Tuscola last to make FutureGen's cut
CHAMPAIGN – Tuscola reached the final four in the competition for hosting the $1 billion FutureGen power plant because evaluators found shortcomings in the Effingham site.
Effingham actually had the fourth-highest score among eight sites deemed qualified for consideration. But evaluators said the Effingham site was relatively small, long and narrow, making it difficult to build a railroad spur for coal delivery.
Plus, houses were too close, and getting water would mean building a pipeline under three state roads, an interstate highway and a railroad right of way, the alliance's experts said.
So Tuscola, which had the fifth-highest score, became the fourth finalist for the prototype coal-fueled power plant that will be designed to produce virtually no air pollution.
Ranking fourth on a list of four doesn't bother Tuscola, a town of 4,500 about 20 miles south of Champaign, said Brian Moody, director of the city's economic development efforts.
"In some ways, I kind of like being the underdog," he said Wednesday. "It takes a little heat off of us. We only have room to move up."
That's what Tuscola will try to do during the final round of evaluations before a site is chosen next year, Moody said.
"We think there's probably still a lot of room in the criteria, once everything has been evaluated a little more closely, to gain some extra points," he said. "We think the proximity of our utilities and our infrastructure is as good as anyone."
FutureGen wants to have the plant built by 2012. But Mattoon and Tuscola, which both made the "final four," may face an uphill battle against their two competitors in Texas.
The "Heart of Brazos" site near Jewett, Texas, had the top overall score, 1,053, which combined a power plant siting score and a geologic storage score.
The next four sites under consideration all had scores within about 5 percent of each other.
Mattoon ranked second, and Odessa placed third.
The Jewett site also had the top score for power plant siting, 668, while the Odessa site had the top score for geologic storage, 395. Mattoon had higher scores than Tuscola in both of those categories.
Evaluators said in their report that the Tuscola site "amply demonstrated the ability to obtain surface rights in a timely manner. This includes rights of way needed for transmission lines and water, gas and (carbon dioxide) pipelines. The net effect of the best-value criteria was to strengthen the standing of this site following the initial scoring."
The Mattoon evaluation was virtually identical, except it added that subsurface rights could be obtained in a timely manner.
Evaluators quickly eliminated sites in North Dakota, Ohio, West Virginia and Wyoming from consideration because they did not meet minimum criteria to qualify, FutureGen's report said.
The remaining eight sites were scored based on several factors, among them availability and quality of land, geology, access to transportation and water supplies.
Marshall, Ill., another site in Ohio and one in Kentucky scored significantly lower in that process than the other five sites and were eliminated, according to the report.
Marshall's site was too close to homes and a church, and presented geological problems that drove its score down, evaluators said in the report.
Effingham Mayor Bob Utz said city officials were disappointed their site was rejected because they had put a lot of time into the project.
"It was just some negatives mostly based on the speed with which they could do it, that was what bumped us out," Utz said. "I think we could have resolved a few of those things for them."
FutureGen Chief Executive officer Mike Mudd said the problems at Effingham "would increase the schedule risk and complicate the whole issue."
"Then the decision was 'OK, let's look at the next site,' " he said.
On the Net:
http://www.futuregenalliance.org/publications/fgýproposalýevaluation ýreport.pdf
