 26 at the Quincy City Council chambers
- February 28 at the Champaign City Council chambers.
Gov. Rod Blagojevich said in a statement that the state will not give up the fight to make FutureGen a reality in Illinois.
Even if Illinois were to fight and win a scaled-down version of FutureGen or another kind of clean coal technology project, it likely would cost a lot more than the original estimate. FutureGen Alliance’s Michael Mudd gave an online interview about the unknown reason the U.S. Department of Energy had yet to issue a decision by mid-January. But he also said the more delay, the higher the cost — as much as $10 million a month — because of inflation.
Editor’s note: The upcoming February issue of Illinois Issues has an article about FutureGen that was printed before it could be updated with today’s news. Watch the blog and our March issue for more updates.
Utility debate returns
Get ready for another round of energy debates involving natural gas and electricity rates for Commonwealth Edison and Ameren Illinois customers. A group of consumer advocates gathered Tuesday to say consumers have a voice and should get involved in the rate-setting debates before the Illinois Commerce Commission.
Ameren proposes collecting about $245 million from customers of all three subsidiaries to deliver natural gas and electricity. The utility also proposes something called “decoupling,” which would allow it to add a surcharge on natural gas delivery rates to make up for a decline in the average amount of therms used by customers. For instance, Beth Bosch of the Illinois Commerce Commission gave this example: If Illinois has a warm winter and Ameren Illinois customers use less heat, then the utility would lose money. There is a cost to deliver the natural gas no matter how much or little customers use, says Leigh Morris, Ameren Illinois spokesman. He adds the amount of the surcharge would be minimal. The proposal also could benefit customers in the opposite scenario: If Illinois had a colder than normal winter and the utility made more money, then customers could get a credit on their bills.
The Illinois attorney general opposes that billing scheme. Janice Dale, chief of the public utilities bureau in the AG’s office, says it’s “a plan to have customers pay for natural gas service that they won’t use.”
Dale joined AARP at a Statehouse news conference Tuesday. Along with the Citizens Utility Board, they want to organize opposition to proposed rate increases and ask customers to attend public hearings before the Illinois Commerce Commission accepts some, all or none of the rate increases. Any rate changes wouldn’t be effective until at least this fall, according to Bosch.
Morris says Ameren Illinois asks customers to participate with an open mind about the company’s proposal, considering those rates apply only to the cost of delivering the power, amounting to about 25 percent of customers’ bills. Last year’s political turmoil contributed to the company’s poor credit rating, which makes it more expensive to borrow money when other costs — equipment, operations, fuel — are increasing. The company also plans to spend $900 million on infrastructure through 2010. “A rate increase is essential to our ability to meet our mission,” he says.
Public hearings are scheduled for 7 p.m. throughout Ameren’s service area:
- February 4 at the Decatur Public Library
- February 6 at Marion’s Williamson County Pavilion
- February 13 at the Belleville City Council chambers
- February 19 at Peoria City Hall
- February 26 at the Quincy City Council chambers
- February 28 at the Champaign City Council chambers.
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
Mattoon wins: Too good to be true?
The energy industry selected Mattoon in east Central Illinois to host the more than $1 billion project billed as the “world’s first near-zero-emissions coal-fired power plant,” but the feds have yet to sign on to the project that they’re supposed to fund.
FutureGen, as it’s called, is expected to receive international attention for the first-of-its-kind technology to research a cleaner source of energy while capturing harmful carbon dioxide emissions underground. The hundreds of jobs created would also be a huge economic boon for the region and the state. But the project’s future remained in question Tuesday because the U.S. Department of Energy hadn’t yet issued its final decision, which is necessary. And the department issued a statement saying the project already is over budget. More information won’t be available until next month.
Energy Department officials did not attend the press conference (seen live on the Internet) held in Washington, D.C., by the FutureGen Alliance, a nonprofit group of energy companies that’s in a public-private partnership with the feds. The Alliance announced Mattoon as the winner despite federal wishes to hold off on the announcement.
