"The Department of Energy has turned its back on us," U.S. Rep. Tim Johnson, R-Urbana, told The News-Gazette. "This is like changing the rules after the final score has been posted on the scoreboard. To me, Secretary Bodman's response this morning was a slap in the face.
"This is the worst form of bureaucratic arrogance and insensitivity that I have seen in my 40 years in politics."
Sen. Dick Durbin,D-Ill., echoed Johnson's anger and frustration, saying the Illinois delegation will take the fight directly to the president.
"In 25 years on Capitol Hill, I have never witnessed such a cruel deception," Durbin said in a written release. "For five years, the Department of Energy has urged our state and others to pursue, at great expense and sacrifice, this critically important energy project.
"When the city of Mattoon was chosen over possible locations in Texas, the secretary of energy set out to kill FutureGen," Durbin said.
More:
And while Illinois politicians are decrying the news that FutureGen may be no more, FutureGen Alliance spokesman Lawrence Pacheco said the alliance has gotten no official statement from the Department of Energy.
"All the alliance has heard is vague statements about how the DOE wants to restructure the project," Pacheco said.
As far as the alliance is concerned, Pacheco said, it still has a cooperative agreement with the department, "and it's still in effect today," he said.
The Bush administration appeared on the verge of killing off the $1.8 billion FutureGen project only a day after the president highlighted plans for a big hike in energy research spending in his State of the Union address.
...
Members of Illinois' congressional delegation, including Republican allies of President Bush, reacted with fury to the development.
"The [Energy Department] has turned its back on us," charged U.S. Rep. Timothy Johnson, a Republican whose district includes Mattoon. "We played by their rules. . . . Secretary Bodman's response this morning was a slap in the face."
A spokeswoman for Bodman said soaring cost projections and technological advances have led the department to rethink the project even as it remains committed to its goals.
"Clean coal remains a cornerstone of the administration's [energy] vision," spokeswoman Julie Ruggiero said. She said Bodman would announce a revamped plan for FutureGen "within days" but declined to say whether the project in Mattoon would survive.
There was bipartisan outrage by state elected officials on DOE’s plans to dismantle FutureGen. Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich called it “an example of politics at its worst.”
“On November 30, 2007, the Department of Energy sent a letter reaffirming that the project was moving forward as planned. Only after it became clear that an Illinois site would be chosen over a Texas site, the Department suggested the project be delayed and now today, that it be dismantled,” the governor said.
State Rep. Chapin Rose, R-Mahomet, called the FutureGen project the most bipartisan effort in state government last year.
“FutureGen was the one bright spot. It was how things were meant to be in government for achieving a common goal. I will cooperate anyway I can with members of Congress to see that FutureGen does come to Mattoon,” Rose said.
Interesting reaction from Texas:
FutureGen Texas Regional Coordinator Hoxie Smith of Midland on Friday confirmed the prospect that the DOE either will award "a piece" of the project to the Basin or a private company will build a plant using FutureGen technology on 600 acres north of Penwell, 20 miles west of Odessa.
Awaiting his flight to Dallas Friday afternoon in Washington, Melton said Odessa city and Chamber of Commerce officials will meet with a company there next month to review its plans for a near zero emissions coal-fired electrical plant producing carbon dioxide for oilwell injection.
"The subject of FutureGen came up in discussions with all four leaders and I don't think anybody knows 100 percent what is going to happen," said Melton after attending the U.S. Conference of Mayors. "They all think it will be scaled back because the DOE would have to put a lot more money into it than they want to.
"There are rumors of breaking it into pieces and I think we will get something going. But I'm not sure it will be FutureGen. We have a meeting in February with a company looking at us for a project similar to FutureGen."
Gotta love the bureaucratic ampersand dollar signs and their semi-colon pound sign exclamation point ways of ampersand at-sign pound signing us in the asterisk with little concern over the damage they cause.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
Where's Obama during all this? He's supposedly still our senator, right?
Why is everyone complaining? I thought this was a conservative blog.
Why should the government be involved at all, other than permitting? If it's economically viable someone will do it.
Why count on government subsidies?
How about a little consistency of political thought here.
Anon, your right were do I pick up your 1.8 billion to pay for this plant. The government has a place in this because they want to see cleaner air and regulate those plants. Second this is not the first time the federal government has support new technology, they are not paying for the whole thing. They will be happy to hear of your support. Thanks
anon, you have a point.
And now, the latest idea being trotted out is for this to go thru Congress - can you say "earmark"?
Pollution is a bit of special case for the free market - but I still have a big problem calling CO2 a pollutant (since I am also a contributor).
RSW-I hope you mean hot air? Yes-CO2 happens naturally in the environment a volcano can produce a heck of a lot of it. Of course in our current political climate were we choose to leave oil in the ground in ANWR, and not build refineries. Who cares about our economy what's 7% inflation and a dropping stock market. I do think the environment is important and if we can make coal cleaner lets go for it we have a lot of it, it dumb to put it off the process won't get cheaper.
Consistency of thought is right. The only way this can be justified is that if they are going to build it somewhere they should build it here. I was actually looking forward to carbonated water coming out of my tap. It is 50% of a childhood dream of mine. I have checked into ethanol as fuel for cars and know it is a bad idea, I merely have a gut reaction that pumping co2 into the ground is a bad idea. I have some confidence in my opinion in that as best I can tell the federal government has an unbroken record of abject failure in all its alternative energy endeavors. Otherwise put, it's entirely possible the Cubs will win the World Series this year.
