gretchen hund – futuregen industrial alliance – futuregen’s stakeholder involvement approach

FutureGen’s

Stakeholder Involvement

Approach

Global CCS Institute’s Japan Regional

Members’ Meeting, Tokyo

Gretchen Hund

Stakeholder Involvement Manager

June 8, 2012

1

PNWD-SA-9852

FutureGen

Outline

• Project Overview

• FutureGen 1.0

• FutureGen 2.0

• Stakeholder Involvement Program

• Approach in 1.0

• Perceived benefits

• Common CCS questions

• Lessons learned

• Approach in 2.0

• Community benefits

• Citizens’ board

• Conclusions

FutureGen

The Global Leadership Project

• FutureGen is a bold technology response to

climate change and energy concerns

• Led by the world’s leading companies, which

depend upon coal for the vitality of their business,

in partnership with the U.S. Department of Energy

• FutureGen will validate the cost and

performance of a coal-fueled power plant with

near-zero emissions, with integrated pipeline

• FutureGen enables participants to gain the

knowledge associated and share the cost so that

the learnings can be transferred worldwide

3

“FutureGen reflects

[the Obama]

Administration's

commitment to rapidly

developing carbon

capture and

sequestration

technology”

Secretary of Energy Chu

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/83/Steven_Chu_official_DOE_portrait.jpg

FutureGen 1.0

IGCC with 90% Capture

• FutureGen 1.0 – IGCC with 90% capture

– Deep saline storage

– 330-MWe (gross); 240-MWe (net)

• In current economic environment at >$2B, it was

determined to be too expensive

4

FutureGen 2.0

Oxy-Combustion w/CCS

• Repower Unit 4 of

Meredosia power station

with coal-fueled oxy-

combustion

• Pipeline CO2 ~30 miles to a

storage site in the Mt.

Simon saline sandstone

formation

FutureGen 2.0

Financially Positioned to Succeed

• First-mover CCS projects face two commercial financial

gaps that few projects in the world have been able to close • Capital premium (CAPEX gap)

• Operating premium (OPEX gap)

• The technology is exciting, but economics matter

• FutureGen 2.0 is well positioned to close them both • DOE awarded $1049 million to FutureGen program participants

that effectively closes the CAPEX gap

• The State of Illinois’ pioneering Clean Coal Portfolio Standard

legislation provides a mechanism to close the OPEX gap

FutureGen 2.0

Commercial-scale, Leading Edge

• Commercial-scale • Turbine capability: 202 MWe

• Current net rating: 166 MWe

• Repowered gross: 168.4 MWe

• CO2 capture percentage • DOE requirement: 90%

• Project steady-state design basis: 98%

• CO2 capture volume • DOE requirement: 1 million MMT/yr

• Project steady-state design basis: 1.08 MMT/yr

• Other conventional emissions at near-zero levels

FutureGen 2.0 Project Description

Pipeline Corridor

8

FutureGen 2.0

Project Team

Power Generation & CO2 Capture CO2 Transport & Storage

FutureGen 2.0

Status

• Ameren-Alliance finalizing power plant purchase details

• Pre-FEED Plus complete

• Pore space acquired

• Geologic characterization well complete

• Power purchase agreement in process

• Project positioned to move to FEED and final design

10

FutureGen Stakeholder Involvement Program

Overview

• Competitive process used in both stages to

determine which communities might be interested

• FG 1.0 – 12 sites from 7 states entered the

competition; TX and IL semi-finalists; Mattoon, IL

selected

• FG 2.0 – 5 sites from IL competed; 1 site selected

(Morgan County) with 2 alternatives


Illinois Host Communities

• Rural agricultural community, 50,000 residents in

Coles County (Mattoon) and 30,000 residents in

Morgan County (Meredosia and Jacksonville)

• Community has gone through various stages of

growth, stability, and instability in both counties

• Strong sense of civic pride in the community in both

counties

• Educational resources valued in both counties


Approach in 1.0

• The Alliance collected media reports daily

• Illinois for FutureGen Team met with various

communities to help inform them

• The Mattoon local site proponent became a conduit

to stakeholders for the Alliance – organized meetings

• The Alliance conducted stakeholder interviews and

small focus groups with stakeholders from similar

backgrounds (>100)

• DOE required public hearings which were held with

little opposition

• Stakeholder meetings resulted in a better designed

site plan for the facility – site layout and surface water

management


Perceived Benefits in 1.0

• Global Leader

– Spotlight on Mattoon – pride factor

• Innovation

– Viewed as a research project – prestige factor

– Lead to decrease in foreign fuel imports

• Local

– Spin off industry and research opportunities

– Use of Illinois coal

– Local and regional cooperation emerged

– Brought about a new level of regional coordination


Common CCS Questions in 1.0

• Is CO2 safe to bury underground?

• Is CO2 coming back up?

• Is CO2 going to contaminate my water?

• How are they going to keep the CO2 underground?

• Will the CO2 leak back up through wells or cracks?

• Could the State get agreement from landowners to

inject?

• How dangerous is this going to be for us?

• What kind of environmental changes are we going to

have?

• What happens in the event of an earthquake?

• Will we have a Lake Nyos-type event?


