Artist Concept of the FutureGen Power Plant

Site RFP Questions & Answers

Are stakeholder letters of support acceptable to the Alliance? Do such letters violate rules regarding points of contact in the RFP?
Answer: Support letters from political representatives, community leadership, local interest groups and other stakeholders are acceptable to the Alliance. They do not violate the rules of the RFP. Such letters should accompany responses to the RFP as supporting materials. Letters of support arriving separately from a proposal will not be considered in the proposal evaluation.
How is the term "offeror" defined for the purpose of the RFP?
Answer: For the purpose of the RFP, an offeror is an entity that submits a proposal to the Alliance with sufficient information in response to the RFP, and is capable of legally executing an agreement with the Alliance consistent with the legal requirements on the proposed sites as specified in the RFP.
Regarding: Criterion 3.8.3 Access to Natural Gas Pipeline: Exactly how many CFM of natural gas would be considered "sufficient capacity"?
Answer: The coal-gasification facilities that are central to the FutureGen plant require natural gas as a start-up fuel. Based on the nominal capacity of the FutureGen facility, a minimum of 500 SCFM at 450 psi of natural gas from a natural gas pipeline will be required as a start-up fuel. Up to 30,000 SCFM at 450 psi of natural gas may be desirable.
Should offerors proceed with drilling a test well at the proposed site prior to final selection?
Answer: As stated in the draft RFP, the Alliance intends to perform detailed site characterization at the selected site at the end of the selection process. Potential offerors are not required to undertake any drilling prior to final selection. However, as availability of site data will be factored into the final site selection decision, some sites may choose to undertake drilling or other characterization activities as part of their individual site bid strategy.
Why is the Alliance giving a higher priority to deep saline formations for carbon sequestration when other formations such as unmineable coal seams are also available and may offer economic returns?
Answer: Deep saline formations are the most pervasive target formations for geologic storage, both in the United States and worldwide. The cumulative capacity of deep saline formations is orders of magnitude greater than other target formations. An important goal of FutureGen is the transferability of the knowledge base to future facilities. For this reason, the Alliance seeks deep saline formations for the primary target formation. As noted in the RFP, offerors may propose secondary target formations, such as unmineable coal seams, in addition to a primary deep saline target formation.
May offerors contact organizations listed in Section 1.5.2, Conflict of Interest, on matters unrelated to FutureGen?
Answer: Yes. The final RFP includes additional language to make it clear that the prohibition applies only to discussions relating to FutureGen.
Would the Alliance be willing to eliminate or modify certain terms and conditions in Appendix A?
Answer: Appendix A in the final RFP contains the Alliance's proposed Terms and Conditions. Some clarifications to the draft RFP Terms and Conditions have been made in response to comments received. Offerors may include exceptions to these Terms and Conditions and explain them in their proposal. While individual exceptions taken to the Terms and Conditions will not disqualify any Offeror, the extent and nature of exceptions could result in a proposal being viewed as non-responsive.
The draft RFP states that offerors are responsible for costs associated with preparing Environmental Information Volumes to support DOE's NEPA process, if the offered site is on the Candidate Site List. However, state budgetary processes do not allow unanticipated/open-ended expenditures. The solicitation should place a cap on these expenditures or indicate that these expenditures will be met by the Alliance.
Answer: Offerors should expect to spend between $100,000 and $200,000 to prepare the Environmental Information Volume for a site; however, the actual cost will be dependent upon the level of information required by DOE to fulfill its NEPA obligations and the quality and quantity of information readily available, among other factors.
Please provide additional information related to the Power Sales criterion in Part 5 of the draft RFP. For example: What are the cost assumptions and operating parameters? What is the production cost likely to be? Would letters of intent from power purchasers suffice?
Answer: Because design of the FutureGen facility is ongoing, it would be premature to provide operating parameters. Electricity costs from the FutureGen plant are uncertain and will vary based on the hydrogen to electricity production ratio, the type and cost of fuel and other operational costs from carbon capture equipment operation. Costs could range up to $70/MWH during some testing periods, with lower costs possible. However, the actual cost cannot be established at this time, and the final agreement would be based on the actual cost, not this estimated cost. Expected availability during initial operations phase is assumed to be 50%, and the Alliance cannot guarantee on-stream availability. With respect to power purchase commitments, a binding commitment will be viewed much more favorably than a letter of intent.
The minimum allowable acreage of a site in the draft RFP is overly restrictive and may preclude the offering of existing sites that have suitable infrastructure.
Answer: The final RFP states that a proposed power plant site must be at least 200 contiguous acres, with additional credit being given to larger sites. The Alliance has based this acreage on the area required for typical power plants, while taking into account FutureGen's need for additional space for multiple coal piles, research facilities, and carbon capture facilities.
Are there disqualifying criteria? What are the minimum conditions for disqualifying a proposal?
Answer: As stated in Lines 4-6 on Page 4 of the draft RFP, the Qualifying Criteria specified in Section 3, Parts 1 and 2 of the RFP are mandatory requirements, and any proposals that do not meet all of the qualifying criteria will be excluded from further consideration.
Does the one page limit apply to each criterion? Can the one page response refer to the supporting documentation for details?
