[6] FutureGen 2.0 would have been the most comprehensive Department of Energy Carbon Capture and Storage demonstration project, involving all phases from combustion to sequestration.

The 275-megawatt plant would be intended to prove the feasibility of producing electricity and hydrogen from coal while capturing and permanently storing carbon dioxide underground.

The DOE also planned to solicit the financial support and participation of international governments in the FutureGen project, since by 2020 more than 60% of man-made greenhouse gas emissions are expected to come from developing countries.

As of January 2008, the foreign governments of China, India, Australia, South Korea, and Japan had expressed interest in participating and sharing the cost of the project.

[13][14] In March 2009 Washington Post reported that U.S. Secretary of Energy Steven Chu expressed support for continuing the project using stimulus funds (after some changes that have not yet been specified) and making it a part of a larger portfolio of research plants developed in collaboration with other countries.

DOE chose not to issue the ROD and advised the FutureGen Alliance to delay the final site selection announcement, which was scheduled to occur at the end of the 30-day waiting period.

The Alliance chose to move ahead with the announcement, citing time, money, and a commitment to proposers to select the final site by year-end.

"Every month of delay can add $10 million to the project's cost, solely due to inflation," said Michael Mudd, the Alliance's chief executive.

[21] Original FutureGen project was intended to combine and test several new technologies in a single location, including coal gasification, emissions controls, hydrogen production, electricity generation, and carbon dioxide capture and storage (CCS).

[23] FutureGen was to capture carbon dioxide produced during the gasification process and pump it into deep rock formations thousands of feet under ground.

And that "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.

The initial plans had called for DOE to pay based on a percentage of the total cost, and their portion had risen from about $620 million to about $1.33 billion.

Democratic Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois accused Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman of "cruel deception" of Illinoisans by "creating false hope in a FutureGen project which he has no intention of funding or supporting.

"[30] Durbin claimed that "when the city of Mattoon, Illinois, was chosen over possible locations in Texas, the secretary of energy set out to kill FutureGen.

"[31] Mattoon mayor David Cline said "one could question the motivation of the Department of Energy which was ready to move forward with the project until a site other than Texas was chosen.

"[31] In March 2009, Congressional auditors determined that the DOE had miscalculated the government portion of the project's cost, overstating the amount by a half billion dollars.

"[33] Despite the cancellation of funding by the DOE, the FutureGen Alliance continued to move forward with the project, opening an office in Mattoon and planning to buy the land for the plant in August 2008, in partnership with a local group.

[38] "Following the completion of the detailed cost estimate and fundraising activities," the press release states, "the Department of Energy and the FutureGen Alliance will make a decision either to move forward or to discontinue the project early in 2010."

[39] The revised plan includes retrofitting a shuttered coal-fired power plant in Meredosia, Illinois to demonstrate advanced oxy-combustion technology, and piping the carbon dioxide 175 miles to Mattoon for underground storage.