Montana High School Students Heading to International Science and Engineering Fair
Originally printed at http://www.kfbb.com/news/local/87286157.html
For students with scientific oriented career aspirations – science fairs are a perfect opportunity to get a head start.
And today’s Montana Region two Science and Engineering Fair showcased some of the best and brightest high school students in our area.
“I would encourage anyone to do a science project,” says Misha Kearns, a senior at North Toole County High School in Sunburst, “I think it’s great the amount of knowledge that you gain from it and the experience that you have from working with other people and people that are in universities and people that are beyond your level is a really great experience.”
That great experience won Misha 2nd place at last year’s State Science Fair – and brought her to the International Science and Engineering Fair.
This year, she’ll get to do it again – after finishing as the 1st Place Grand Winner.
“It really has a lot to offer for students as far as scholarship money and just being able to be with students your own age that are interested in the same things as you are,” she says.
But selecting Misha and the other winners wasn’t an easy task for the judges.
“There are students here that are very impressive. The schools have been very helpful to them, and supportive. Their teachers have, too. That’s very obvious in the quality and the caliber of the exhibits,” shares Jerry Taylor, a judge and member of Citizens for Clean Energy.
Taylor says this fair is the perfect opportunity for students with scientific ambitions to get their start.
“At this particular age – in high school – they’re developing the scientific process, the mindset so that they can go on, further establish a basis for how to go on further with their studies, participate in the science field and hopefully the energy fields. So that’s what we’re looking for is our young scientists and this is the basis for them to get a good start.”
Besides Misha, Katelyn Gibbs of Great Falls was the 2nd Place Grand Winner and Allison Bye and Haeli Turner finished as the 1st Place Grand Team.
All four will now move on to the International Science and Engineering Fair In San Jose, CA this May.
Originally printed at http://www.kfbb.com/news/local/87286157.html
For students with scientific oriented career aspirations – science fairs are a perfect opportunity to get a head start.
And today’s Montana Region two Science and Engineering Fair showcased some of the best and brightest high school students in our area.
“I would encourage anyone to do a science project,” says Misha Kearns, a senior at North Toole County High School in Sunburst, “I think it’s great the amount of knowledge that you gain from it and the experience that you have from working with other people and people that are in universities and people that are beyond your level is a really great experience.”
That great experience won Misha 2nd place at last year’s State Science Fair – and brought her to the International Science and Engineering Fair.
This year, she’ll get to do it again – after finishing as the 1st Place Grand Winner.
“It really has a lot to offer for students as far as scholarship money and just being able to be with students your own age that are interested in the same things as you are,” she says.
But selecting Misha and the other winners wasn’t an easy task for the judges.
“There are students here that are very impressive. The schools have been very helpful to them, and supportive. Their teachers have, too. That’s very obvious in the quality and the caliber of the exhibits,” shares Jerry Taylor, a judge and member of Citizens for Clean Energy.
Taylor says this fair is the perfect opportunity for students with scientific ambitions to get their start.
“At this particular age – in high school – they’re developing the scientific process, the mindset so that they can go on, further establish a basis for how to go on further with their studies, participate in the science field and hopefully the energy fields. So that’s what we’re looking for is our young scientists and this is the basis for them to get a good start.”
Besides Misha, Katelyn Gibbs of Great Falls was the 2nd Place Grand Winner and Allison Bye and Haeli Turner finished as the 1st Place Grand Team.
All four will now move on to the International Science and Engineering Fair In San Jose, CA this May.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Power plant developer seeks stay or injunction in documents case
By Tribune Staff • March 10, 2010
A Billings-based cooperative Wednesday sought a stay or injunction against a release of documents by the city of Great Falls. The Southern Montana Electric Generation and Transmission Cooperative and the city of Great Falls this week lost a ruling by State District Judge E. Wayne Phillips over documents the city had withheld from public view, largely at Southern Montana's request.
The Montana Environmental Information Center had sued the city and Southern Montana, and the Montana Newspaper Association had intervened on the side of the environmental groupl Phillips had ruled for the MEIC Monday, finding only six documents among thousands of pages of documents that should be kept private and sealed. But Mary Jaraczeski, Southern Montana's attorney, filed a motion Wednesday asking Phillips to stay his order, or issue an injunction to the city of Great Falls ordering the city not to release documents pending an appeal.
The motion noted a Great Falls Tribune story Wednesday in which City Attorney James Santoro said the city would not "sit on" the release of documents. Jaraczeski in the motion argued Southern Montana would suffer "irreparable and prejudicial harm" if the documents were released. Southern Montana has also indicated a willingness to appeal the judge's order to the Montana Supreme Court.
For more on the matter, see Thursday's Tribune online or in print.
By Tribune Staff • March 10, 2010
A Billings-based cooperative Wednesday sought a stay or injunction against a release of documents by the city of Great Falls. The Southern Montana Electric Generation and Transmission Cooperative and the city of Great Falls this week lost a ruling by State District Judge E. Wayne Phillips over documents the city had withheld from public view, largely at Southern Montana's request.
The Montana Environmental Information Center had sued the city and Southern Montana, and the Montana Newspaper Association had intervened on the side of the environmental groupl Phillips had ruled for the MEIC Monday, finding only six documents among thousands of pages of documents that should be kept private and sealed. But Mary Jaraczeski, Southern Montana's attorney, filed a motion Wednesday asking Phillips to stay his order, or issue an injunction to the city of Great Falls ordering the city not to release documents pending an appeal.
The motion noted a Great Falls Tribune story Wednesday in which City Attorney James Santoro said the city would not "sit on" the release of documents. Jaraczeski in the motion argued Southern Montana would suffer "irreparable and prejudicial harm" if the documents were released. Southern Montana has also indicated a willingness to appeal the judge's order to the Montana Supreme Court.
For more on the matter, see Thursday's Tribune online or in print.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Breaking News---One Large Victory Just Won!
Plaintiff (MEIC) Montana Southern Environmental Information Center had sought through a "Summary Judgement" to have released the entire file (Secret Box of Documents between SME and the City of Great Falls). SME has 10 days to ask that 5 docs of the 17,000 pages be considered trade secrets. EVERYTHING else is now open for public inspection. The full court oder can be read HERE.
Plaintiff (MEIC) Montana Southern Environmental Information Center had sought through a "Summary Judgement" to have released the entire file (Secret Box of Documents between SME and the City of Great Falls). SME has 10 days to ask that 5 docs of the 17,000 pages be considered trade secrets. EVERYTHING else is now open for public inspection. The full court oder can be read HERE.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Beartooth co-op shouldn’t pay for plant it can’t use
ARLEEN BOYD | Posted: Friday, March 5, 2010 12:00 am
Beartooth Electric Cooperative members pay the highest electricity rates in Montana. Our rates rose 25 percent in 2009 and will rise again next month. Now we are about to add to our electricity bills payments on an $85 million loan for phase one of a major power-generating project.
Southern Montana Electric Generation and Transmission Cooperative Inc. (Southern), Beartooth’s wholesale electricity provider, contends that building a generating station will secure our power supply and lower our bills.
There is no evidence that Beartooth members will be able to use any power from this plant before 2019, when Southern’s all-requirements contract with PPL Montana, which supplies our power, ends. Yet, we will begin paying immediately for Southern’s gas-fired Highwood Generation Station described by Standard and Poor’s as a $270 million, three-phase, 120-megawatt facility. Southern has recorded financing agreements for the first 40-megawatt phase of the project.
Beartooth members already are paying off debt for Southern’s first effort at power generation. Southern and its for-profit development arm, SME Electric Generation and Transmission Cooperative Inc., spent nearly $40 million on the 250-megawatt coal-fired Highwood Generation Station before failing to finance it.
It is hard to see how Beartooth, a very small co-op with low electricity demand, can realize a positive return on the $4 million to $6 million it already has invested in Highwood
Southern has six members: four small co-ops, Beartooth, Fergus, Tongue River and Mid-Yellowstone; Yellowstone Valley Electric Cooperative, which has filed suit to leave Southern; and Great Falls Electric City Power commercial customers, recruited to justify the original 250-megawatt plant.
Beartooth members have repeatedly underwritten Southern’s expenditures without information or open discussion. Without our knowledge, Southern placed the co-ops’ cheap federal hydropower into a “blended supply.” This allowed Great Falls, which cannot qualify for the federal power on its own, to save $20,000 to $50,000 per month while our rates rose 25 percent.
Electric co-ops pay no state or federal income tax, get low-interest government loans and buy the lowest cost power in the country from federal power-making authorities. In return, they must deliver at-cost, reliable power to rural customers and abide by the universally recognized cooperative principles: democratic decision-making, member control of capital and open information. The principles require Beartooth, Southern, and SME to make the following changes:
• Provide information and insure transparency.
• Pay Beartooth for the power it funds but cannot use.
• Assume no further debt on Beartooth’s behalf without member approval.
• End the conflict of interest for Beartooth’s board president, who simultaneously represents the differing interests of Beartooth, Southern and SME.
Beartooth’s board president serves on the boards of Southern and SME. He represents both sides in negotiations between Beartooth and Southern or SME. This conflict of interest is bad business practice and bad for Beartooth.
Arleen Boyd of Fishtail is a member of Beartooth Electric Cooperative.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Commission votes off Electric City Power board
By RICHARD ECKE • Tribune Staff Writer • March
3, 2010
City commissioners, dismayed by years of losses by the city's electric utility, dismissed all five members of an advisory board Tuesday night by a 4-1 vote. A four-fifths vote was required to remove the members of the Electric City Power board; Commissioner Bill Bronson was the lone commissioner to vote no.
That means Monday night's power board meeting was the last one to be attended in official capacity by the five volunteer board members, Chairman Lee Ebeling and members Bill Ryan, George Golie, Ole Stimac Jr. and Bob Pancich.
At Tuesday night's regular City Commission meeting, power board members received support from several speakers and Bronson, who suggested the removal of the members was premature. "It was not the board that was creating the problem," said Bronson. He said outside forces hurt the city's electrical energy efforts, including the 2007 Legislature.
"Try to make this relationship work ... before you just pitch these guys," said George Paul of Great Falls.
The commission's majority was not convinced, however. Mayor Michael Winters, who had proposed booting the members, said the action was not personal. "We want answers," Winters said, adding board members failed to provide commissioners with information they needed.
After the vote, Winters called the board members honorable people who showed gumption "to take the guff that you have."
Ebeling and Stimac attended the meeting and urged commissioners not to remove them. "We would like to continue to work with you," Ebeling said. "We're certainly open to new ideas, new directions."
Several longtime critics urged the City Commission to take action, however. "I think the board has failed to look after the welfare of the city," said Kathleen Z. Gessaman of Great Falls.
Travis Kavulla, a newly announced candidate for Montana Public Service Commission, suggested board members engaged in wishful thinking while the city's electric utility was "heading for a train wreck." "I just think this board is out of step with what is really happening," Kavulla said.
"I do admit they did not get proper guidance from previous administrations," said Richard Liebert, chairman of Citizens for Clean Energy. But he said that was no excuse for lackluster performance, although he praised efforts of former board member John Gilbert.
Some of the most sharply-worded comments came from retired professor Aart Dolman, who said expulsion of the board members was long overdue. "One thing this community lacks is integrity," Dolman said, going on to criticize the city's electrical supplier for providing misinformation.
