```

[Federal Register: June 7, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 108)]
[Notices]               
[Page 32171-32175]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr07jn10-27]                         

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

 
American Electric Power Service Corporation's Mountaineer 
Commercial Scale Carbon Capture and Storage Project: Mason County, WV; 
Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement and 
Potential Floodplain and Wetlands Involvement

AGENCY: Department of Energy.

ACTION: Notice of Intent and Notice of Potential Floodplain and 
Wetlands Involvement.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE or the Department) 
announces its intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) 
pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 
U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), the Council on Environmental Quality's (CEQ) NEPA 
regulations (40 CFR Parts 1500-1508), and DOE's NEPA implementing 
procedures (10 CFR Part 1021), to assess the potential environmental 
impacts of providing financial assistance for the construction and 
operation of a project proposed by American Electric Power Service 
Corporation (AEP). DOE selected this project for an award of financial 
assistance through a competitive process under the Clean Coal Power 
Initiative (CCPI) Program. AEP's Mountaineer Commercial Scale Carbon 
Capture and Storage Project (Mountaineer CCS II Project) would 
construct a commercial scale carbon dioxide (CO2) capture 
and storage (CCS) system at AEP's existing Mountaineer Power Plant and 
other AEP owned properties located near New Haven, West Virginia.
    For the Mountaineer CCS II Project, AEP would design, construct, 
and operate a CCS facility using Alstom's chilled ammonia process that 
would capture approximately 1.5 million metric tons annually of 
CO2 from a 235-megawatt (MWe) flue gas slip stream taken 
from the 1,300 MWe Mountaineer Plant. The captured CO2 would 
be treated, compressed, and transported by pipeline to proposed 
injection site(s) on AEP properties within an estimated 12 miles of the 
Mountaineer Plant where it would be injected into one or more geologic 
formations approximately 1.5 miles below ground. The project would 
remove up to 90 percent of the CO2 from the 235-MWe slip 
stream and would demonstrate a commercial-scale deployment of the 
chilled ammonia process for CO2 capture and sequestration of 
CO2 in a saline formation. DOE selected this project for an 
award of financial assistance through a competitive process under Round 
3 (second selection phase) of the CCPI Program.
    The EIS will inform DOE's decision on whether to provide financial 
assistance to AEP for the Mountaineer CCS II Project. DOE proposes to 
provide AEP with up to $334 million of the overall project cost, which 
would constitute about 50 percent of the estimated total development 
cost, 50 percent of the capital cost of the project and 50 percent of 
the operational cost during the 3-year and 10-month demonstration 
period. The total project cost, including both DOE's and AEP's shares, 
is approximately $668 million (in 2010 dollars). The project would 
further a specific objective of Round 3 of the CCPI program by 
demonstrating advanced coal-based technologies that capture and 
sequester, or put to beneficial use, CO2 emissions from 
coal-fired power plants.
    The purposes of this Notice of Intent (NOI) are to: (1) Inform the 
public about DOE's proposed action and AEP's proposed project; (2) 
announce the public scoping meeting; (3) solicit comments for DOE's 
consideration regarding the scope and content of the EIS; (4) invite 
those agencies with jurisdiction by law or special expertise to be 
cooperating agencies in preparation of the EIS; and (5) provide notice 
that the proposed project may involve potential impacts to floodplains 
and wetlands.
    DOE does not have regulatory jurisdiction over the Mountaineer CCS 
II Project, and its decisions are limited to whether and under what 
circumstances it would provide financial assistance to the project. As 
part of the EIS process, DOE will consult with interested Native 
American Tribes and Federal, state, regional and local agencies.

DATES: DOE invites comments on the proposed scope and content of the 
EIS from all interested parties. Comments must be received within 30 
days after publication of this NOI in the Federal Register to ensure 
consideration. In addition to receiving comments in writing and by e-
mail [See ADDRESSES below], DOE will conduct a public scoping meeting 
in which government agencies, private-sector organizations, and the 
general public are invited to present oral and written comments or 
suggestions with regard to DOE's proposed action, alternatives, and 
potential impacts of AEP's proposed project that DOE will consider in 
developing the EIS. The scoping meeting will be held at the New Haven 
Elementary School at 138 Mill Street in New Haven, West Virginia on 
Tuesday, June 22, 2010. Oral comments will be heard during the formal 
portion of the scoping meeting beginning at 7 p.m. [See Public Scoping 
Process]. The public is also invited to an informal session to learn 
more about the project and the proposed action at the same location 
beginning at 5 p.m. Various displays and other information about DOE's 
proposed action and AEP's Mountaineer CCS II Project will be available, 
and representatives from DOE and AEP will be present at the informal 
session to discuss the proposed project, the CCPI program, and the EIS 
process.