Answer: As stated in Line 20 on Page 11 of the Draft Site RFP, unless specified otherwise, offerors must present the evidence required against each qualifying and scoring criterion in one page or less, NOT including supporting documentation (Capitals added for emphasis). Each criterion is identified by a 3rd level (1.1.1, 1.1.2, etc.,) number, and evidence or information is requested against each criterion. As stated in Lines 4-6 on Page 41 of the draft RFP, the one-page response to each criterion should be free-standing and capable of independent evaluation, without referring to the supporting documentation for the requested information.
Is the Alliance going to disclose the scoring or weighting associated with the individual criterion when evaluating proposals?
Answer: The Alliance will not disclose the scales or weights associated with the different scoring criterion in the final RFP.
What is the rationale for the requirement that the bottomhole location of an injection well be 10 miles from sensitive areas such as public access areas, marine shorelines, and Class I injection wells and 20 miles from a U.S. border?
Answer: Based on the professional judgment of technical experts, the Alliance believes that a 50-MMT CO₂ plume would have a very low probability of migrating up to 10 miles from the bottomhole of an injection well. Because this is a first-of-a-kind demonstration project, 10 miles was chosen as a conservative safe distance from sensitive areas. Because monitoring wells may need to be placed at the maximum extent of the expected plume, the Alliance believes that an injection well should be no closer than 20 miles (32 kilometers) from a U.S. border as a conservative safe distance.
The RFP requests electronic copies of the proposal on a CD in Section 1.5.10. Proposal Submission, Modifications, and Withdrawal; Can it be assumed that there is no page limit on materials in the CD, other than the proposal? Can items not suitable for CD format be submitted in another manner?
Answer: The materials on the CD must be identical to those submitted as supporting materials and information to the hard copy of the proposal.
(Updated March 20, 2006) Does the Alliance have a requirement for a percentage of CO₂ that must actually be injected into the primary formation target, relative to secondary targets?
Answer: As stated in Criterion 2.4.1 of the Draft Site RFP, at least one primary DSF must be shown to meet 60% of the capacity (60% of 50 MMT CO₂, or 30 MMT CO₂) and injectivity (60% of 1 MMT CO₂ per year or 0.6 MMT per year) requirements. A minimum of 0.6 MMT CO₂ per year must go into the primary formation. Additional quantities of CO₂ generated could be diverted into a secondary formation at the Alliance's discretion.
Does the Alliance have a cut-off criteria for unacceptable Hurricane risk (Criterion 3.4.1)?
Answer: There is no specific "cut-off" for hurricane risk. Based on the site designation, if any, by the U.S. Landfalling Hurricane Probability Project, sites with lower hurricane risk will receive a higher score compared to those with higher risk.
Does the Alliance have a cut-off criteria for unacceptable Tornado risk (Criterion 3.4.2)?
Answer: There is no specific "cut-off" for tornado risk. Offerors will be asked to provide the number of F2 to F5 tornadoes, as classified by the density strength classification using the Fujita Scale (F-scale), per 1000 square miles (2600 square kilometers) of the area encompassing the proposed site. Sites with lower tornado risk will receive a higher score compared to those with higher risk.
Is the "land surface above the proposed target formation" mentioned in Criterion 2.1.2 the same area as the surface projection of the area of the 50 MMT plume the calculation of which is requested in Criterion 4.1.5?
Answer: Yes, the "land surface above the proposed target formation" is the same area as the surface projection of the area of the plume calculation requested in Criterion 4.1.5.
Since FutureGen will have very low emissions, why are the requirements relating to air quality maintenance and non-attainment areas necessary?
Answer: To facilitate the project's aggressive schedule, and minimize the potential for schedule delays, avoidance of non-attainment or maintenance areas will simplify air emission permitting requirements.
With reference to the Best Value Criteria, what is the advantage of disposing solid waste on-site, especially if there are viable cost effective alternatives nearby?
Answer: Sustained operation of a power plant requires the availability for on-site disposal of solid wastes in order to minimize potential disruptions to operations from factors external to the facility.
In reference to Appendix A, Valid Title: Must the offeror have "valid title" or an option or other exclusive right to valid title? When must the required evidence be secured?
Answer: At the time the offeror enters into an agreement with the Alliance for the transfer or use of the proposed FutureGen site, the offeror must have a valid title or interest to convey to the Alliance. At the time the offeror submits its proposal to the Alliance, it must be able to demonstrate that it has title or a binding option to acquire title.
Who is the authorizing official for the submission of an application in response to the Site RFP?
Answer: The final RFP indicates that the proposal must be signed by a person who is authorized to contractually commit the offeror.
Will confidentiality be maintained with regard to detailed information on the transmission and interconnect information to address Homeland Security concerns?
Answer: The Alliance, in consultation with federal and/or state agencies as applicable, will decline to release information that that is deemed to pose security concerns.
For Criterion 1.1.2, would the inclusion of a piece of land that has an improved road traversing a part of the land violate the interpretation of "contiguous" and disqualify the site?
Answer: A public access road traversing the proposed site would be unacceptable to the Alliance because of site security concerns and the potential to disrupt operations, unless the road is located on a portion of the site that would not interfere with the secure construction or operation of the site. In addition, any costs associated with relocation of improved roads would be the responsibility of the offeror.
Can the winners advancing to Candidate Site List improve their bid?
Answer: The Candidate Site List will be developed based entirely on proposals submitted in response to the final RFP and responses to any requests for additional information from the Alliance. Therefore all offerors are advised to submit their most complete and responsive proposals.