Stimac said he was insulted by Dolman's suggestion that power board members gave orchestrated speeches at a Monday night meeting. Stimac said each power board member produced his own arguments why the city should stay in the power business.
The city's utility arm, Electric City Power, began selling electricity to other agencies and businesses beginning in October 2004, after joining and then buying wholesale power from the Southern Montana Electric Generation & Transmission Cooperative. Officials said the city was uncertain exactly how much to charge for its electricity and ended up selling the power at a loss for several years. The city's electricity operations went into the black briefly in early 2009, but other financial problems emerged.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Electric rates head up to fund power plant
Associated Press | Posted: Monday, March 1, 2010 10:14 pm
RAPID CITY, S.D. — Black Hills Power says it will put a proposed 26.6 percent electric rate increase in effect on April 1.
The South Dakota Public Utilities Commission has not yet ruled on the request, and, if regulators later reject it, the utility would have to make refunds to customers.
Paying for a new coal-fired power plant near Gillette, Wyo., is a big reason for Black Hills Power’s request, which would raise rates about $18 a month for a typical residential electric customer. About 64,000 customers are in the utility’s service territory.
Black Hills Power filed its request last September.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Power plant documents filed Friday
By RICHARD ECKE • Tribune Staff Writer •
February 28, 2010
Cascade County Clerk and Recorder Rina Fontana Moore said Saturday that documents related to the financing of the proposed Highwood Generating Station were filed with her office Friday.
Moore said the documents will be available for review when the office opens Monday morning for regular business. One of the documents is more than 150 pages long, Moore said.
Great Falls city commissioners said they were not told the documents were filed. "I haven't heard anything," Mayor Michael Winters said Saturday. He expressed some concern that city officials were not told about the filings by the Billings-based plant developer, the Southern Montana Electric Generation & Transmission Cooperative. The city is a member of the cooperative.
"That's just another one (example) of them not letting anyone know," Winters said. The city of Great Falls has more than $1 million invested in the power plant project.
"It's been a long, long road," City Commissioner Bob Jones said Saturday. "Everyone was kind of hoping for some type of economic development to take place, as long as it wasn't coal."
The power plant initially was to have burned coal to create electricity, but developers opted last year to pursue burning natural gas instead.
Jones said financing for the plant's first phase, which would produce 40 megawatts of power, "could actually benefit the position the city's in, as long as it's built." He also shared Winters' concerns about the lack of information provided to city officials. "We didn't even know the papers were being filed in Cascade County," Jones said.
First American Title Co. filed three different documents and paid a few thousand dollars in filing fees, Moore said. She added she was not certain about the exact contents of the paperwork.
Southern Montana officials have said financing for the $85 million first phase of the project might be formalized late this month, but they have yet to make a public announcement.
Construction of the natural-gas-fired power plant could begin in the coming weeks or it could take months, officials have said. Winters said he would prefer the city not hold a stake in the plant. The city invested $2.3 million in the coal-fired plant, but its investment dropped to $1.1 million with the shift to natural gas. "It ought to be a totally private enterprise," Winters said.
Meanwhile, city commissioners are scheduled to vote Tuesday night on whether to dismiss the five members of the Electric City Power Board, which advises the city on its electric utility, and take over that panel themselves. Winters proposed that move, citing a lack of information generated by the board.
Jones, a potential key voter, said commissioners will take a stand after hearing all sides. However, he noted that commissioners have the ultimate authority either way. "If we decide Tuesday to eliminate the middle man, so be it," Jones said.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Cooperative board approves Highwood financing
JAN FALSTAD Of The Gazette Staff | Posted: Friday, February 19, 2010 5:00 pm
Board members meeting in Billings Friday voted to authorize a parent cooperative to borrow $85 million to build a natural gas-fired power plant in Great Falls.
Voting 4-1, the Southern Montana Electrical Generation and Transmission Cooperative board agreed to proceed with the loan to build the first phase of the Highwood Generating Plant capable of producing 40-megawatts of electricity, according to Chief Executive Officer Tim Gregori.
Gregori is CEO of two parent co-ops — Southern, which formed in 2004, and Southern Montana Electric, formed in 2008 — that were organized to represent a handful of smaller co-ops wanting to build a power plant.
“Members voted to proceed with the transfer of assets and debt from SME to Southern and to continue on with the loan process,” Gregori said.
The lender, Prudential Financial, required the transfer of $14.4 million in assets and some debt from SME to Southern as a condition to granting the $85 million loan. Southern now will be responsible for financing and building Highwood.
If Phase 2 is eventually constructed, Highwood could produce 120 megawatts of power and cost approximately $210 million. The initial stage could be operational by May or June of 2011 and the power would be sold to the four southern Montana electrical co-ops that still support the project: Beartooth Electric of Red Lodge, Fergus Electric of Lewistown, Mid-Yellowstone Electric of Hysham and Tongue River Electric Coop-erative of Ashland. Electric City Power of Great Falls also backs the plant. These five entities would share the electricity from Highwood.
The largest co-op in the group, Yellowstone Valley Electric Cooperative of Huntley, which initially supported Highwood, has backed out of the deal and wants to be let out of its remaining 20-year contract with Southern. Yellowstone Valley’s lawsuit to sever ties with Southern is scheduled for trial in April in Yellowstone District Court.
After running into environmental roadblocks and costs that doubled from the first estimates, the initial coal-fired plant was abandoned in January 2009 and replaced with the smaller, less expensive, natural-gas plant project.
On Thursday, Yellowstone Valley asked District Court Judge G. Todd Baugh to delay Friday’s vote. But the judge ruled that it could proceed.
But Baugh also said he thought Southern should let Yellowstone Valley out of its contract and that the Huntley utility should be exempted from the costs of building Highwood.
Yellowstone Valley was the lone “no” vote Friday, Gregori said.
The vote at 3521 Gabel Road was closed to the news media and to any uninvited general co-op members.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Mayor wants City Commission to have more
oversight of Electric City Power
By KARL PUCKETT • Tribune Staff Writer •
February 25, 2010
New Great Falls Mayor Michael Winters wants to abolish the five-member advisory board that oversees Electric City Power, the city's utility arm, and at least one commissioner wants to know what it would cost the city to discontinue ECP all together.
The uneasiness over oversight of the city's power business was expressed at a City Commission agenda-setting meeting Wednesday and comes as Southern Montana Electric Generation and Transmission Cooperative is preparing $85 million in financing to construct the first phase of a natural gas-fired power plant east of Great Falls.
The city's ECP buys power from Southern and sells it to government and commercial customers in the Great Falls area. It also has a 5 percent stake in the natural gas plant.
The five-member ECP board makes recommendations to the City Commission on the municipal power business but Winters said commissioners need more direct involvement with the power business to make good decisions.
"It's a take-control issue," he said.
City commissioners agreed to place the advisory board on the agenda for discussion at their meeting next Tuesday.
In the past five years, the city's payments to Southern have been $2 million more than revenues from customers, although that trend reversed in 2009.
Some commissioners also have questioned the city's risk in Southern's plans to build a natural gas-fired power plant east of Great Falls and frustration with a lack of information about the project.
"Right now we're shooting in the dark," new Commissioner Fred Burow said Wednesday.
He asked that city staffers calculate the cost of the city abolishing the city utility — not just the board — and have that information available at the commission meeting.
Winters made it clear that he only wants to discuss abolishing the power board at this time, not ECP.
Commissioner Bob Jones said he also was in favor of city commissioners getting more involved in overseeing the business, but Bill Bronson noted that board members have expertise in areas that some commissioners don't.
Burow, Jones and Winters won election last year when the city's power business was a big issue.
A move to abolish the power board would show the public "we're committed to change," Winters said.
"It appears we've had no information, no documents, nothing to base the decisions (on) we're asked to make and that, to me, is wrong," Winters said.
Commissioners, including the newcomers to office, met recently with power board members to learn more about how it operates and the electricity business.
Burns and McDonnell, an energy consultant that studied ECP for the city, was invited to the meetinglast week to answer questions, and representatives advised commissioners to stay the course with ECP.
"I wasn't comfortable with the answers," Winters said.
Some commissioners have expressed concern that the city isn't getting enough information about the city's risk in constructing the power plant.
Last Friday, the Southern board met in Billings and voted to proceed with seeking financing for the plant but Coleen Balzarini, the city's fiscal officer, did not cast a vote because commissioners refused to officially designate her as a city representative, which was needed for voting privileges.
The largest member of Southern, Huntley-based Yellowstone Valley Electric Cooperative, voted against proceeding with the gas plant financing. The four other rural co-ops in Southern voted to proceed.
"We're fine with them going out and seeking a loan," Yellowstone General Manager Terry Holzer said Wednesday. "We just don't want our co-op to be held as security for that loan. We don't want our wholesale power contract listed as security on the loan document."
Yellowstone had asked a District Court judge to postpone the Friday vote but the judge ruled in Southern's favor.
Yellowstone is suing to break free of the group because of disagreements over the power plant efforts.
The lawsuit by Yellowstone against Southern Montana was discussed in a closed session by the city commissioners last week. The closed meeting has generated a lot of comment in online forums in Great Falls this week but was not discussed at the work session Wednesday.
Southern Montana originally was planning to build a coal-fired power plant at the site east of Great Falls but decided to construct a natural gas plant instead in the face of numerous lawsuits and hurdles, including a decision by federal Rural Utilities Service to get out of the business of issuing low-cost loans for coal-fired power plants.
Southern Montana invested $40 million in the project and was forced to write off $9.2 million in losses as a result of the switch in plans but last week voted to transfer $14 million in remaining assets from its development arm to Southern Montana for the first phase of the gas plant.
Balzarini said the city lost $1.1 million of its investment in the coal-fired power plant, but another $1.1 million will transfer to the new project. The city is not planning to invest additional funds in the natural gas facility, she said.
The city will have a little less than a 5 percent investment in the total project and rights to that same amount of electricity, she said.
Contracts each member has with Southern for power are serving as security for the loan, Balzarini said. Members would repay their share through higher rates charged by Southern Montana over time, she said.
"If the city has a 5 percent equity investment of the development of the generating facility, 5 percent of the borrowing, in theory, would be an obligation of the city," Balzarini said.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Coal-State Democrats Oppose Global-Warming Rules
By AP News, 2-22-10
WASHINGTON – Eight Democratic senators from industrial states are challenging the Environmental Protection Agency's authority to regulate pollution blamed for global warming.
In a letter written by Sen. Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, the lawmakers said the agency lacks the power to restrict greenhouse gases from stationary sources such as power plants, factories and mines. The lawmakers said Congress — not the EPA — should address an issue with big implications for thousands of U.S. jobs and businesses.
Opposition to EPA regulations by Democrats could pose a serious blow to the Obama administration's effort to restrict heat-trapping greenhouse gases. While the administration is still pushing for Congress to pass a comprehensive climate bill this year, officials have not ruled out controlling greenhouse gases through regulation.
The letter to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson was signed by Democrats Mark Begich of Alaska, Robert Byrd of West Virginia, Sherrod Brown of Ohio, Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, Claire McCaskill of Missouri, Carl Levin of Michigan and Max Baucus of Montana.
Last month, Democrats Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana and Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas signed onto a resolution by Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, that would bar the EPA from issuing regulations to control greenhouse gases.
Murkowski said she welcomed the letter from her Democratic colleagues and noted that 41 senators from both parties support her resolution to halt EPA's actions.
Murkowski filed it in response to an EPA finding in December that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases endanger human health. The finding lets the agency regulate greenhouse gases as a pollutant under the Clean Air Act.