If there has to be a boondoggle, let Mattoon profit from it, though they would be better off with a bridge to Foosland.
John Bramfeld
Perhaps there was a reason why Reagan wanted to shut down the DoE originally.
John-"I was actually looking forward to carbonated water coming out of my tap." I like this, you know you can get a thing for a flavored packets for your faucet, you could just get ice in a glass go to the faucet, bing bang have an old fashion soda, cool.
Cubs will win, Oh no, you and IP giving prediction now the Cubs are doomed.
redstatewannabe wrote: The government has a place in this because they want to see cleaner air and regulate those plants.
Many Republicans, including the present occupant of the White House, are opposed to government involvement in running a passenger rail network such as Amtrak. Public transportation – particularly in congested areas – also has a role in improving air quality. Paradoxically perhaps, Trent Lott is one of the exceptions; he is one of Amtrak's best supporters on the Republican side of the aisle.
that would be a quote from Run, not me.
And I hate Amtrak subsidies :-)
I don't think the government should generally be in the business of power plant creation. But when the President tells us on Monday that he's planning to spend more of my money on clean energy research, it's a little disconcerting to see on Wednesday that he's taking away my state's money for clean energy research while the Texans who originally lost out on FutureGen start making plans. I'm going to have to pay more taxes, but I'm getting less. I'd prefer not to pay the taxes in the first place, but if I have to pay them I'd like to see some benefits. By the way, the Administration has not cut Amtrak. They should cut a lot of it because their long distance fares are ridiculous compared to planes, and it's slower than driving.
Hate is a strong word. You know there are a lot of things I don't like and if I could get people to do what I want I would change them. I do have some success in moving the football in the right direction. I have found you must work with what you have.
I look at the MSM and what they say about the environment and how fossil fuels are the problem and that the public believes it. This negative view by the public of fossil fuels has an impact on our economy because of its impact on higher fuel and food costs. Given this environment FutureGen is one of our best chances at an economy that makes some sense, we currently use coal to produce more then 50% of our electricity. I know we live in a time when we can twist reality and ignore facts but we still need fossil fuels, there is not enough land to plant corn for ethanol, solar panels or wind mills to replace fossil fuels and in the words of Bill Clinton it's a fairy tail to think so. So as long as the congress makes environmental regulation and republicans support it, congress can and should pay for some of the cost. I would agree that it would be better if the money was left in the economy to be spent by industry to improve their products and the environment, I don’t see the MSM, democrats or the republicans letting that happen. If that was going to happen there would be another dome being built at Clinton and refineries would be under construction.
I would add one other thing, FutureGen to me is something new like a research plant, it’s not like they are subsidizing another power plant.
Dear Run4cvrlib,
If I thought this was worthwhile research, I would support it. Maybe. Even if it is worthwhile, something there is no way to be sure of, we can be absolutely sure that despite the co2 being buried, environmentalists will continue to hate all fossil fuels with the white hot burning heat of the irredeemible zealot. If co2 were even close to their primary concern we would have seen calls for more nukes a long time ago. They don't want a better world, they want a world without fossil fuels and without nuclear, and without hydroelectric dams for that matter.
I pity the investor who pitches the first large co2 friendly coal plant.
John
Thanks for explaining the position of the environmentalists. There's no need for them to speak for themselves when a hostile witness can do it for them.
I know John; people are so set on saving the Earth that if what they are suggesting as the cure works doesn't matter. People tell me we can not produce enough ethanol to meet the standards for production in the old energy bill, let alone the new energy bill. I suppose we could go down to the Amazon rain forest and plow it under and turn it into corn.
Leave no foot print.
John, you surprise me by your seemingly lack of knowledge about FutureGen. It is not a research project. It is a scale up of existing technologies in an effort to build the world's first zero-emissions fossil fuel plant. When operational, the prototype will be the cleanest fossil fuel fired power plant in the world. You would be hard pressed to find an environmentalist who "hates" this because of its environmental impact.
Your backdoor support of nuclear power in however not surprising since the lifecycle costs of this form of energy generation is difficult to collect so is mostly ignore by MSM and regulatory agencies. Also, John, Hydroelectric power generation has been going for well over a 100 years in this country without an environmental protest based upon its pollution.
The now closed plant north of Marshall, Illinois for years and years deep well injected railroad tanker loads of chloridane and the chemicals used to formulate it with the EPA's blessing. Maybe you are too young to remember this carcinogen used for insect control but it is very nasty stuff compared to CO2. The deep well injection disposal technique used at Marshall is the same proposed for disposal of the CO2 byproduct generated by FutureGen.
How do you think FutureGen comes out Oil Man? Also I guess I am very negative about our energy plans in general, what is your overall view?
Look at the bright side... if Texas does get FutureGen we can just have the MTD annex the plant and tax them to death.
Just a comment on the suggestion to call Washington and the White House to ask that DOE reverse their decision on FutureGen back to Illinois. The people who answer the phone are volunteers and are just answering the phone, so calling and throwing fit may not help get you’re message though to the President.
Oilman,
I admit to a certain amount of ignorance about FutureGen, but I am aware of the talking points you recite. I was making a prediction. My prediction is that environmentalists will turn against the technology.
If I were less tactful, I would say I was surprised at your ignorance concerning environmentalist objections to hydrolectric generation. As you say, they don't object to the electricity itself, as they don't for even coal. They object to the dams and artificial bodies of water behind the dams, and the changed water flow past the dam. Do you expect any significant damming of rivers in the future? I don't.
John (ignorance is bliss) Bramfeld