News

Science? Or marketing? Illinois betting on both in FutureGen effort

Posted December 06, 2007 10:00 pm

Bruce Rushton

EMBARGOED: For publication Sunday, Dec. 9 or later

Science, the experts have always promised, will decide the location.

But a little lobbying never hurts.

So the decision on where to build FutureGen, a $1.5 billion coal-fired power plant that backers say will generate almost no pollution, apparently also might be influenced by: tax incentives, protection from lawsuits, low-interest loans, millions of dollars in cash and a list of 100 supporters that includes politicians, university presidents, union leaders and media executives.

At least, those are the chips the state of Illinois has thrown into the pot.

"I guess maybe we're a little skeptical that science will dictate this," said Philip Gonet, president of the Illinois Coal Association.

The FutureGen Alliance, a consortium of power companies, is contributing $400 million to the project's construction cost. Federal taxpayers are paying most of the rest.

Tuscola and Mattoon are Illinois' two finalist sites. The other two are in Texas. A decision from the alliance is due this month.

The plant would convert coal to gas and permanently store carbon-dioxide emissions deep within the earth while generating enough electricity to power 150,000 homes. It's never been done before, which is why the project has attracted such widespread interest-companies based in England, Australia and China are investors--and some questions.

"This is an interesting, very experimental technology," said Jack Darin, director of the Illinois chapter of the Sierra Club, which has not taken an official stance on FutureGen. "Our general position on coal gasification is, we are skeptical. We don't know if it's going to work or not."

Try telling that to the legislature.

Illinois has dangled $80 million in financial incentives, including tax breaks, low-interest loans, reimbursement for worker training and $17 million in outright grants. That's four times as much as Texas has offered.

Neither the FutureGen Alliance nor the Department of Energy has publicly asked for subsidies from states, and money might not make a difference. Ohio, which offered $164 million, didn't make the first cut, and neither did Kentucky, at $90 million.

Illinois has also agreed to take title to carbon dioxide generated by the plant, thus relieving FutureGen from financial and legal liability if the greenhouse gas can't be permanently stored in subterranean geologic formations. Lawmakers also have agreed to indemnify FutureGen from lawsuits and pay for insurance policies to cover the plant if it does get sued.

The bill passed the General Assembly this year with just one dissenting vote. The Sierra Club opposed the bill, but didn't bother lobbying against it.

"It was clear this bill was going to pass," explained Darin. "What the government of Illinois has said is that liability is now on the taxpayers, not on the project. We have no idea what kind of liability we, as taxpayers, have just assumed. We're clearly buying a pig in a poke here."

Sen. Martin A. Sandoval, D-Cicero, was the only lawmaker who voted against the bill. Sandoval, a former policy analyst for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, told the Tribune he wasn't convinced the plant will work as advertised.

"I didn't want to be part of what could lead to an environmental Chernobyl in our own back yard," Sandoval said at the time.

Why would 153 other Illinois lawmakers agree to take the risk off FutureGen's hands? The answer lies in the Lone Star State, which last year also agreed to indemnify FutureGen and take title to carbon dioxide.

"We had to level the playing field with Texas," Gonet said.

But beyond dollars and cents, there is spin. Illinois has left few stones unturned in its campaign to market itself to the FutureGen Alliance and the U.S. Department of Energy.

Events like a Dec. 3 pep rally at tiny Arcola High School, halfway between Mattoon and Tuscola, have captured the alliance's attention. Alliance spokesman Lawrence Pacheco, who works in Washington, D.C., heard about Santa Claus showing up at the rally to distribute foam-rubber lumps of coal with "FutureGen For Illinois" labels.

"I thought that was cute," Pacheco said.

Besides calling in Santa, the state Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity has given a $292,000 contract to Cassidy & Associates, one of the biggest and oldest lobbying firms in Washington, D.C. Jack Lavin, DCEO director, said the firm has crafted a campaign that's reached as far as Wyoming and Pennsylvania. Like a real-estate agent, Illinois has even pitched educational opportunities and housing costs to the FutureGen Alliance, Lavin said.

"We've done everything we can," Lavin said.

Governors from seven states and the head of Kentucky's Office of Energy Policy have endorsed Illinois, as has the United Mine Workers of America. Four of the endorsements have come from states that didn't make the first cut in the site-selection process.

"I think that was a good move," Gonet said. "In retrospect, it was probably an obvious one - we want to send a message to Congress that there is broad-based support in Illinois and other states for funding for this."

Lavin stops short of saying the process is a political one, but he doesn't deny that Illinois has recruited a powerful set of interests.

"You've got all the coal states," Lavin said. "Now, you've got the United Mine Workers. The fact of the matter is, they (the FutureGen Alliance) have to get appropriations from Congress."

The state hasn't stopped at unions or governors. A FutureGen for Illinois Task Force put together by DCEO includes the names of 100 most-influentials, among them 11 university and college presidents, the CEO of Pepsi MidAmerica and 22 elected officials ranging from U.S. Sen. Barack Obama to the mayor of Mattoon. A few, such as the governor of Indiana and president of Purdue University, live outside Illinois.

The heads of four media outlets -- the Mattoon Journal Gazette, the Charleston Times-Courier, WAND-TV in Decatur and WICS-TV in Springfield -- are also on the task force.

Carl Walworth, publisher and editor of the Mattoon Journal Gazette and the Charleston Times-Courier, said he agreed to be on the task force because FutureGen is important for economic development. He acknowledged that his position could create the impression that news coverage is skewed, but he said that isn't the case.

"I don't know our newsroom even knows I'm on the task force," he said.

Mike Johnston, general manager of WAND-TV, said his station also helped produce a video for DCEO to use in promoting Illinois for FutureGen, but said he doesn't see a conflict in sitting on a state-organized task force. For one thing, Johnston said, the task force has met just once.

"My commitment was to go to that meeting," Johnston said. "This was a personal choice on my part, and it had nothing to do with politics. It had to do with bringing something worthwhile to Illinois."

Although the task force exists more in name than anything else, names send a signal, which explains why they are posted on the state's FutureGen Web site.

"We wanted to get people from all these areas to show the unwavering support to the FutureGen Alliance," Lavin said.

And if that's not enough, there's always the time-honored tradition of criticizing the opposition. Science-wise, Lavin's office has questioned whether carbon dioxide could escape from Texas ground through holes drilled for oil and gas wells.

The bottom line, he said, is that the project belongs in coal country.

"If you're an oil-and-gas state, this is not going to be your highest priority," Lavin said. "If you're a coal state, it's going to be your highest priority."

Bruce Rushton can be reached at (217) 788-1542 or bruce.rushton@sj-r.com.

Article Categories
News