Murkowski said her resolution remains the best opportunity for senators to weigh in before the EPA acts.
"It's a simple issue: Senators either support EPA imposing these regulations without input from Congress, or they don't," she said Monday.
In their letter, the eight Democratic senators say they do not object to EPA regulation of emissions from cars and light trucks, but do question its ability to do anything further under the Clean Air Act.
The letter asks Jackson to clarify the EPA's timetable and suspend any regulations for coal-fired utilities and other industrial facilities until Congress acts on climate and energy legislation. [End of article]
This article was printed from flatheadbeacon.com at the following URL: http://www.flatheadbeacon.com/articles/article/coal-state_dems_oppose_global-warming_rules/16190/
By AP News, 2-22-10
WASHINGTON – Eight Democratic senators from industrial states are challenging the Environmental Protection Agency's authority to regulate pollution blamed for global warming.
In a letter written by Sen. Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, the lawmakers said the agency lacks the power to restrict greenhouse gases from stationary sources such as power plants, factories and mines. The lawmakers said Congress — not the EPA — should address an issue with big implications for thousands of U.S. jobs and businesses.
Opposition to EPA regulations by Democrats could pose a serious blow to the Obama administration's effort to restrict heat-trapping greenhouse gases. While the administration is still pushing for Congress to pass a comprehensive climate bill this year, officials have not ruled out controlling greenhouse gases through regulation.
The letter to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson was signed by Democrats Mark Begich of Alaska, Robert Byrd of West Virginia, Sherrod Brown of Ohio, Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, Claire McCaskill of Missouri, Carl Levin of Michigan and Max Baucus of Montana.
Last month, Democrats Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana and Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas signed onto a resolution by Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, that would bar the EPA from issuing regulations to control greenhouse gases.
Murkowski said she welcomed the letter from her Democratic colleagues and noted that 41 senators from both parties support her resolution to halt EPA's actions.
Murkowski filed it in response to an EPA finding in December that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases endanger human health. The finding lets the agency regulate greenhouse gases as a pollutant under the Clean Air Act.
Murkowski said her resolution remains the best opportunity for senators to weigh in before the EPA acts.
"It's a simple issue: Senators either support EPA imposing these regulations without input from Congress, or they don't," she said Monday.
In their letter, the eight Democratic senators say they do not object to EPA regulation of emissions from cars and light trucks, but do question its ability to do anything further under the Clean Air Act.
The letter asks Jackson to clarify the EPA's timetable and suspend any regulations for coal-fired utilities and other industrial facilities until Congress acts on climate and energy legislation. [End of article]
This article was printed from flatheadbeacon.com at the following URL: http://www.flatheadbeacon.com/articles/article/coal-state_dems_oppose_global-warming_rules/16190/
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Cooperative board approves Highwood financing
JAN FALSTAD Of The Gazette Staff | Posted: Friday, February 19, 2010 5:00 pm
Board members meeting in Billings Friday voted to authorize a parent cooperative to borrow $85 million to build a natural gas-fired power plant in Great Falls.
Voting 4-1, the Southern Montana Electrical Generation and Transmission Cooperative board agreed to proceed with the loan to build the first phase of the Highwood Generating Plant capable of producing 40-megawatts of electricity, according to Chief Executive Officer Tim Gregori.
Gregori is CEO of two parent co-ops — Southern, which formed in 2004, and Southern Montana Electric, formed in 2008 — that were organized to represent a handful of smaller co-ops wanting to build a power plant.
“Members voted to proceed with the transfer of assets and debt from SME to Southern and to continue on with the loan process,” Gregori said.
The lender, Prudential Financial, required the transfer of $14.4 million in assets and some debt from SME to Southern as a condition to granting the $85 million loan. Southern now will be responsible for financing and building Highwood.
If Phase 2 is eventually constructed, Highwood could produce 120 megawatts of power and cost approximately $210 million. The initial stage could be operational by May or June of 2011 and the power would be sold to the four southern Montana electrical co-ops that still support the project: Beartooth Electric of Red Lodge, Fergus Electric of Lewistown, Mid-Yellowstone Electric of Hysham and Tongue River Electric Coop-erative of Ashland. Electric City Power of Great Falls also backs the plant. These five entities would share the electricity from Highwood.
The largest co-op in the group, Yellowstone Valley Electric Cooperative of Huntley, which initially supported Highwood, has backed out of the deal and wants to be let out of its remaining 20-year contract with Southern. Yellowstone Valley’s lawsuit to sever ties with Southern is scheduled for trial in April in Yellowstone District Court.
After running into environmental roadblocks and costs that doubled from the first estimates, the initial coal-fired plant was abandoned in January 2009 and replaced with the smaller, less expensive, natural-gas plant project.
On Thursday, Yellowstone Valley asked District Court Judge G. Todd Baugh to delay Friday’s vote. But the judge ruled that it could proceed.
But Baugh also said he thought Southern should let Yellowstone Valley out of its contract and that the Huntley utility should be exempted from the costs of building Highwood.
Yellowstone Valley was the lone “no” vote Friday, Gregori said.
The vote at 3521 Gabel Road was closed to the news media and to any uninvited general co-op members.
Contact Jan Falstad at jfalstad@billingsgazette.com or 657-1306.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Revelation comes out during hearing over co-op dispute
Highwood plant closes in on loan contract
JAN FALSTAD Of The Gazette Staff | Posted: Thursday, February 18, 2010 11:41 pm
Backers of the Highwood Generating Plant near Great Falls expect to land $85 million in financing next Thursday. If all goes well, the gas-fired power plant could be producing electricity by May or June of next year.
The disclosures came at a hearing Thursday afternoon before Yellowstone District Judge G. Todd Baugh, who denied a request by Yellowstone Valley Electric Cooperative of Huntley to postpone a vote today to approve a corporate restructuring required by the lenders.
Tim Gregori, CEO of Southern Montana Electric and Southern Montana Electrical Generation and Transmission Cooperative, the parent cooperative formed in 2004 by five smaller ones in southern Montana to build a power plant, applauded the ruling. SME was formed four years later, and the new entity had virtually the same name as Southern.
“I thought the ruling was fair. I thought it was appropriate,” Gregori said. “Engineering would start immediately. Construction would take a 16- to 18-month period.”
SME has been in charge of building the power plant. But the lenders want to lend money to Southern instead.
So today, selected co-op members and Electric City Power of Great Falls will meet privately in Billings at 10 a.m. at 3521 Gabel Road to approve the transfer of $14.4 million in assets from SME to Southern. SME will continue to exist in some form, but Southern would be responsible for financing and building the plant.
The complex corporate arrangement dates to a deep rift between Southern and Yellowstone Valley Electric.
In 2004, five electric cooperatives based in southern Montana, plus the city of Great Falls, joined to build a power plant to keep rates lower for their members because cheap hydropower contracts were ending.
The co-ops formed a parent group, Southern, and tried to build a coal-fired plant near Great Falls.
Due to delays and lawsuits, the costs eventually doubled to $950 million. Yellowstone Valley Electric then sued Southern to recoup its costs and to leave the parent cooperative. This dispute is scheduled to go to trial before Baugh in April.
But the other four co-ops still supporting the project — Beartooth Electric of Red Lodge, Fergus Electric of Lewistown, Mid-Yellowstone Electric of Hysham, Tongue River Electric Cooperative of Ashland, plus Electric City Power — formed a second parent cooperative called SME, from which Yellowstone Valley Electric now is excluded. Yellowstone Valley represents one-third of the members in this venture, so it’s the largest co-op.
Electric rates with the co-ops rose an average of 27 percent in 2009 plus 3 percent effective this January, said Yellowstone Valley Electric manager Terry Holzer.
Last January, SME switched from building a coal plant to a more economical and environmentally acceptable natural-gas-fired plant. The first phase of 40 megawatts would costs $85 million, Gregori said. If a second phase is built, the total cost of the plant was estimated at $210 million. The plant, if built, could produce 210 megawatts of power.
Prudential Financial is one of two lenders putting up the $85 million, according to statements from the hearing. The other lender has not been named publicly.
Today, selected members are expected to approve the transfer of $14.4 million of SME assets to Southern. About $7 million of that money would be used to pay off debt incurred so far to plan the gas plant. Another vote is expected to authorize the board to accept the $85 million loan package on Feb. 25 and first contemplated last June.
After losing the attempt to delay the vote, Holzer said the first he heard of any loan contract was in court. He’ll be asking to see the documents today to make sure his co-op is not responsible for any costs of building the plant.
“While we are disappointed in the judge’s decision, we thank him for taking this case on, given his busy schedule,” Holzer said. “We want to review the contract to make certain that Yellowstone Valley’s 14,000 members are protected.”
Baugh said repeatedly in court that he’s been so busy with a triple-murder trial that he didn’t have time to read any of the thick briefs, mostly sealed, in this complex case. Gregori’s team also tried to keep Thursday’s hearing closed to the public and media, but Baugh kept the hearing open.
John Crist of Billings, an attorney for Yellowstone Valley, argued that because four out of six members of the boards of SME and Southern are the same people, the vote must be postponed.
“The same entities that are the sellers are the buyers. That’s the definition of a conflict of interest,” Crist said.
The bad blood runs so deep that Crist said Yellowstone Valley Electric officers believe SME will stick the Huntley co-op with higher power rates at every opportunity and favor the four co-ops that support the plant.
“If they don’t need us to make their deal work, they should just let us go,” he said.
SME attorney Gary Zadick of Great Falls said that isn’t the case.
Southern has a contract to provide electricity to Yellowstone Valley Electric until 2030, and the costs of that contract have to be covered. In addition, Zadick said the bylaws clearly allow Yellowstone Valley Electric to get a refund if it is overcharged.
The judge also urged both sides to negotiate an exit strategy for Yellowstone Valley Electric.
Gregori said Southern board members will try to work out some way to let Yellowstone Valley Electric leave the generating and transmitting group under reasonable terms and conditions not harmful to either party.
When asked why this team effort by cooperatives to build a power plant has created such deep distrust, Gregori said, “I can’t tell you.”
Contact Jan Falstad at jfalstad@billingsgazette.com or 657-1306.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Missoula News
NEWS » OCHENSKI
Fire sale
Latest Otter Creek vote creates dirty double standard
by George Ochenski
Western Montanans got the news last week that British Columbia Prime Minister Gordon Campbell intends to sign an agreement with Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer to end coal, coalbed methane or gold mining in the provincial area that drains into Montana's Flathead Basin. Yet, in what can only be seen as a dirty double standard, Schweitzer and two fellow Land Board members voted this week to drastically reduce the bid price for the coal in Montana's Otter Creek tracts, which drain into the Tongue River. Saving British Columbia and sacrificing Montana reveals the schizophrenia within Schweitzer's energy policy—along with more than a little political deceit.
Under world media attention at the Winter Olympics, British Columbia Lt. Gov. Steven Point unveiled the pending agreement with Schweitzer during the traditional Speech from the Throne to the British Columbia Legislative Assembly. "Mining, oil and gas development and coalbed gas extraction will not be permitted in British Columbia's Flathead Valley," Point said, in an obvious attempt to highlight the provincial government's efforts to protect the environment. Schweitzer, meanwhile, said the agreement resulted from years of negotiation, adding that the U.S. and Canadian federal governments would be asked to buy out existing permits and compensate corporations for exploration investments.
