Gretchen Hund, Stakeholder Involvement Manager, FutureGen Industrial Alliance, presented on FutureGen 2.0’s Stakeholder Involvement Approach at the Global CCS Institute's Japanese Members' Meeting held in Tokyo on 8 June 2012.

1. PNWD-SA-9852
FutureGen’s
Stakeholder Involvement
Approach
Global CCS Institute’s Japan Regional
Members’ Meeting, Tokyo
Gretchen Hund
Stakeholder Involvement Manager
June 8, 2012
1

2. 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

3. 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
“FutureGen reflects
performance of a coal-fueled power plant with [the Obama]
near-zero emissions, with integrated pipeline Administration's
commitment to rapidly
developing carbon
• FutureGen enables participants to gain the capture and
knowledge associated and share the cost so that sequestration
technology”
the learnings can be transferred worldwide
Secretary of Energy Chu
3

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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

8. FutureGen 2.0 Project Description
Pipeline Corridor
8

9. FutureGen 2.0
Project Team
Power Generation & CO2 Capture CO2 Transport & Storage

10. 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

11. 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

12. FutureGen Stakeholder Involvement Program
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

13. FutureGen Stakeholder Involvement Program
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

14. FutureGen Stakeholder Involvement Program
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

15. FutureGen Stakeholder Involvement Program
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?

16. FutureGen Stakeholder Involvement Program
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

17. FutureGen Stakeholder Involvement Program
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

18. FutureGen Stakeholder Involvement Program
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

19. FutureGen Stakeholder Involvement Program
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

20. FutureGen Stakeholder Involvement Program
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

21. FutureGen Stakeholder Involvement Program
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?)

22. 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

23. Training Facility
General Activities
• Vocational training
• Business education
• Certification programs
23

24. 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

25. 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

26. Summary
DOE Acknowledgement
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."
26

27. Contact info:
Gretchen Hund
FutureGen Alliance Stakeholder Involvement Manager
Gretchen.Hund@Battelle.org
206-528-3338
http://www.globalccsinstitute.com/resources/publications/futuregen-
case-study
www.FutureGenAlliance.org

28. Additional Inserts – FutureGen 2.0
28

29. 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

30. 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

31. 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

32. Pipeline and Storage Site
Liability Management Framework
Millions $
Project Resources
$25 to $100 Primary
Project-Secured Insurance Million Protection
$50 to $100
Project-Funded Trust Fund Million +
Backstop
State of Illinois
32