The Energy Department’s absence speaks volumes considering the government (a.k.a. taxpayers) is slated to foot most of the bill: 74 percent compared to the industry’s 26 percent. A November report includes a section about what would happen if the feds didn’t share the burden. “In the absence of DOE funding (the No-Action Alternative), the Alliance may still elect to construct and operate the proposed power plant if it can obtain the additional funding and required permits. However, in the absence of DOE participation, it is unlikely the FutureGen Project would be implemented.” The report later adds, “The No-Action Alternative is considered a ‘No-Build’ Alternative.” [Emphasis added]
FutureGen Alliance officials said during the press conference that politics did not come into play, but skeptics have wondered from the beginning whether President George W. Bush’s home state of Texas would win the bid. Texas is the other state with two cities on the short list for the FutureGen project. Tuscola in east central Illinois also was in the running but wasn’t selected by the Alliance.
The Alliance board unanimously selected Mattoon, population 18,000, after a rigorous process of comparing more than 100 criteria because the town “offered the best chance of success for this project,” said Lucy Swartz, head of the site selection process. “The site is move-in ready, and that was very important for the Alliance to reduce any risks that might be involved with acquiring the land.” It was also chosen for its secure and adequate water supply, its geology that would allow safe storage of carbon dioxide 8,000 feet underground and its location in 444 acres of rural land with a place to inject the gas emissions. The property tax benefits and community support also helped.
The problem is that costs have risen from an estimated $904 million in 2004 to $1.75 billion in 2007.
Construction on the plant would start in 2009, and it wouldn’t be operational until 2012, but the timeline has adjusted a few times. Once in full swing, the plant would be able to power about 150,000 average homes, according to the Alliance’s site.
FutureGen, as it’s called, is expected to receive international attention for the first-of-its-kind technology to research a cleaner source of energy while capturing harmful carbon dioxide emissions underground. The hundreds of jobs created would also be a huge economic boon for the region and the state. But the project’s future remained in question Tuesday because the U.S. Department of Energy hadn’t yet issued its final decision, which is necessary. And the department issued a statement saying the project already is over budget. More information won’t be available until next month.
Energy Department officials did not attend the press conference (seen live on the Internet) held in Washington, D.C., by the FutureGen Alliance, a nonprofit group of energy companies that’s in a public-private partnership with the feds. The Alliance announced Mattoon as the winner despite federal wishes to hold off on the announcement.
The Energy Department’s absence speaks volumes considering the government (a.k.a. taxpayers) is slated to foot most of the bill: 74 percent compared to the industry’s 26 percent. A November report includes a section about what would happen if the feds didn’t share the burden. “In the absence of DOE funding (the No-Action Alternative), the Alliance may still elect to construct and operate the proposed power plant if it can obtain the additional funding and required permits. However, in the absence of DOE participation, it is unlikely the FutureGen Project would be implemented.” The report later adds, “The No-Action Alternative is considered a ‘No-Build’ Alternative.” [Emphasis added]
FutureGen Alliance officials said during the press conference that politics did not come into play, but skeptics have wondered from the beginning whether President George W. Bush’s home state of Texas would win the bid. Texas is the other state with two cities on the short list for the FutureGen project. Tuscola in east central Illinois also was in the running but wasn’t selected by the Alliance.
The Alliance board unanimously selected Mattoon, population 18,000, after a rigorous process of comparing more than 100 criteria because the town “offered the best chance of success for this project,” said Lucy Swartz, head of the site selection process. “The site is move-in ready, and that was very important for the Alliance to reduce any risks that might be involved with acquiring the land.” It was also chosen for its secure and adequate water supply, its geology that would allow safe storage of carbon dioxide 8,000 feet underground and its location in 444 acres of rural land with a place to inject the gas emissions. The property tax benefits and community support also helped.
The problem is that costs have risen from an estimated $904 million in 2004 to $1.75 billion in 2007.
Construction on the plant would start in 2009, and it wouldn’t be operational until 2012, but the timeline has adjusted a few times. Once in full swing, the plant would be able to power about 150,000 average homes, according to the Alliance’s site.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