The million-acre area, which has seen mining and drilling activity for more than a century, lies just north of Glacier National Park and is home to grizzly bears, wolves and many other sensitive species. It also provides clean, cold water for the Flathead River and Flathead Lake. In recent years, however, coal, oil, gas and gold exploration has increased, leading to intensified efforts by top federal and state officials to pressure British Columbia to not approve additional mineral extraction there.
While the specifics of the agreement have yet to be released, from all indications this will be a significant step toward providing the area with protection commensurate with its natural resources and the drainages it shares with the United States. Of course, there could be stumbling blocks ahead in obtaining the buy-out funding and extending the development ban in perpetuity, but for now, this is very good news for the Flathead.
Travel now to southeast Montana, far from the rich and famous of the bustling Flathead Valley to the Tongue River Valley. While there's a distinct lack of real estate activity, new subdivisions and upscale McMansions, the area is home to the Northern Cheyenne Tribe and family ranches that span generations. This serene landscape of gently rolling hills stands in contrast to Glacier's rocky, snow-covered peaks and, unlike the Flathead's west slope, precipitation is sparse and welcome. As a result, both surface and groundwater are very precious commodities for agricultural and domestic use.
More than a decade ago, the federal government bought out a proposed gold mine on the northern border of Yellowstone National Park and, as part of the deal, Montana Gov. Marc Racicot, a Republican, turned down a $10 million payment and instead opted for thousands of acres and millions of tons of federal coal deposits to be ceded to Montana. These lands, owned in a checkerboard fashion with Great Northern Properties, became known as the Otter Creek tracts. Racicot's successor, Gov. Judy Martz, took control of the tracts about eight years ago and the Republican-controlled Legislature voted to spend $300,000 of state money to have the tracts studied for their commercial potential. Montana spent another $70,000 recently to have the coal values appraised.
In December 2009, the Land Board, comprised of Montana's five top elected officials—all Democrats—voted 4-1 to put the Otter Creek tracts up for lease, settling on a bonus bid price of 25 cents a ton. The bonus payments would be made up front, whether or not the coal was eventually mined. Not coincidentally, Great Northern had just recently announced that it had a bonus bid contract with Arch Coal Co. for 10 cents a ton for their part of the coal deposits, to be paid over a five-year period. To put it in perspective, bonus bid prices for Wyoming coal have brought 80 cents per ton or higher.
Ironically, the only Land Board member to vote against the leases was Superintendent of Public Instruction Denise Juneau, who gave an incredible speech about our responsibility to future generations as reason to leave the coal in the ground. The speech was met by thunderous applause from Missoula high school students who testified against leasing the coal over concerns about global climate change and their future.
The leases were offered, but no bids were received by the deadline. Instead, an Arch Coal subsidiary spent the price of a postage stamp to send the Land Board a letter telling them they had to lower the price. And just as if we were living in Appalachia, Montana's officials abdicated their leadership responsibilities and jumped to do the company's bidding.
This week, those same high school students, plus more, testified against leasing the coal. And once again, Juneau stood with the students, this time joined by Attorney General Steve Bullock, who, much to his credit, would not vote for such a low price.
Secretary of State Linda McCulloch, who has repeated ad nauseum that the coal must be leased "for the students," moved to lower the price—in spite of not a single student testifying in favor of leasing. She was joined by State Auditor Monica Lindeen and Schweitzer in voting for the fire sale price of 15 cents a ton.
Why is water for Flathead Valley Montanans worth saving, but Tongue River Montanans get their scarce water sacrificed to coal mining? That's our dirty double standard. And why, after endlessly touting himself as "clean and green," would Schweitzer vote for mining coal that is likely going to Pacific Rim customers' dirty power plants? That, sad to say, is nothing but political deceit. We deserve better. But by one vote we, and the future, got short-changed again.
Helena's George Ochenski rattles the cage of the political establishment as a political analyst for the Independent. Contact Ochenski at opinion@missoulanews.com.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
FEBRUARY 12, 2010
OPEN LETTER TO ALL CONCERNED
TO: John Prinkki, Beartooth Electric Cooperative Board President
Subject: Resignation Request, for cause
At our Joliet Town Hall Meeting on January 16, 2010 and a meeting held for Beartooth Electric Cooperative (BEC) members in Clark, Wyoming, a consensus was reached to ask for your resignation. I volunteered to write the request. The BEC members can no longer tolerate or afford the actions of yourself and Tim Gregori of Southern Montana Electric (SME).
It was reported that SME wrote off $9.1 million dollars in 2009. The 2008 income tax report of SME showed that the $9.1 million was written off in 2008. For you to keep this a secret until after the annual BEC meeting and your re-election to the board is intolerable. It constitutes fraud, if not criminally, it was morally wrong. This withholding of the $9.1 million write-off rendered the BEC financial statement presented at the 2009 BEC annual meeting invalid. The members who re-elected you at that meeting did so under false pretenses.
For BEC members to be paying for electricity for Northwestern Energy customers, Southern Montana Electric members and Electric City Power members is ludicrous.
I will remind you that The Beartooth Vigilance Committee presently has over 300 signed petitions for revision of the BEC Bylaws. That is more than the membership present at the 2009 BEC annual meeting. BEC has over 4000 members and there was less than 200 members who voted at the annual meeting. There is something wrong with that.　
Larry Luloff
Beartooth Vigilance Committee
208 Stormitt Butte Road
Roberts, MT 59070
406-962-3815
c.c. Ron Roodell
Beartooth Electric Board Members
OPEN LETTER TO ALL CONCERNED
TO: John Prinkki, Beartooth Electric Cooperative Board President
Subject: Resignation Request, for cause
At our Joliet Town Hall Meeting on January 16, 2010 and a meeting held for Beartooth Electric Cooperative (BEC) members in Clark, Wyoming, a consensus was reached to ask for your resignation. I volunteered to write the request. The BEC members can no longer tolerate or afford the actions of yourself and Tim Gregori of Southern Montana Electric (SME).
It was reported that SME wrote off $9.1 million dollars in 2009. The 2008 income tax report of SME showed that the $9.1 million was written off in 2008. For you to keep this a secret until after the annual BEC meeting and your re-election to the board is intolerable. It constitutes fraud, if not criminally, it was morally wrong. This withholding of the $9.1 million write-off rendered the BEC financial statement presented at the 2009 BEC annual meeting invalid. The members who re-elected you at that meeting did so under false pretenses.
For BEC members to be paying for electricity for Northwestern Energy customers, Southern Montana Electric members and Electric City Power members is ludicrous.
I will remind you that The Beartooth Vigilance Committee presently has over 300 signed petitions for revision of the BEC Bylaws. That is more than the membership present at the 2009 BEC annual meeting. BEC has over 4000 members and there was less than 200 members who voted at the annual meeting. There is something wrong with that.　
Larry Luloff
Beartooth Vigilance Committee
208 Stormitt Butte Road
Roberts, MT 59070
406-962-3815
c.c. Ron Roodell
Beartooth Electric Board Members
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Tribune Fact-Check
February 2nd, 2010 by Travis Kavulla
So today’s sub-headline for the ECP article on the dead-tree edition reads: “Three are in favor of city continuing to run Electric City Power after 2011.”
Hmmm. Pretty sure I sat through that meeting myself, and heard nothing like that.
The Trib article itself observes that June 2011 is when some provisions expire in ECP customer contracts. I myself have never heard anyone suggest closing down ECP before that date — not Mary Jolley, not Fred Burow, not this blog. So, quite simply, when one gets beyond the untrue sub-headline, there’s not really any news there. Rich Ecke — please menace your copy editor.
The big news of the evening is that, on the recommendation of Fred Burow, the commission set a deadline of June 2010 to make a decision on ECP’s future. More on ECP shenanigans later.
http://electriccityweblog.com/?p=8157#comments
February 2nd, 2010 by Travis Kavulla
So today’s sub-headline for the ECP article on the dead-tree edition reads: “Three are in favor of city continuing to run Electric City Power after 2011.”
Hmmm. Pretty sure I sat through that meeting myself, and heard nothing like that.
The Trib article itself observes that June 2011 is when some provisions expire in ECP customer contracts. I myself have never heard anyone suggest closing down ECP before that date — not Mary Jolley, not Fred Burow, not this blog. So, quite simply, when one gets beyond the untrue sub-headline, there’s not really any news there. Rich Ecke — please menace your copy editor.
The big news of the evening is that, on the recommendation of Fred Burow, the commission set a deadline of June 2010 to make a decision on ECP’s future. More on ECP shenanigans later.
http://electriccityweblog.com/?p=8157#comments
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Status of 4 power-line projects in Montana
Gazette State Bureau | Posted: Saturday, January 30, 2010 11:30 pm
HELENA — At least four major power lines to export electricity from Montana are on the drawing board. Here is the status of the projects:
Mountain States Transmission Intertie (MSTI): NorthWestern Energy, Montana’s largest electric-and-gas utility, is proposing this 430-mile, $1 billion line run from Townsend to southern Idaho.
The 500-kilovolt line would transport power generated in Montana to southwestern markets. A draft environmental impact statement on the project is expected this year, and NorthWestern plans to accept bids this spring for space on the line. Construction is slated for 2014 or 2015.
Collector System: NorthWestern also is proposing this network of lines to gather power from wind farms in Montana and route it to the Townsend hub for transmission elsewhere.
Bids for space on the lines will be accepted at the same time as MSTI. Construction of all or portions of the line could begin in 2014 or sooner.
Chinook Transmission Project: TransCanada of Calgary, Alberta, is proposing this $3 billion line from Harlowton to southern Nevada. It says the 1,100-mile line would carry mostly new wind power to the Southwest.
In December, the company accepted bids from energy developers and suppliers to buy space on the line. TransCanada plans to announce winning bids by spring.
If all goes well, TransCanada will file for permits and conduct an environmental review between now and 2012 and start construction in 2012, a company spokesman said.
Colstrip transmission line upgrade: NorthWestern, utilities from Oregon and Washington and the Bonneville Power Administration are considering this project, which would increase the capacity of lines between Colstrip and the Pacific Northwest by 30 percent. The partners say the line is supposed to move power from renewable sources, likely wind, from Montana into Washington and Oregon.
Discussions are under way on how the ownership and cost would be divided. The earliest the upgrade would occur is 2012.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
The Coal Ash Industry Manipulated EPA Data
Friday 29 January 2010
by: Joshua Frank, t r u t h o u t | Report
The coal ash industry manipulated reports and publications about the dangers of coal combustion waste, reports Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER). The group stated that the Environmental Protection Agency allowed the multibillon-dollar coal ash industry to have virtually unfettered access to the EPA during the Bush administration and now under President Obama.
As a result of the industry's formal relationship with the EPA, insiders were allowed to edit and ghostwrite publications and official reports on the effects of coal waste. The documents obtained by PEER indicate that the coal ash industry "watered down official reports, brochures and fact-sheets to remove references to potential dangers" of coal ash waste. Additionally, the so-called "environmental benefits" of coal ash were repeatedly aggrandized.
"For most of the past decade, it appears that every EPA publication on the subject was ghostwritten by the American Coal Ash Association," stated PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch, whose group examined thousands of coal industry and EPA communications. "In this partnership it is clear that industry is EPA's senior partner."
There is little debate that coal ash is toxic, despite what the wavering EPA and steadfast coal industry purport.