    ADDRESSES: Written comments on the scope of the EIS and requests to 
participate in the public scoping meeting should be addressed to: Mr. 
Mark Lusk, U.S. Department of Energy, National Energy Technology 
Laboratory, 3610 Collins Ferry Road, P.O. Box 880, Morgantown, WV 
26507-0880. Individuals and organizations who would like to provide 
oral or electronic comments should contact Mr. Lusk by postal mail at 
the above address; telephone (412-386-7435, or toll-free 1-877-812-
1569); fax (304-285-4403); or electronic mail 
(Mountaineer.EIS0445@netl.doe.gov).
    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information about this 
project, contact Mr. Mark Lusk, as

[[Page 32172]]

described above. For general information on the DOE NEPA process, 
please contact Ms. Carol M. Borgstrom, Director, Office of NEPA Policy 
and Compliance (GC-54), U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence 
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585; telephone (202-586-4600); fax (202-
586-7031); or leave a toll-free message (1-800-472-2756).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    Since the early 1970s, DOE and its predecessor agencies have 
pursued research and development programs that include large, 
technically complex, projects in pursuit of innovation in a wide 
variety of coal technologies through the proof-of-concept stage. 
However, helping a technology reach the proof-of-concept stage does not 
ensure its continued development or commercialization. Before a 
technology can be considered seriously for commercialization, it must 
be demonstrated at a sufficient scale to prove its reliability and 
economically competitive performance. The financial risk associated 
with such large-scale demonstration projects is often too high for the 
private sector to assume in the absence of strong incentives.
    The CCPI program was established in 2002 as a government and 
private sector partnership to increase investment in clean coal 
technology. Through cooperative agreements with its private sector 
partners, the program advances clean coal technologies to 
commercialization. These technologies often involve combustion 
improvements, control system advances, improved gasifier designs, 
pollution reduction (including greenhouse gas reduction), efficiency 
improvements, fuel processing techniques, and other activities.
    Congress established criteria for projects receiving financial 
assistance under this program in Title IV of the Energy Policy Act of 
2005 (Pub. L. 109-58; EPAct 2005). Under this statute, CCPI projects 
must ``advance efficiency, environmental performance and cost 
competitiveness well beyond the level of technologies that are in 
commercial service'' (Pub. L. 109-58, Sec. 402(a)). On February 17, 
2009, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Pub. L. 111-
5, 123 Stat. 115) appropriated $3.4 billion to DOE for Fossil Energy 
Research and Development; the Department intends to use a significant 
portion of these funds to provide financial assistance to CCPI 
projects.
    The CCPI program selects projects for its government-private sector 
partnerships through an open and competitive process. Potential private 
sector partners may include developers of technologies, utilities and 
other energy producers, service corporations, research and development 
firms, software developers, academia and others. DOE issues funding 
opportunity announcements that specify the types of projects it is 
seeking, and invites submission of applications. Applications are 
reviewed according to the criteria specified in the funding opportunity 
announcement; these criteria include technical, financial, 
environmental, and other considerations. DOE selects the projects that 
demonstrate the most promise when evaluated against these criteria, and 
enters into a cooperative agreement with the applicant. These 
agreements set out the project's objectives, the obligations of the 
parties, and other features of the partnership. Applicants must agree 
to provide at least 50 percent of their project's cost; for most CCPI 
projects, the applicant's cost share is much higher.
    To date, the CCPI program has conducted three rounds of 
solicitations and project selections. Round 1 sought projects that 
would demonstrate advanced technologies for power generation and 
improvements in plant efficiency, economics, and environmental 
performance. Round 2 requested applications for projects that would 
demonstrate improved mercury controls and gasification technology. 
