FutureGen stalemate continues

A day after the FutureGen Alliance selected Mattoon, Ill., for its project site, Texas Railroad Commission Chairman Michael Williams said Texas officials “haven’t stopped working” on bringing clean-coal technology to Texas.

“We’ve always led on energy,” he said. “We will always lead on energy.

“We’re the same today as we were 48 hours ago,” he said. “We’ve invested a great deal of time, energy and money into this. This clean coal technology makes abundant sense.”

Williams, who serves as chair of FutureGen Texas, also said Texas is ready for projects through private businesses that may embrace only some of the FutureGen project goals of creating power while capturing carbon and producing hydrogen with near-zero emissions.

Secondly, Williams said, there needs to be a state initiative in Texas to research and learn how to burn coal in a clean manner.

“I’m fielding calls from people right now who are interested in one or the other of the Texas FutureGen sites — Penwell and Jewett,” he said. “The investment that’s been made in this project from the state level and the local level is going to prove to be very valuable.”

Also on Wednesday, officials at the U.S. Department of Energy declined to elaborate on a statement made Tuesday by Acting Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary For Fossil Energy James A. Slutz that “projected cost overruns require a reassessment of FutureGen’s design.”

A spokeswoman in the DOE’s Office of Public Affairs declined to say how the cost overruns might be reduced and deferred to the final line in Tuesday’s statement by Slutz: “Further details on the structure of FutureGen will be provided next month.”

Background information available from the department indicated the DOE previously proposed to the FutureGen Alliance several methods for reducing escalating costs for the project, including one to have the DOE and Alliance responsible for funding FutureGen on a 50-50 basis, but DOE officials said that proposal was rejected by the Alliance.

Currently, the DOE is responsible for three-quarters of the cost of FutureGen or $1.14 billion, while the Alliance is responsible for about $360 million. Those numbers are based on an earlier cost estimate of $1.5 billion. The cost estimate has since risen to $1.8 billion.

Lawrence Pacheco, a spokesman for the FutureGen Alliance, said Wednesday that the Alliance is as con-cerned about costs as the DOE and will be happy to discuss how to meet the needs of the FutureGen project.

“Escalations are not unusual for capital projects,” he said. “In March, the DOE signed off on the costs they are now so concerned about.”

Pacheco also noted that reassessing FutureGen “will only add years to the project.”

“The DOE should release its Record of Decision,” Pacheco said. “Any delay in releasing the Record of Decision will only increase project costs.”

Meanwhile, Hoxie Smith, project coordinator of the Permian Basin FutureGen Task Force, said he had taken several calls also from companies that are potentially interested in the Penwell site. He said he couldn’t reveal the names of the companies at this time.

“There are companies that are out there that are ready to do something,” Smith said. Calling Williams a “man of opportunity,” Smith said, “He’s probably talking with companies now. We want to bring this technology to Texas.”