Coal ash is the sludgy muck that is left over after coal is burned to produce electricity and is often laden with heavy metals like arsenic, mercury, cadmium, lead and selenium. These harmful substances can produce cancer, kidney problems and nervous-system disease. The amount of heavy metals in coal-ash depends largely on the type of coal burned. However, all coal produces this waste, even though the toxicity may vary slightly depending on the type of coal being incinerated.
While the EPA continues to discuss whether or not it should classify coal ash as a hazardous waste, the environmental and health effects of a coal slurry impoundment at the Tennessee Valley Authority's (TVA) Kingston coal-fired power plant in Harriman, Tennessee, are still not known. The December 2008 catastrophe caused more than 500 million gallons of toxic coal ash to enter the Tennessee River.
The spill was over 40 times larger than the 1989 Exxon Valdez spill in Alaska. Approximately 525 million gallons of black coal ash flowed into tributaries of the Tennessee River - the water supply for Chattanooga and millions of people living downstream in Alabama and Kentucky. The true adverse effects of the spill are still not known.
An immediate crackdown on TVA and other coal-slurry impoundments by the EPA was likely sidelined as a result of the American Coal Ash Association's formal partnership with the EPA during the Bush administration. If coal ash were deemed a hazardous waste, coal companies could potentially lose billions of dollars in revenue, as they would not be able to promote their toxic coal ash substances for agricultural, consumer and industrial use.
It seems as if the efforts of coal industry representatives have paid off handsomely. Back in 2002, the EPA released a report that indicated the agency had information on the risks of coal ash, yet requests for the data under the Freedom of Information Act were either denied or the documents that were released, with the estimates of cancer risks, were largely blacked out.
Then in 2007, an EPA study found that people living near coal ash sites had as high as a 1-in-50 chance of developing cancer from drinking arsenic-contaminated water. The report also showed that living near such storage sites raised an individual's risk of damage to the liver, kidneys, lungs and other organs exposed to toxic metals in the ash. But the report, according to the Environmental Integrity Project and Earthjustice, only made available some of the data, while covering up the true extent of the health risks associated with coal ash.
Recent documents obtained by PEER indicate that the coal industry had access to these health reports and was successful in manipulating the information presented to the public about coal ash's negative effects on humans and the environment.
References indicating the "high-risk" potential of coal combustion waste were deleted from PowerPoint presentations. Cautionary language about coal waste uses in agricultural practices was altered in order to remove negative connotations. In 2007, the coal ash industry inserted language in an EPA report to Congress about how "industry and EPA [need to] work together" in order to block or water down "state regulations [that] are hindering progress" in the use of coal ash waste.
"It is no joke - the terms of the coal ash partnership tuck EPA snugly into bed with industry for the purpose of marketing coal combustion wastes as a product," Ruch of PEER added, noting that the partnership has now crossed over into the Obama administration. "EPA is supposed to be an objective regulatory agency dedicated to protecting the public instead of protecting a gigantic subsidy for a powerful industry."
Friday 29 January 2010
by: Joshua Frank, t r u t h o u t | Report
The coal ash industry manipulated reports and publications about the dangers of coal combustion waste, reports Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER). The group stated that the Environmental Protection Agency allowed the multibillon-dollar coal ash industry to have virtually unfettered access to the EPA during the Bush administration and now under President Obama.
As a result of the industry's formal relationship with the EPA, insiders were allowed to edit and ghostwrite publications and official reports on the effects of coal waste. The documents obtained by PEER indicate that the coal ash industry "watered down official reports, brochures and fact-sheets to remove references to potential dangers" of coal ash waste. Additionally, the so-called "environmental benefits" of coal ash were repeatedly aggrandized.
"For most of the past decade, it appears that every EPA publication on the subject was ghostwritten by the American Coal Ash Association," stated PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch, whose group examined thousands of coal industry and EPA communications. "In this partnership it is clear that industry is EPA's senior partner."
There is little debate that coal ash is toxic, despite what the wavering EPA and steadfast coal industry purport.
Coal ash is the sludgy muck that is left over after coal is burned to produce electricity and is often laden with heavy metals like arsenic, mercury, cadmium, lead and selenium. These harmful substances can produce cancer, kidney problems and nervous-system disease. The amount of heavy metals in coal-ash depends largely on the type of coal burned. However, all coal produces this waste, even though the toxicity may vary slightly depending on the type of coal being incinerated.
While the EPA continues to discuss whether or not it should classify coal ash as a hazardous waste, the environmental and health effects of a coal slurry impoundment at the Tennessee Valley Authority's (TVA) Kingston coal-fired power plant in Harriman, Tennessee, are still not known. The December 2008 catastrophe caused more than 500 million gallons of toxic coal ash to enter the Tennessee River.
The spill was over 40 times larger than the 1989 Exxon Valdez spill in Alaska. Approximately 525 million gallons of black coal ash flowed into tributaries of the Tennessee River - the water supply for Chattanooga and millions of people living downstream in Alabama and Kentucky. The true adverse effects of the spill are still not known.
An immediate crackdown on TVA and other coal-slurry impoundments by the EPA was likely sidelined as a result of the American Coal Ash Association's formal partnership with the EPA during the Bush administration. If coal ash were deemed a hazardous waste, coal companies could potentially lose billions of dollars in revenue, as they would not be able to promote their toxic coal ash substances for agricultural, consumer and industrial use.
It seems as if the efforts of coal industry representatives have paid off handsomely. Back in 2002, the EPA released a report that indicated the agency had information on the risks of coal ash, yet requests for the data under the Freedom of Information Act were either denied or the documents that were released, with the estimates of cancer risks, were largely blacked out.
Then in 2007, an EPA study found that people living near coal ash sites had as high as a 1-in-50 chance of developing cancer from drinking arsenic-contaminated water. The report also showed that living near such storage sites raised an individual's risk of damage to the liver, kidneys, lungs and other organs exposed to toxic metals in the ash. But the report, according to the Environmental Integrity Project and Earthjustice, only made available some of the data, while covering up the true extent of the health risks associated with coal ash.
Recent documents obtained by PEER indicate that the coal industry had access to these health reports and was successful in manipulating the information presented to the public about coal ash's negative effects on humans and the environment.
References indicating the "high-risk" potential of coal combustion waste were deleted from PowerPoint presentations. Cautionary language about coal waste uses in agricultural practices was altered in order to remove negative connotations. In 2007, the coal ash industry inserted language in an EPA report to Congress about how "industry and EPA [need to] work together" in order to block or water down "state regulations [that] are hindering progress" in the use of coal ash waste.
"It is no joke - the terms of the coal ash partnership tuck EPA snugly into bed with industry for the purpose of marketing coal combustion wastes as a product," Ruch of PEER added, noting that the partnership has now crossed over into the Obama administration. "EPA is supposed to be an objective regulatory agency dedicated to protecting the public instead of protecting a gigantic subsidy for a powerful industry."
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
By GREG JERGESON
I knew when I chose to offer a detailed dissection of the Burns &
McDonnell report on Electric City Power that I might be vulnerable to an
“O.J.’s glove” moment.
In his guest opinion published in the Tribune Jan. 14, ECP board member
Bob Pancich, taking items out of context from an 18-page document backed
up by 15 pages of exhibits, must believe he has found just such an “if the
glove doesn’t fit, you must acquit” moment.
I have since seen the document that Mr. Pancich claims refutes my argument
that NorthWestern Energy’s electric supply costs were overstated in the
Burns & McDonnell report.
As I reviewed that document, along with some supporting documents, it
became readily apparent that Burns & McDonnell and I employed distinctly
different methodologies in calculating NWE costs.
I relied on the methodology that manifests itself in the monthly bill of
300,000 NWE customers. In their methodology to present NWE power supply
costs, they added certain costs and subtracted other numbers, such as the
deferred supply credit. All the while, the Burns & McDonnell report did
not describe that methodology or cite the sources for the data. Therefore,
I had no way to understand or test the difference at the time I did my
analysis.
Of course, the whole comparison with the NWE electricity supply costs is
something of a side-show, kind of like O.J.’s glove.
The NWE costs could have been higher or lower than ECP rates at any level
and that would not have made a penny’s difference in the size of the
operating deficit ECP accumulated during the period.
Not one penny. That deficit only eased when Soutern Montana Electric
Generation and Transmission Cooperative offered a “lower, blended” rate to
ECP midway through fiscal 2009. On the heels of a year when SMEC lost
$7,383,319 and saw its net assets decline by $6,659,735, that was a very
generous ges-ture, indeed.
However, one cannot expect such “lower, blended” rates to continue,
unless, of course, the member cooperatives of SMEC wish to keep raising
rates to unprecedented levels for their own members. After all, the
“lower, blended” rates for ECP have translated to “higher, blended” rates
for the cooperatives’ customers.
Interestingly, on page 3-3 of their report, Burns & McDonnell acknowledge
that the deficit will reappear in fiscal year 2011 unless there are
substantial increases in the rates paid by ECP customers.
They have recommended an immediate 10 percent increase in ECP rates,
followed by annual 5 percent increases. At that point, I think it will be
hard to argue that ECP rates are competitive in comparison to any
alternatives. The only other way to avoid future deficits is for further
increases for the members of the SMEC cooperatives in order to fund more
“lower, blended” rate arrangements for ECP.
The Great Falls City Commission has some enormous decisions to make
relative to the fate of ECP.
I have offered my analysis, not to dictate the decisions they ultimately
make, but to broaden the information base upon which they may rely to
inform their decisions.
I wish them well and stand ready to answer any questions they may have.
Greg Jergeson, Chinook, is chairman of the Montana Public Service Commission.
I knew when I chose to offer a detailed dissection of the Burns &
McDonnell report on Electric City Power that I might be vulnerable to an
“O.J.’s glove” moment.
In his guest opinion published in the Tribune Jan. 14, ECP board member
Bob Pancich, taking items out of context from an 18-page document backed
up by 15 pages of exhibits, must believe he has found just such an “if the
glove doesn’t fit, you must acquit” moment.
I have since seen the document that Mr. Pancich claims refutes my argument
that NorthWestern Energy’s electric supply costs were overstated in the
Burns & McDonnell report.
As I reviewed that document, along with some supporting documents, it
became readily apparent that Burns & McDonnell and I employed distinctly
different methodologies in calculating NWE costs.
I relied on the methodology that manifests itself in the monthly bill of
300,000 NWE customers. In their methodology to present NWE power supply
costs, they added certain costs and subtracted other numbers, such as the
deferred supply credit. All the while, the Burns & McDonnell report did
not describe that methodology or cite the sources for the data. Therefore,
I had no way to understand or test the difference at the time I did my
analysis.
Of course, the whole comparison with the NWE electricity supply costs is
something of a side-show, kind of like O.J.’s glove.
The NWE costs could have been higher or lower than ECP rates at any level
and that would not have made a penny’s difference in the size of the
operating deficit ECP accumulated during the period.
Not one penny. That deficit only eased when Soutern Montana Electric
Generation and Transmission Cooperative offered a “lower, blended” rate to
ECP midway through fiscal 2009. On the heels of a year when SMEC lost
$7,383,319 and saw its net assets decline by $6,659,735, that was a very
generous ges-ture, indeed.
However, one cannot expect such “lower, blended” rates to continue,
unless, of course, the member cooperatives of SMEC wish to keep raising
rates to unprecedented levels for their own members. After all, the
“lower, blended” rates for ECP have translated to “higher, blended” rates
for the cooperatives’ customers.