Round 3, which DOE conducted in two phases, sought projects that would 
demonstrate advanced coal-based electricity generating technologies 
which capture and sequester (or put to beneficial use) CO2 
emissions. DOE's overarching goal for Round 3 projects was to 
demonstrate technologies at commercial scale in a commercial setting 
that would: (1) Operate at 90 percent capture efficiency for 
CO2; (2) make progress towards capture and sequestration at 
less than a 10 percent increase in the cost of electricity for 
gasification systems and a less than 35 percent increase for combustion 
and oxy-combustion systems; and (3) make progress towards capture and 
sequestration of 50 percent of the facility's CO2 output at 
a scale sufficient to evaluate full impacts of carbon capture 
technology on a generating plant's operations, economics, and 
performance. The Mountaineer Commercial Scale CCS II Project was one of 
three selected in the second phase of Round 3. DOE entered into a 
cooperative agreement with AEP on February 1, 2010.

Purpose and Need for DOE Action

    The purpose and need for DOE action--providing limited financial 
assistance to AEP's project--is to advance the CCPI program by funding 
projects with the best chance of achieving the program's objectives as 
established by Congress: Commercialization of clean coal technologies 
that advance efficiency, environmental performance, and cost 
competitiveness well beyond the level of technologies currently in 
commercial service.

The Mountaineer CCS II Project

    AEP proposes to design, construct, and operate a CCS facility using 
Alstom's chilled ammonia process to capture approximately 1.5 million 
metric tons annually of CO2 from a 235-MWe flue gas slip 
stream from the Mountaineer Plant. The captured CO2 would be 
treated, compressed, and transported by pipeline to proposed injection 
site(s) on AEP properties within an estimated 12 miles of the 
Mountaineer Plant where it would be injected into one or more geologic 
formations approximately 1.5 miles below the earth's surface. These 
formations potentially include the Rose Run Formation, which is 
composed primarily of sandstone, and the Copper Ridge Formation, which 
is composed primarily of dolomite.

Proposed Carbon Capture Facility Site: AEP Mountaineer Power Plant

    The proposed carbon capture facility would be located at the 
existing 1,300 MWe AEP Mountaineer Plant and other AEP owned property 
near the town of New Haven in Mason County, West Virginia. The 
Mountaineer Plant uses an average of approximately 10,000 tons of coal 
per day with coal being delivered to the facility by barge on the Ohio 
River, rail, and conveyors from a nearby coal mine west of the site. 
The Mountaineer Plant began commercial operation in 1980 and consists 
of a nominally rated 1,300 MWe pulverized coal-fired electric 
generating unit, a hyperbolic cooling tower, material delivery and 
unloading facilities, and various ancillary facilities required to 
support plant operation. The plant is equipped with air pollution 
control equipment including an electrostatic precipitator (ESP) for 
particulate control, selective catalytic reduction (SCR) for nitrogen 
oxides (NOX) control, and a wet flue gas desulfurization 
unit for sulfur dioxide (SO2) control. The plant includes a 
small chilled ammonia

[[Page 32173]]

process validation facility constructed in 2009 which currently 
captures CO2 from a 20 MWe flue gas slip stream, and injects 
the captured CO2 into the Rose Run Formation and the Copper 
Ridge Formation beneath the site. Two CO2 injection wells 
and three monitoring wells are located on the Mountaineer Plant 
property to support the injection and monitoring of the injected 
CO2. The property is bounded to the west by U.S. Route 62, 
to the east by the Ohio River, to the south by AEP's Phillip Sporn 
Power Plant, and one mile to the northwest (downriver) by the town of 
New Haven, West Virginia. A coal mine is located to the west of U.S. 
Route 62.

Proposed Chilled Ammonia Process Carbon Capture Facility

    AEP would construct and operate a chilled ammonia process 
CO2 capture system that would be located on AEP's property 
within the boundaries of the existing power plant. The process would 
use chilled ammonia to capture CO2 and isolate it in a 
highly concentrated, high-pressure form suitable for sequestration. The 
concentrated CO2 stream would be cooled and compressed to a 
supercritical state for transport via a network of pipelines to the 
injection sites. The process would be expected to remove approximately 
90 percent of the CO2 in the treated flue gas. The system 
would occupy an area of approximately 500 feet by 1,000 feet, and would 
process a slip-stream of flue gas after it exits the plant's flue gas 
desulfurization system. AEP is currently evaluating the optimum 
location at the plant for the proposed capture facility. Existing 
infrastructure (roadways, utilities) would be used; however, upgrades 
or construction of additional infrastructure may be required. Major 
equipment includes absorbers, regenerators, pumps, heat exchangers, and 
refrigeration equipment. In addition, maintenance facilities, water-
handling equipment and laboratories would be required.

