MATTOON – Plans for a clean-burning FutureGen power plant may drastically change, said U.S. Rep. John Shimkus, R-Collinsville, who thinks the Department of Energy's plan to restructure could mean breaking it into different sites around the country.

Shimkus said Thursday he believes downsizing and restructuring FutureGen make it more feasible.

"I'm afraid if we go as planned, we get nothing," Shimkus said Thursday in a phone interview with The News-Gazette.

"The DOE is scrambling for a way to do it with the current cost escalations," Shimkus said. "Rescoping means a lot of things. I think it could mean the ability to produce more power and sell it on the grid, (or do) limited research at one site and another aspect of the research at another site."

In breaking the project up, Shimkus said, the Energy Department is referring to a Massachusetts Institute of Technology study on coal use in the United States that said the federal government should help several "first-of-a-kind" demonstration plants. That varies greatly from the current plan for FutureGen, which would test several types of coal at one plant but require extensive cleaning between those types.

"FutureGen was originally planned to bring in the different types of coal and test the different types of coal," Shimkus said. "Why not have this site burn Illinois coal and test Illinois coal, and have another site burn Powder River Basin coal ... while you're still producing power you can place on the grid?"

Doing that will still allow FutureGen to achieve its main objectives, Shimkus said, which are to come up with a way to burn coal cleanly and produce power at a low cost.

"That's still a huge win," Shimkus said.

And it'd be a bigger win if one site still came to Mattoon, Shimkus said.

"That's my plea," he said. "A lot of money's already spent to identify Mattoon as a great site. ... So if (President Bush) wants to leave office with a positive legacy on electricity generation using clean coal technology ... it would be my hope that Mattoon would be that site."

But while Shimkus said he's willing to be candid about what the Energy Department may do to restructure FutureGen, the department itself hasn't yet announced its plans.

Department spokeswoman Julie Ruggiero said FutureGen reflects President Bush's vision to develop clean energy sources.

Carbon capture and sequestration (collecting the carbon in liquid form and storing it deep underground) are still the focus of the FutureGen project, she said.

However, these must be developed in the most cost-efficient manner.

"This will require restructuring FutureGen to maximize the role of private sector innovation, facilitate the most productive public-private partnership and prevent further cost escalation," Ruggiero said.

"More information on a restructured FutureGen will be provided in the coming weeks."

But Shimkus, who worked with other members of the Illinois delegation to bring FutureGen to his home state, said he doesn't think any answers will be determined until the alliance and Department of Energy work out their differences.

"They're really fighting," Shimkus said. "That's clear."

U.S. Rep. Tim Johnson, R-Urbana, also worked with the Illinois delegation to bring FutureGen to Illinois.

Johnson was unavailable for comment late Thursday, according to spokesman Phil Bloomer, but will resume working on the FutureGen issue when he returns to Washington.

"We're in the process of setting up meetings with the Department of Energy and the White House to try to straighten this mess out and resolve the differences between the DOE and the FutureGen Alliance," Bloomer said, adding that the main issue is the cost of the $1.8 billion plant.

But earlier this week, Jerry Oliver, the FutureGen Alliance's senior vice president, project development, said the project's price hasn't risen since the Department of Energy's public hearings on four possible sites this summer.

"It hasn't changed," Oliver said Monday at a Mattoon press conference.

Oliver said Monday that he's not familiar with what the Department of Energy means by restructuring the project.

"I'm not inside of what is going on there," Oliver said. He said delays could end up costing the project as much as $1 million per day. He could not be reached for further comment today.

FutureGen Alliance spokesman Lawrence Pacheco said he hadn't heard the theory about splitting the project up, but said it won't be possible to achieve FutureGen's goals if that happens.

"With smaller projects, integration is lost," Pacheco said. "If we can learn from the smaller projects (it will be) a complement to, not a substitute for FutureGen."

Pacheco said the idea behind FutureGen is to develop technology the entire world needs for energy. It won't happen fast enough if environmental studies have to be performed on alternate sites. Those will lag behind the current FutureGen project by two to five years, he said.

"FutureGen needs to move forward," Pacheco said. "The nation and the world, frankly, cannot afford to wait for this kind of technology development."

Oliver said he's not involved in talks about how the Department of Energy and the FutureGen Alliance will work out their differences.

However, he expressed frustration at not being able to get started at the Mattoon site because the Department of Energy hasn't issued its final record of decision.

"We need a record of decision so we can move officially on the site," Oliver said Monday.

State Sen. Dale Righter, R-Mattoon, said he hasn't heard much about the restructuring plan but believes FutureGen will still happen in Mattoon.

"We want to see as much happen here as possible," Righter said. "I think something is going to happen here, it's just the question of the size and the scope of it. It's not just about kilowatts, it's about the scope of the research that will be done here."