Interestingly, on page 3-3 of their report, Burns & McDonnell acknowledge
that the deficit will reappear in fiscal year 2011 unless there are
substantial increases in the rates paid by ECP customers.
They have recommended an immediate 10 percent increase in ECP rates,
followed by annual 5 percent increases. At that point, I think it will be
hard to argue that ECP rates are competitive in comparison to any
alternatives. The only other way to avoid future deficits is for further
increases for the members of the SMEC cooperatives in order to fund more
“lower, blended” rate arrangements for ECP.
The Great Falls City Commission has some enormous decisions to make
relative to the fate of ECP.
I have offered my analysis, not to dictate the decisions they ultimately
make, but to broaden the information base upon which they may rely to
inform their decisions.
I wish them well and stand ready to answer any questions they may have.
Greg Jergeson, Chinook, is chairman of the Montana Public Service Commission.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Breaking News.....
The Burns & McDonnell Report - Reflects sloppy work potentially having serious consequences for ECP and the city of Great Falls. City taxpayers paid for a very substandard analysis from this firm. More taxpayer funds ($60,000) down the drain with no reliable answers and no one, apparently, answerable for another city hall fiasco!
The full PSC Chairman's report, the B & M report, and the Great Falls Tribune article covering the story.
The quotations below gives a partial indication of what is contained in this very revealing analysis from a board member of the Montana Public Service Commission (PSC) in response to the recently released Burns & McDonnell report commissioned by the city of Great Falls to analyze the viability of ECP.
"Apparently, Burns & McDonnell abandoned President Reagan’s standard of “trust and verify,” and employed President George W. Bush’s standard employed with Vladimir Putin, “I looked into his eyes and saw his soul. ”If they had actually tested the representations made to them by the management of SMEC and ECP, they would not have made the errors identified in this document throughout their report". (emphasis added)
"Again the consultants talk about a 10% rate increase for ECP customers. What if half of the load represented by ECP customers does not agree to the increase? Are the remaining customers going to be asked for a 20% increase?"
"Since the actual ECP savings compared to NWE costs are negligible, why wouldn’t ECP customers calculate that a 10% increase, in addition to subsequent 5% annual increases, would cost them more than moving to NWE?"
"Is the recommendation that ECP hire a staff accountant a commentary on the competence of the city employees who have been doing the work so far, or is it an admission the City has been paying the “service costs” of ECP all along by delegating an otherwise employed member of the City’s staff to “double-duty” on ECP?" (emphasis added)
The Burns & McDonnell Report - Reflects sloppy work potentially having serious consequences for ECP and the city of Great Falls. City taxpayers paid for a very substandard analysis from this firm. More taxpayer funds ($60,000) down the drain with no reliable answers and no one, apparently, answerable for another city hall fiasco!
The full PSC Chairman's report, the B & M report, and the Great Falls Tribune article covering the story.
The quotations below gives a partial indication of what is contained in this very revealing analysis from a board member of the Montana Public Service Commission (PSC) in response to the recently released Burns & McDonnell report commissioned by the city of Great Falls to analyze the viability of ECP.
"Apparently, Burns & McDonnell abandoned President Reagan’s standard of “trust and verify,” and employed President George W. Bush’s standard employed with Vladimir Putin, “I looked into his eyes and saw his soul. ”If they had actually tested the representations made to them by the management of SMEC and ECP, they would not have made the errors identified in this document throughout their report". (emphasis added)
"Again the consultants talk about a 10% rate increase for ECP customers. What if half of the load represented by ECP customers does not agree to the increase? Are the remaining customers going to be asked for a 20% increase?"
"Since the actual ECP savings compared to NWE costs are negligible, why wouldn’t ECP customers calculate that a 10% increase, in addition to subsequent 5% annual increases, would cost them more than moving to NWE?"
"Is the recommendation that ECP hire a staff accountant a commentary on the competence of the city employees who have been doing the work so far, or is it an admission the City has been paying the “service costs” of ECP all along by delegating an otherwise employed member of the City’s staff to “double-duty” on ECP?" (emphasis added)
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Anniversary of TVA Coal Ash Spill as Forgotten as the Disaster Itself
by: Glynn Wilson, t r u t h o u t | Report
On the third day before Christmas in 2008, the people living along the Emory River in East Tennessee were listening to songs about a "white Christmas" like everybody else in the country, trying to look forward and not back. A new president was in the White House who promised "hope" after eight years of war and unprecedented corruption, as well as the increasing economic hardship that was squeezing the middle class like a juggernaut.
Instead of a white Christmas, though, people like Steve Scarborough of the Dagger Kayak and Canoe Company woke up to a black-gray mess of epic proportions, a river full of toxic coal ash from the Tennessee Valley Authority's coal-fired power plant at Kingston, Tennessee.
"There are no excuses for this," Scarborough said. "One of the dumbest thing humans do is dig coal out of the ground and burn it."
The largely affluent population of the area demanded action and an immediate cleanup of the largest environmental disaster in American history in the lower 48 states, second only to the Exxon Valdez spill in Prince William Sound, Alaska, in the spring of 1989. So within four months, by March 20, TVA began dredging the mountain of coal ash out of the river and shipping it by train to a landfill in the poor Black Belt of Alabama.
One year later, on the first anniversary of the second worst environmental disaster in American history, while the people in Tennessee are hiring lawyers and suing TVA and reading story after story in the local newspapers about their plight while the cleanup continues, the poor people of Perry County, Alabama, where TVA found a place to dump the toxic ash, are not singing Christmas carols. They are locked in their homes with their air conditioners running even in winter, trying to stay out of the gaseous fumes from the landfill where the coal ash is piling up on top of household garbage by the freight train load.
There's not a newspaper or a TV station anywhere around telling their story, and most of them are so poor and living in such a remote, rural area that they can't even turn to the Internet, either to voice their concerns and get organized or find out what's going on to help them, if there is anything. They are not hearing much out of their local government officials or the congressman elected to represent them either, so they are living in the dark with a nagging fear for the future.
North of the landfill, other residents with nowhere to go to escape the gaseous smell from the liquid waste being dumped from the landfill into a nearby lagoon, are hooked up to oxygen tanks and wondering where in the world the birds have gone.
There's not even an organized environmental group to help them within a hundred miles, so their cause has fallen to John Wathen, the Hurricane Creekkeeper in Tuscaloosa to the north, who has been making the trip down periodically to monitor the water and document what is clearly an environmental justice situation with major ecological and sociological implications.
"TVA officials want you to believe the 1.1-billion-gallon coal ash spill at their Kingston plant was due to an 'act of God,'" Wathen says. ‚"And now Perry County Commissioner Albert Turner Jr. calls receiving the toxic ash a 'godsend.'"
County commissioners and even the congressman from the district who wants to be Alabama's first black governor, Artur Davis, have done nothing to represent the poor people who are living with the coal ash in their air and water. In fact, they have said the money being pumped into the county coffers from landfill tipping fees is providing much-needed revenue to one of the poorest counties in the country.
According to Wathen, however, "The truth is that this toxic disaster is neither an act of God or a godsend." It is a nightmare before Christmas.
"While his constituents are complaining of malodorous gases and respiratory problems, Turner is issuing a clarion call to bring more toxic waste to Perry County - and with it $3.5 million for the county government," Wathen says. "The truth is that nothing says clean coal like dirty money."
The disaster that ruined the Emory River was 100 percent manmade, the result of a lax regulatory structure where the waste from coal-fired power plants was not managed at all. TVA, Southern Company and other power companies have been piling the ash up for years alongside rivers and streams, even getting rid of some of it by encouraging farmers to dump it on their land.
That practice has all but stopped now, however. When the makeshift retaining wall failed in Kingston, sending out a mountain of ash to fill up a six-mile stretch of one of the most pristine rivers in the Southeastern US like a giant volcanic lava flow, it was a wakeup call to federal regulators. Although to date, the federal Environmental Protection Agency has taken no steps to classify coal ash in any regulated category.
According to environmental lawyer David Ludder, who has filed documents indicating an intent to sue the Arrowhead Landfill in Perry County if something is not done to contain the air and water pollution from impacting the health of nearby residents, there is a problem with regulating coal ash as hazardous waste.
If the EPA were to declare tomorrow that the waste should be disposed of in a hazardous waste landfill, that could stop the shipments from the Tennessee and potentially halt the massive cleanup itself. So Ludder believes the EPA will at some point classify the ash as solid waste, "due to the widespread impact of the cost."
Even if that is the result, landfills that accept the waste must still manage the liquid waste in a responsible manner, which is obviously not being done in Marion, Alabama.
Contractors hired by TVA to dredge the Emory River are loading as much as 30 percent water in the plastic-lined train cars. Some experts say transporting the ash wet is better than moving it dry, which would just cause the toxic substances in the waste to get airborne and affect even more people.
What to do with the liquid is seriously problematic. Since a stink was raised about the liquid waste a few weeks ago, shipments of the co-called "leachate" have stopped going to a nearby lagoon sewer system that is already overrun with waste from a local cheese factory. Landfill company managers and county officials are trying to negotiate deals for other sewer systems in nearby communities such as Demopolis to take the liquid, but there are concerns about lawsuits, so neighboring communities are reluctant to get involved.
Since the lagoon controversy was uncovered and reported on by The Locust Fork News-Journal, an alternative, independent news web site, Wathen has taken photographs at night showing landfill workers pumping liquid runoff from the landfill into contiguous ditches and even onto the road in front of peoples' houses. It is at night and when trucks dump their loads that people say the odor is the worst.
Ruby Holmes, 80, has lived here all her life. She said when she tries to sleep with her window cracked, "This odor wakes me up at night." When asked to describe the odor, she says, "It smells like some kind of gas. It gets all through my house and smells like rotten eggs. I'm very concerned about my health. I'm breathing this stuff. It's going into my lungs."
Ms. Holmes used to grow a garden on the rich land of the Black Belt, but recently she has given up the practice.
She has seen buzzards coming from the landfill "pooping" in her garden, so she is reluctant to eat the vegetables. She didn't even plant a garden this year. She has also noticed a bad smell in her well water - "an old smell like it has been sitting there for a long time," she said.
She has lived in the same place her entire life and used to enjoy a cup of coffee on the front porch in the morning. Now, she says, it is "not much of a life at all. Nobody listens."
Jackie Fike, who lives near the treatment plant and lagoon where some of the wastewater from the landfill is being dumped and whose wife is now forced to stay inside on oxygen most of the time, said he used to see a lot of birds around.
"We hardly have a bird now,‚" he said. "This stuff is about to kill a lot of fish, a lot of people."
According to Ludder and Wathen, who has test results from water samples to back it up, the coal ash contains numerous toxic, radioactive and carcinogenic compounds such as arsenic, chromium, lead, mercury, thorium and uranium. The cancer risk to elderly folks and children who drink water contaminated with arsenic from coal combustion waste is 900 times higher than EPA's recommended level of risk.
"The unfortunate thing all around is that the government that was supposed to protect the people, once again, is not doing it,‚" Ludder said. "And the people have to face the consequences."
Since the disaster one year ago, the Kingston "disaster ash," as it is known here, "has spread like a cancer across the Southeast," Wathen says. "It has now come into contact with eight river systems."