CO2 Compression and Transport

    Captured CO2 would be compressed at the Mountaineer 
facility to approximately 2,000 pounds per square inch pressure and 
transported via pipelines to injection sites expected to be within 12 
miles of the Mountaineer Plant. AEP is currently evaluating potential 
pipeline routes, which will depend on selection of CO2 
injection sites. However, AEP would use existing rights-of-way to the 
greatest extent practical. Potential pipeline routes will be considered 
as part of the NEPA process.

CO2 Injection and Monitoring

    Captured CO2 would be injected into one or more geologic 
formations approximately 1.5 miles below the earth's surface. These 
formations include the Rose Run Formation, which is composed primarily 
of sandstone, and the Copper Ridge Formation, which is composed 
primarily of dolomite. The properties of these formations are known to 
be generally amenable to sequestration and the formations are overlaid 
by cap rock that would provide a seal to prevent upward migration of 
the CO2. AEP is considering several of its properties in 
Mason County, West Virginia, for installation of CO2 
injection and monitoring wells. However, specific injection sites have 
not been determined as site characterization work is needed to confirm 
the geologic suitability of specific locations. AEP is in the process 
of planning characterization work at these properties that would 
include the drilling of at least one deep test well to evaluate 
subsurface geology. Information collected during these characterization 
efforts will be used by DOE in the EIS and by AEP to determine 
injection locations. Potential injection well sites will be considered 
as part of the NEPA process.
    A monitoring, verification, and accounting (MVA) program would be 
implemented to monitor the injection and migration of CO2 
within the geologic formations and verify that it stays within the 
target formations. The MVA program must meet regulatory and CCPI 
Program requirements and may consist of the following components: (1) 
Injection system monitoring; (2) containment monitoring (via monitoring 
wells, mechanical integrity testing, and other means); (3) 
CO2 plume tracking via multiple techniques; (4) 
CO2 injection simulation modeling; and (5) experimental 
techniques yet to be developed.

Proposed Project Schedule

    The project proposed by AEP includes four phases consisting of 
planning, design, construction, and operation of the CCS system. There 
will be a four-year DOE demonstration phase. AEP plans to start 
construction in 2013 and begin commercial operations (demonstration 
phase) by 2015. The schedule is contingent upon AEP receiving the 
necessary permits and regulatory approvals, as well as financial 
closing on all the necessary funding sources, including DOE's financial 
assistance. DOE's decision to provide financial assistance for detailed 
design, procurement of equipment, construction, and operations is 
contingent upon DOE's completion of the NEPA process and the EIS.

Connected and Cumulative Actions

    Under the cooperative agreement between DOE and AEP, DOE would 
share in the cost of the CCS facilities, injection wells, monitoring 
wells, pipelines, supporting facilities and site infrastructure, and 
the operational costs during the 4-year demonstration phase. For other 
activities that would not occur if not for DOE funding, DOE will 
evaluate in the EIS and consider the potential impacts associated with 
these activities as connected actions.
    DOE will consider the cumulative impacts of the cost-shared 
activities along with any other connected actions, including those of 
third parties. Cumulative impacts analysis will include the analysis of 
pollutant emissions (including greenhouse gas emission reductions) and 
other incremental impacts that, when added to past, present and 
reasonably foreseeable future impacts, may have significant effects on 
the human environment.

Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

    NEPA requires that an EIS evaluate the range of reasonable 
alternatives to an agency's proposed action. The range of reasonable 
alternatives encompasses those alternatives that would satisfy the 
underlying purpose and need for agency action. The purpose and need for 
DOE action--providing limited financial assistance to the proposed AEP 
project--are to advance the CCPI program by selecting projects that 
have the best chance of achieving the program's objectives as 
established by Congress: The commercialization of clean coal 
technologies that advance efficiency, environmental performance, and 
cost competitiveness well beyond the level of technologies that are 
currently in service.
    DOE's NEPA regulations include a process for identifying and 
analyzing reasonable alternatives in the context of providing financial 
assistance through competitive selection of projects proposed by 
entities outside the Federal government. The range of reasonable 
alternatives in competitions for grants, loans, loan guarantees and 
other financial support is defined initially by the range of responsive 
proposals received by DOE. Unlike projects undertaken by DOE itself, 
the Department cannot mandate what outside entities propose, where they 
propose their project, or how they propose to do it, beyond expressing 
basic requirements in the funding

[[Page 32174]]

opportunity announcement; and these express requirements must be 
limited to those that further the program's objectives. DOE's decision 
is then limited to selecting among the applications that meet the 
CCPI's goals.