Lessons Learned in 1.0

1. Finding competition as a motivator

2. Having community pride and noting altruistic

benefits

3. Seeing cooperation and coordination as critical

4. Understanding specific and varied audiences

5. Understanding where people get information and

providing accurate and consistent information

6. Ensuring access to experts

7. Using different engagement approaches

8. Recognizing that transparency is critical

9. Demonstrating community presence


Approach in 2.0

• Media reports collected daily

• Focus groups initially conducted

• Props used to help describe rock

permeability to help stakeholders

understand how rock formations can

be used to store CO2

• DOE public hearings held with a

prior open house

• Community Corner pieces used on

website and newspaper inserts used

• The Alliance formed a Citizens’

Board

• Characterization site tour offered


Community Benefits in 2.0

• Installed municipal water line in

vicinity adjacent to storage site

area so residents not solely

dependent on well water

• Contributed to city center square

improvement project

• Provided income to community

from job force relating to

characterization well

• Hiring supporting services and

providing jobs


Citizens’ Board in 2.0

• Fourteen members including:

– Education leaders

– Farm Bureau

– Chamber of Commerce

– County Board members

– Local Bank

– Unions

– Neighbors from the proposed storage area

• Two-way communication between the Board and the

Alliance, interested in the community’s questions and

concerns so that they can be addressed early

• Board’s network used to spread the word about the

project and to solicit feedback


Citizens’ Board Role in Shaping

Supporting Facilities

• Solicit feedback from Board on the planned visitor,

research, and training facilities

• Current charter envisions:

• Single point of access to the power plant and storage site for

visitors of all types

• Supports researchers/visiting scientists/public access to

project data, learnings, and participation

• Supports training programs (trades, students)

• Primary focus on near-zero emissions fossil energy and

CCS

• Open to discussing merits of a broader energy theme as coal

fits within a broader clean energy future

• Facilities must be environmentally and financially

sustainable


Citizens’ Board Role in Shaping

Supporting Facilities

• Unique requirements for each facility component may

mean different development/funding

• Researching other sites that may have some

component from which we can learn

• Methodology: – Searched for successful CCS facilities that are similar (What

is the global best practice for the field?)

– Include facilities near Morgan County that already

successfully implement functions of visitor, training, and

research facilities (What works around Morgan County?)

Visitor Facility

General Activities

• Tours (in person and online)

• Meeting space

• Educational programs (public and student)

• Exhibits (static and interactive)

• Volunteering opportunities

• Films

• Open house

22

Training Facility

General Activities

• Vocational training

• Business education

• Certification programs

23

Research Facility

General Activities

• Assure CCS system integrity

• Disseminate data publicly

• Serve as a test bed for CCS scientists

• Provide educational opportunities to students

24

Conclusions

1. Stakeholder involvement is critically important

2. Don’t assume you know what information

stakeholders want to understand CCS, ask them

3. Community pride and altruistic benefits important

4. Cooperation and coordination needed at ALL levels

5. Understand specific and varied audiences

6. Understand where people get information and

provide accurate and consistent information

7. Ensure access to experts

8. Use different engagement approaches

9. Have a presence in the community

10.Be transparent 25

Summary

DOE Acknowledgement

26

DOE Acknowledgment: "This material is based upon work supported by the Department of Energy under

Award Number DE-FE0001882 and Award Number DE-FE0005054 ."

DOE Disclaimer: "This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the

United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency

thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or

assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or

usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or

represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein

to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark,

manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement,

recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency

thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily

state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof."

Contact info:

Gretchen Hund

FutureGen Alliance Stakeholder Involvement Manager

[email protected]

206-528-3338

http://www.globalccsinstitute.com/resources/publications/futuregen-

case-study

www.FutureGenAlliance.org

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.globalccsinstitute.com/resources/publications/futuregen-case-study





http://www.futuregenalliance.org/

Additional Inserts – FutureGen 2.0

28

FutureGen 2.0

Morgan County Pipeline

• Design Basis • Approximately 30 miles

• 12” Pipe

• Minimum four feet burial

• Two Meter stations

• Gas Chromatograph

• Four Main Line Block Valves

• Sender and Receiver Stations for Pigging

• Three 750 hp booster pumps

• Pipeline included in Environmental

Impact Statement

• Landowners compensated for

easements 29

FutureGen 2.0

Morgan County Storage Site

• 2000 to 4000 acre plume size

situated in a ~5000 acre area

• 2 CO2 injection wells (4,500 ft)

• 3 deep monitoring wells in the

reservoir (4,500 ft wells)

• 4 deep monitoring wells above

the cap rock (3,500 ft wells)

• 3 shallow microseismic wells

(~700 ft)

30

FutureGen 2.0

Landowners are Business Partners

• Created an Incentive Structure

• Pore Space – Purchasing cap rock, storage formation, and part of basement

• Pore Space Terms – Option

– Purchase

– Royalty

• ~5000 Acres of Pore Space Secured – Market-based agreement

31

Pipeline and Storage Site

Liability Management Framework

32

Project Resources

Project-Secured Insurance

Project-Funded Trust Fund

State of Illinois

Millions $

$25 to $100

Million

$50 to $100

Million +

Backstop

Primary

Protection

gretchen hund – futuregen industrial alliance – futuregen’s stakeholder involvement approach

Technology