That includes the Emory, Clinch and Tennessee Rivers, which run into the Mississippi. The waste is shipped to Perry County, where the Arrowhead Landfill drains to the Alabama River, then to the Tombigbee River. Leachate created by the wet ash is trucked to Marion, Alabama, where it was discharged into Rice Creek and other streams that flow into the Cahaba River. Now, since some of the liquid is being trucked to Demopolis, it too ends up being discharged into the Tombigbee River, which ends up flowing into the Mobile River.
"Just like the cancer it carries with it," Wathen says, "this ash has impacted people in places who have never heard of Kingston, Tennessee, destroying their quality of life and peace of mind."
by: Glynn Wilson, t r u t h o u t | Report
On the third day before Christmas in 2008, the people living along the Emory River in East Tennessee were listening to songs about a "white Christmas" like everybody else in the country, trying to look forward and not back. A new president was in the White House who promised "hope" after eight years of war and unprecedented corruption, as well as the increasing economic hardship that was squeezing the middle class like a juggernaut.
Instead of a white Christmas, though, people like Steve Scarborough of the Dagger Kayak and Canoe Company woke up to a black-gray mess of epic proportions, a river full of toxic coal ash from the Tennessee Valley Authority's coal-fired power plant at Kingston, Tennessee.
"There are no excuses for this," Scarborough said. "One of the dumbest thing humans do is dig coal out of the ground and burn it."
The largely affluent population of the area demanded action and an immediate cleanup of the largest environmental disaster in American history in the lower 48 states, second only to the Exxon Valdez spill in Prince William Sound, Alaska, in the spring of 1989. So within four months, by March 20, TVA began dredging the mountain of coal ash out of the river and shipping it by train to a landfill in the poor Black Belt of Alabama.
One year later, on the first anniversary of the second worst environmental disaster in American history, while the people in Tennessee are hiring lawyers and suing TVA and reading story after story in the local newspapers about their plight while the cleanup continues, the poor people of Perry County, Alabama, where TVA found a place to dump the toxic ash, are not singing Christmas carols. They are locked in their homes with their air conditioners running even in winter, trying to stay out of the gaseous fumes from the landfill where the coal ash is piling up on top of household garbage by the freight train load.
There's not a newspaper or a TV station anywhere around telling their story, and most of them are so poor and living in such a remote, rural area that they can't even turn to the Internet, either to voice their concerns and get organized or find out what's going on to help them, if there is anything. They are not hearing much out of their local government officials or the congressman elected to represent them either, so they are living in the dark with a nagging fear for the future.
North of the landfill, other residents with nowhere to go to escape the gaseous smell from the liquid waste being dumped from the landfill into a nearby lagoon, are hooked up to oxygen tanks and wondering where in the world the birds have gone.
There's not even an organized environmental group to help them within a hundred miles, so their cause has fallen to John Wathen, the Hurricane Creekkeeper in Tuscaloosa to the north, who has been making the trip down periodically to monitor the water and document what is clearly an environmental justice situation with major ecological and sociological implications.
"TVA officials want you to believe the 1.1-billion-gallon coal ash spill at their Kingston plant was due to an 'act of God,'" Wathen says. ‚"And now Perry County Commissioner Albert Turner Jr. calls receiving the toxic ash a 'godsend.'"
County commissioners and even the congressman from the district who wants to be Alabama's first black governor, Artur Davis, have done nothing to represent the poor people who are living with the coal ash in their air and water. In fact, they have said the money being pumped into the county coffers from landfill tipping fees is providing much-needed revenue to one of the poorest counties in the country.
According to Wathen, however, "The truth is that this toxic disaster is neither an act of God or a godsend." It is a nightmare before Christmas.
"While his constituents are complaining of malodorous gases and respiratory problems, Turner is issuing a clarion call to bring more toxic waste to Perry County - and with it $3.5 million for the county government," Wathen says. "The truth is that nothing says clean coal like dirty money."
The disaster that ruined the Emory River was 100 percent manmade, the result of a lax regulatory structure where the waste from coal-fired power plants was not managed at all. TVA, Southern Company and other power companies have been piling the ash up for years alongside rivers and streams, even getting rid of some of it by encouraging farmers to dump it on their land.
That practice has all but stopped now, however. When the makeshift retaining wall failed in Kingston, sending out a mountain of ash to fill up a six-mile stretch of one of the most pristine rivers in the Southeastern US like a giant volcanic lava flow, it was a wakeup call to federal regulators. Although to date, the federal Environmental Protection Agency has taken no steps to classify coal ash in any regulated category.
According to environmental lawyer David Ludder, who has filed documents indicating an intent to sue the Arrowhead Landfill in Perry County if something is not done to contain the air and water pollution from impacting the health of nearby residents, there is a problem with regulating coal ash as hazardous waste.
If the EPA were to declare tomorrow that the waste should be disposed of in a hazardous waste landfill, that could stop the shipments from the Tennessee and potentially halt the massive cleanup itself. So Ludder believes the EPA will at some point classify the ash as solid waste, "due to the widespread impact of the cost."
Even if that is the result, landfills that accept the waste must still manage the liquid waste in a responsible manner, which is obviously not being done in Marion, Alabama.
Contractors hired by TVA to dredge the Emory River are loading as much as 30 percent water in the plastic-lined train cars. Some experts say transporting the ash wet is better than moving it dry, which would just cause the toxic substances in the waste to get airborne and affect even more people.
What to do with the liquid is seriously problematic. Since a stink was raised about the liquid waste a few weeks ago, shipments of the co-called "leachate" have stopped going to a nearby lagoon sewer system that is already overrun with waste from a local cheese factory. Landfill company managers and county officials are trying to negotiate deals for other sewer systems in nearby communities such as Demopolis to take the liquid, but there are concerns about lawsuits, so neighboring communities are reluctant to get involved.
Since the lagoon controversy was uncovered and reported on by The Locust Fork News-Journal, an alternative, independent news web site, Wathen has taken photographs at night showing landfill workers pumping liquid runoff from the landfill into contiguous ditches and even onto the road in front of peoples' houses. It is at night and when trucks dump their loads that people say the odor is the worst.
Ruby Holmes, 80, has lived here all her life. She said when she tries to sleep with her window cracked, "This odor wakes me up at night." When asked to describe the odor, she says, "It smells like some kind of gas. It gets all through my house and smells like rotten eggs. I'm very concerned about my health. I'm breathing this stuff. It's going into my lungs."
Ms. Holmes used to grow a garden on the rich land of the Black Belt, but recently she has given up the practice.
She has seen buzzards coming from the landfill "pooping" in her garden, so she is reluctant to eat the vegetables. She didn't even plant a garden this year. She has also noticed a bad smell in her well water - "an old smell like it has been sitting there for a long time," she said.
She has lived in the same place her entire life and used to enjoy a cup of coffee on the front porch in the morning. Now, she says, it is "not much of a life at all. Nobody listens."
Jackie Fike, who lives near the treatment plant and lagoon where some of the wastewater from the landfill is being dumped and whose wife is now forced to stay inside on oxygen most of the time, said he used to see a lot of birds around.
"We hardly have a bird now,‚" he said. "This stuff is about to kill a lot of fish, a lot of people."
According to Ludder and Wathen, who has test results from water samples to back it up, the coal ash contains numerous toxic, radioactive and carcinogenic compounds such as arsenic, chromium, lead, mercury, thorium and uranium. The cancer risk to elderly folks and children who drink water contaminated with arsenic from coal combustion waste is 900 times higher than EPA's recommended level of risk.
"The unfortunate thing all around is that the government that was supposed to protect the people, once again, is not doing it,‚" Ludder said. "And the people have to face the consequences."
Since the disaster one year ago, the Kingston "disaster ash," as it is known here, "has spread like a cancer across the Southeast," Wathen says. "It has now come into contact with eight river systems."
That includes the Emory, Clinch and Tennessee Rivers, which run into the Mississippi. The waste is shipped to Perry County, where the Arrowhead Landfill drains to the Alabama River, then to the Tombigbee River. Leachate created by the wet ash is trucked to Marion, Alabama, where it was discharged into Rice Creek and other streams that flow into the Cahaba River. Now, since some of the liquid is being trucked to Demopolis, it too ends up being discharged into the Tombigbee River, which ends up flowing into the Mobile River.
"Just like the cancer it carries with it," Wathen says, "this ash has impacted people in places who have never heard of Kingston, Tennessee, destroying their quality of life and peace of mind."
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Press Releases
December 16, 2009
December 16, 2009
Delegation Applauds Announcement of New Airmen, Expanded Mission at Grand Forks Air Force Base
Growing UAV Presence Will Bring 180 Additional Personnel to Base Next Year
Washington – Senators Kent Conrad and Byron Dorgan and Congressman Earl Pomeroy today applauded the announcement that the Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV) mission at Grand Forks Air Force Base will be expanded, bringing 180 additional airmen to North Dakota next year.
“This is very good news for Grand Forks and the state of North Dakota,” the delegation said in a joint statement. “The UAV operation based in Grand Forks is at the cutting edge of our nation's defense. As the airmen in Grand Forks continue their excellent performance, we continue to make the case for new and expanded missions in Grand Forks, including the next generation of air refueling tankers.”
The Secretary of the Air Force, Mike Donley, called North Dakota’s Congressional Delegation Wednesday afternoon to deliver the news. Secretary Donley announced that Grand Forks Air Force Base will receive Global Hawk Block 20 ground elements. The newly-assigned mission will enable personnel in Grand Forks to operate Global Hawks equipped with the Battlefield Airborne Communications Node (BACN), which turns the UAVs into long-range communications relay platforms. When BACN equipment is installed on the Global Hawk, it can provide almost round-the-clock radio communications over a battlefield from an altitude of 40,000 feet and greatly improve the capacity to provide our troops with real-time battlefield information and secure ground communications in mountainous terrain such as Afghanistan.
The delegation said the mission will bring 180 additional personnel to Grand Forks next year to help minimize the impact at the base caused by the departure of personnel following the downsizing of the base's air refueling tankers.
Last month the delegation held the latest in a series of meetings with Air Force leadership to make the case for expanding the UAV mission at Grand Forks. Eventually, Grand Forks will be the home of the Air Force’s entire fleet of Global Hawk Block 40s, the newest version of the Global Hawk.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Fear of violence grows in mountaintop mining fight
By VICKI SMITH, Associated Press Writer
Sat Dec 19, 9:30 pm ET
MORGANTOWN, W.Va. – It was the slap heard 'round the coalfields: Cordelia Ruth Tucker, wearing the fluorescent-striped shirt of a miner, strode past West Virginia state troopers and into a stream of marchers protesting mountaintop removal mining to deliver an audible smack.
The 54-year-old Rock Creek woman isn't talking as she awaits trial on a battery charge. Her neighbor, environmental activist Judy Bonds, says she was on the receiving end of the slap.
And Bonds — like many in a place where labor disputes have a violent history — fears more blows will follow as the fight escalates over mountaintop removal, the uniquely Appalachian form of strip mining that involves blowing tops off mountains and dumping the rubble in valleys.
For nearly a decade, environmentalists and the mining industry battled in courtrooms and the Capitol. Arrests were unheard of.
This year, as mountaintop removal has drawn more scrutiny from regulators, policy makers and the public, the activists' strategy changed.
There have been nearly 100 arrests in 20 protests, most involving trespassing. Led by a new group called Climate Ground Zero, the activists have chained themselves to giant dump trucks, scaled 80-foot trees to stop blasting and paddled into a 9 million-gallon sludge pond. They've blocked roads, hung banners and staged sit-ins.