    Recognizing that the range of reasonable alternatives in the 
context of financial assistance and contracting processes is in large 
part determined by the number and nature of the proposals received, 
Section 216 of DOE's NEPA implementing regulations requires the 
Department to prepare an ``environmental critique'' that assesses the 
environmental impacts and issues relating to each of the proposals that 
the DOE selecting official considers for an award (see 10 CFR Sec.  
1021.216). This official considers these impacts and issues, along with 
other aspects of the proposals (such as technical merit and financial 
ability) and the program's objectives, in making awards. DOE prepared a 
critique of the proposals that were deemed suitable for selection in 
this round of awards for the CCPI program.
    After DOE selects a project for an award, the range of reasonable 
alternatives becomes the project as proposed by the applicant, any 
alternatives still under consideration by the applicant or that are 
reasonable within the confines of the project as proposed (e.g., the 
particular location of the processing units, pipelines, and injection 
sites on land proposed for the project) and a ``no action'' 
alternative. Regarding the no action alternative, DOE assumes for 
purposes of the EIS that, if DOE decides to withhold financial 
assistance, the project would not proceed.
    DOE currently plans to evaluate the project as proposed by AEP 
(with and without any mitigating conditions that DOE may identify as 
reasonable and appropriate), alternatives to AEP's proposal that it is 
still considering (e.g., sales options for CO2, location of 
alternative pipeline routes, and location of injection and monitoring 
wells on properties owned by AEP), and the no action alternative. DOE 
will consider other reasonable alternatives suggested during the 
scoping period.
    Under the no action alternative, DOE would not provide funding to 
AEP. In the absence of financial assistance from DOE, AEP could 
reasonably pursue two options. It could build the project without DOE 
funding; the impacts of this option would be essentially the same as 
those of AEP's proposed action, except any DOE-required mitigations 
would not be imposed. Alternatively, AEP could choose not to pursue its 
project, and there would be no impacts from the project. This latter 
option would not contribute to the goal of the CCPI program, which is 
to accelerate commercial deployment of advanced coal technologies that 
provide the United States with clean, reliable, and affordable energy. 
However, as required by NEPA, DOE analyzes this option as the no action 
alternative for the purpose of making a meaningful comparison between 
the impacts of DOE providing financial assistance and withholding that 
assistance.
    Alternatives considered by AEP in developing its proposed project 
will also be discussed in the EIS. AEP is considering locations for the 
injection and monitoring wells on properties selected by AEP, and the 
pipeline corridors to be used to transport CO2 for 
sequestration.

Floodplains and Wetlands

    The footprint of the proposed Mountaineer CCS II Project that would 
be constructed at the existing Mountaineer Plant and on other nearby 
AEP properties would be designed to avoid or minimize potential impacts 
to wetlands or floodplains. Wetland and floodplain impacts, if any, 
which would be expected to result from installation of monitoring and 
injection wells, or the construction of CO2 pipelines or 
other linear features required for this project, would be identified 
during preparation of the EIS and described in the EIS. In the event 
that the EIS identifies wetlands and floodplains that would be affected 
by the proposed project, including as a result of pipeline routes, 
injection facilities, or connected actions, DOE will prepare a 
floodplain and wetland assessment in accordance with its regulations at 
10 CFR Part 1022, and include the assessment in the EIS.

Preliminary Identification of Environmental Issues

    DOE intends to address the issues listed below when considering the 
potential impacts resulting from the construction and operation of 
AEP's proposed project and any connected actions. This list is neither 
intended to be all-inclusive, nor to be a predetermined set of 
potential impacts. DOE invites comments on whether this is the correct 
list of important issues that should be considered in the EIS. The 
preliminary list of potentially affected resources or activities and 
their related environmental issues includes:
     Air quality resources: Potential air quality impacts from 
emissions during construction and operation of the CCS facilities and 
appurtenant facilities on local sensitive receptors, local 
environmental conditions, and special-use areas, including impacts to 
smog and haze and impacts from dust and any significant vapor plumes, 
including greenhouse gas emissions;
     Water resources: Potential impacts from water utilization 
and consumption, plus potential impacts from wastewater discharges;
     Infrastructure and land use: Potential environmental and 
socioeconomic impacts associated with the project, including delivery 
of feed materials and distribution of products (e.g., access roads, 
pipelines);
     Visual resources: Potential impacts to the view shed, 
scenic views (e.g., impacts from the injection wells, pipelines, and 
support facilities for the injection wells and pipelines), and internal 
and external perception of the community or locality;
     Solid wastes: Pollution prevention and waste management 
issues (generation, treatment, transport, storage, disposal or use), 
including potential impacts from the generation, treatment, storage, 
and management of hazardous materials and other solid wastes;
     Ecological resources: Potential on-site and off-site 
impacts to vegetation, wildlife, threatened or endangered species, and 
ecologically sensitive habitats;
     Floodplains and wetlands: Potential wetland and floodplain 
impacts from construction of project facilities, pipelines and other 
facilities;
     Traffic: Potential impacts from the construction and 
operation of the facilities, including changes in local traffic 
patterns, deterioration of roads, traffic hazards, and traffic 
controls;
     Historic and cultural resources: Potential impacts related 
to site development and the associated linear facilities (pipelines, 
etc.);
     Geology: Potential impacts from the injection and storage 
of CO2 on underground resources such as ground water 
supplies, mineral resources, and fossil fuel resources;
     Fate and stability of CO2 being sequestered;
     Health and safety issues: Potential impacts associated 
with use, transport, and storage of hazardous chemicals (including 
ammonia), and CO2 capture and transport to the sequestration 
site(s);
     Socioeconomic impacts, including the creation of jobs;
     Disproportionate adverse impacts on minority and low-
income populations;
     Noise and light: Potential impacts from construction, 
transportation of materials, and facility operations;

[[Page 32175]]

     Connected actions: Potential development of support 
facilities or supporting infrastructure;
     Cumulative effects that result from the incremental 
impacts of the proposed project when added to other past, present, and 
reasonably foreseeable future projects;
     Compliance with regulatory and environmental permitting 
requirements; and
     Environmental monitoring plans associated with the carbon 
capture facility and CO2 sequestration activities.

Public Scoping Process

    This Notice of Intent initiates the scoping process under NEPA, 
which will guide the development of the Draft EIS. To ensure 
identification of issues related to DOE's Proposed Action and AEP's 
Proposed Project, DOE seeks public input to define the scope of the 
EIS. The public scoping period will end 30 days after publication of 
this NOI in the Federal Register. Interested government agencies, 
private-sector organizations and individuals are encouraged to submit 
comments or suggestions concerning the content of the EIS, issues and 
impacts that should be addressed, and alternatives that should be 
considered. Scoping comments should clearly describe specific issues or 
topics that the EIS should address. Written, e-mailed, or faxed 
comments should be received by Friday, July 9, 2010 (see ADDRESSES).
    DOE will conduct a public scoping meeting at the New Haven 
Elementary School at 138 Mill Street in New Haven, West Virginia, on 
Tuesday, June 22, 2010. Oral comments will be heard during the formal 
portion of the scoping meeting beginning at 7 p.m. The public is also 
invited to learn more about the project at an informal session at this 
location beginning at 5 p.m. DOE requests that anyone who wishes to 
speak at this public scoping meeting should contact Mr. Mark Lusk, 
either by phone, e-mail, fax, or postal mail (see ADDRESSES).
    Those who do not arrange in advance to speak may register at the 
meeting (preferably at the beginning of the meeting) and may be given 
an opportunity to speak after previously scheduled speakers. Speakers 
will be given approximately five minutes to present their comments. 
Those speakers who want more than five minutes should indicate the 
length of time desired in their request. Depending on the number of 
speakers, DOE may need to limit all speakers to five minutes initially 
and provide second opportunities as time permits. Individuals may also 
provide written materials in lieu of, or supplemental to, their 
presentations. Oral and written comments will be given equal 
consideration.
    DOE will begin the formal meeting with an overview of AEP's 
proposed project. The meeting will not be conducted as an evidentiary 
hearing, and speakers will not be cross-examined. However, speakers may 
be asked questions to help ensure that DOE fully understands the 
comments or suggestions. A presiding officer will establish the order 
of speakers and provide any additional procedures necessary to conduct 
the meeting. A stenographer will record the proceedings, including all 
oral comments received.

    Issued in Washington, DC, this 2nd day of June 2010.
James J. Markowsky,
Assistant Secretary, Office of Fossil Energy.
[FR Doc. 2010-13568 Filed 6-4-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
```