Virginia-based Massey Energy claims a single 3 1/2-hour occupation at Progress Coal Co. in Twilight cost the company $300,000. Two environmentalists pleaded no contest to battery after that incident for trying to push past a miner and climb a 20-story, earth-moving crane.
Mountaintop removal foes say the industry and its allies are stoking fear and anger among miners and their friends by accusing environmentalists, Congress and the Obama administration of trying to kill coal through regulation and permitting.
Massey equates anti-coal with anti-American. Pittsburgh-based Consol Energy blames the planned layoffs of 482 miners on a lawsuit by the Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition.
Both sides are fighting for a way of life. The miners see the mountains as their livelihood. The environmentalists see them as divine and irreplaceable creations.
Since that slap in June, conflict has manifested itself mainly in harsh words and shows of force: Shout-downs by hundreds of miners at an Army Corps of Engineers hearing; a bare-bellied miner's profane, throat-slitting gesture at a picnic for environmentalists on Kayford Mountain; a curse-laden online tirade in which someone using the screen name "Superhippieslayer" warns, "Look out violence is coming your way. There is a group ready as we speak to eliminate the threat."
The bitter feelings bubble up in comments posted on YouTube video links to incidents like the June 23 protest march where Bonds was slapped. Hundreds of comments were posted after she spoke at a Dec. 7 rally in Charleston, many laced with profanities.
It's to the point where Bonds, a diminutive 57-year-old, has installed home-security cameras, carries a handgun and checks her car for dangling bomb wires.
"I feel a sense of dread," she said. "You're taking your life in your hands if they know who you are."
Lorelei Scarbro, an activist with Coal River Mountain Watch, said the industry provokes the miners as it demonizes the environmentalists.
"It's not the working man that's the problem here," Scarbro said. "It's the industry and the way they continue to use and exploit people on both sides of the issue, whether it's the working man trying to take care of his family or the environmentalist trying to take care of us all."
Environmentalists use words like "corrupt," "greedy" and "thugs" to describe the pro-coal establishment. Industry counters with words like "hippies," "extremists" and "terrorists."
The West Virginia Coal Association dismisses much of the inflammatory language as harmless rhetoric, to be expected when jobs are on the line.
"We absolutely don't condone people who use threats, intimidation and general thuggism," said senior vice president Chris Hamilton. However, "from our standpoint, it's more difficult to engage in constructive discussion with someone who has as their primary objective to shut the industry down."
Neither side is backing down.
"People are not going to just roll over and let their livelihood be regulated out of business," said Beckley coal truck supplier Carl Hubbard, who bemoaned "limp-wristed greeniacs" in a recent newspaper column. "God put that coal here for us to mine, in my view."
There have been pleas to tone things down.
In July, after the South Charleston Museum board of directors canceled the premiere of the film "Coal Country" over unspecified security concerns, the West Virginia Council of Churches begged both sides to respect the rights of lawful assembly and free speech.
Months later, executive director Dennis Sparks is still waiting: "There's not a day goes by that we don't lift it up in prayer."
Politicians and power brokers have generally responded by inciting or standing indifferent. Take state Senate Majority Leader Truman Chafin: "The Lord didn't create many things without a purpose. But mosquitoes and the EPA come close, I think."
U.S. Sen. Robert C. Byrd recently became an important exception, rebuking the industry.
"The most important factor in maintaining coal-related jobs is demand for coal," he said. "Scapegoating and stoking fear among workers over the permitting process is counterproductive."
Elsewhere, rhetoric might be dismissed as just that, but the coalfields have a bloody history.
In 1920, a shootout between unionizing miners and coal company security guards left 12 men dead on the streets of Matewan, W.Va. The 1921 Battle of Blair Mountain, an armed union uprising, eventually required the intervention of federal troops. During a union strike in the 1980s, car windows were smashed and shots were fired.
"But this is different," said William Kovarik, an associate professor at Radford University in Virginia who studies and teaches the history of environmental movements worldwide.
Now the conflict is between miners and people within their own communities.
"Union and nonunion workers are being told by management that their livelihoods are at great risk from out-of-state environmentalists," Kovarik said. "Management is going out of its way to equate them with terrorists, when in reality, they are their own neighbors, grandparents, retired coal miners and college students."
And dehumanizing your opponent, Kovarik said, can open the door to real violence.
Activist Chuck Nelson, a former underground miner from Glen Daniel, said the longer surface miners face uncertainty, the more the danger grows: The federal government must act soon, one way or the other.
And if the EPA comes down on the environmentalists' side?
"Well," Nelson said, "there's a possibility it might not be safe to live in the Coal River Valley."
By VICKI SMITH, Associated Press Writer
Sat Dec 19, 9:30 pm ET
MORGANTOWN, W.Va. – It was the slap heard 'round the coalfields: Cordelia Ruth Tucker, wearing the fluorescent-striped shirt of a miner, strode past West Virginia state troopers and into a stream of marchers protesting mountaintop removal mining to deliver an audible smack.
The 54-year-old Rock Creek woman isn't talking as she awaits trial on a battery charge. Her neighbor, environmental activist Judy Bonds, says she was on the receiving end of the slap.
And Bonds — like many in a place where labor disputes have a violent history — fears more blows will follow as the fight escalates over mountaintop removal, the uniquely Appalachian form of strip mining that involves blowing tops off mountains and dumping the rubble in valleys.
For nearly a decade, environmentalists and the mining industry battled in courtrooms and the Capitol. Arrests were unheard of.
This year, as mountaintop removal has drawn more scrutiny from regulators, policy makers and the public, the activists' strategy changed.
There have been nearly 100 arrests in 20 protests, most involving trespassing. Led by a new group called Climate Ground Zero, the activists have chained themselves to giant dump trucks, scaled 80-foot trees to stop blasting and paddled into a 9 million-gallon sludge pond. They've blocked roads, hung banners and staged sit-ins.
Virginia-based Massey Energy claims a single 3 1/2-hour occupation at Progress Coal Co. in Twilight cost the company $300,000. Two environmentalists pleaded no contest to battery after that incident for trying to push past a miner and climb a 20-story, earth-moving crane.
Mountaintop removal foes say the industry and its allies are stoking fear and anger among miners and their friends by accusing environmentalists, Congress and the Obama administration of trying to kill coal through regulation and permitting.
Massey equates anti-coal with anti-American. Pittsburgh-based Consol Energy blames the planned layoffs of 482 miners on a lawsuit by the Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition.
Both sides are fighting for a way of life. The miners see the mountains as their livelihood. The environmentalists see them as divine and irreplaceable creations.
Since that slap in June, conflict has manifested itself mainly in harsh words and shows of force: Shout-downs by hundreds of miners at an Army Corps of Engineers hearing; a bare-bellied miner's profane, throat-slitting gesture at a picnic for environmentalists on Kayford Mountain; a curse-laden online tirade in which someone using the screen name "Superhippieslayer" warns, "Look out violence is coming your way. There is a group ready as we speak to eliminate the threat."
The bitter feelings bubble up in comments posted on YouTube video links to incidents like the June 23 protest march where Bonds was slapped. Hundreds of comments were posted after she spoke at a Dec. 7 rally in Charleston, many laced with profanities.
It's to the point where Bonds, a diminutive 57-year-old, has installed home-security cameras, carries a handgun and checks her car for dangling bomb wires.
"I feel a sense of dread," she said. "You're taking your life in your hands if they know who you are."
Lorelei Scarbro, an activist with Coal River Mountain Watch, said the industry provokes the miners as it demonizes the environmentalists.
"It's not the working man that's the problem here," Scarbro said. "It's the industry and the way they continue to use and exploit people on both sides of the issue, whether it's the working man trying to take care of his family or the environmentalist trying to take care of us all."
Environmentalists use words like "corrupt," "greedy" and "thugs" to describe the pro-coal establishment. Industry counters with words like "hippies," "extremists" and "terrorists."
The West Virginia Coal Association dismisses much of the inflammatory language as harmless rhetoric, to be expected when jobs are on the line.
"We absolutely don't condone people who use threats, intimidation and general thuggism," said senior vice president Chris Hamilton. However, "from our standpoint, it's more difficult to engage in constructive discussion with someone who has as their primary objective to shut the industry down."
Neither side is backing down.
"People are not going to just roll over and let their livelihood be regulated out of business," said Beckley coal truck supplier Carl Hubbard, who bemoaned "limp-wristed greeniacs" in a recent newspaper column. "God put that coal here for us to mine, in my view."
There have been pleas to tone things down.
In July, after the South Charleston Museum board of directors canceled the premiere of the film "Coal Country" over unspecified security concerns, the West Virginia Council of Churches begged both sides to respect the rights of lawful assembly and free speech.
Months later, executive director Dennis Sparks is still waiting: "There's not a day goes by that we don't lift it up in prayer."
Politicians and power brokers have generally responded by inciting or standing indifferent. Take state Senate Majority Leader Truman Chafin: "The Lord didn't create many things without a purpose. But mosquitoes and the EPA come close, I think."
U.S. Sen. Robert C. Byrd recently became an important exception, rebuking the industry.
"The most important factor in maintaining coal-related jobs is demand for coal," he said. "Scapegoating and stoking fear among workers over the permitting process is counterproductive."
Elsewhere, rhetoric might be dismissed as just that, but the coalfields have a bloody history.
In 1920, a shootout between unionizing miners and coal company security guards left 12 men dead on the streets of Matewan, W.Va. The 1921 Battle of Blair Mountain, an armed union uprising, eventually required the intervention of federal troops. During a union strike in the 1980s, car windows were smashed and shots were fired.
"But this is different," said William Kovarik, an associate professor at Radford University in Virginia who studies and teaches the history of environmental movements worldwide.
Now the conflict is between miners and people within their own communities.
"Union and nonunion workers are being told by management that their livelihoods are at great risk from out-of-state environmentalists," Kovarik said. "Management is going out of its way to equate them with terrorists, when in reality, they are their own neighbors, grandparents, retired coal miners and college students."
And dehumanizing your opponent, Kovarik said, can open the door to real violence.
Activist Chuck Nelson, a former underground miner from Glen Daniel, said the longer surface miners face uncertainty, the more the danger grows: The federal government must act soon, one way or the other.
And if the EPA comes down on the environmentalists' side?
"Well," Nelson said, "there's a possibility it might not be safe to live in the Coal River Valley."
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
GE to provide turbines for big wind farm
By Julie Schmit http://www.pennenergy.com/index/articles/newsdisplay/138768787.html
The largest wind farm proposed in the U.S. will be built in Oregon and provide enough power for 235,000 homes and use $1.4 billion in turbines and services from GE, the companies said Thursday.
When completed in 2012, the $2 billion Shepherds Flat wind farm will be larger than any wind farm in operation worldwide, GE says.
Now, the largest operating wind farm in the world is the 781-megawatt farm near Roscoe, Texas, the American Wind Energy Association says. The Oregon farm is planned to cover 30 square miles and produce 845 megawatts of power.
Wind farms have ratcheted up in size in recent years as developers seek economies of scale, says Vic Abate, GE vice president of renewables.
The larger projects also underscore the rapid rise of wind-generated power in the U.S. In the past two years, 40% of new electricity added to the grid came from wind, Abate says. Wind generates about 2% of the nation's electricity.
It's growing abroad, too. Earlier this year, a 1,000-megawatt offshore wind farm was announced that's expected to supply power to a quarter of the homes in the greater London area. That first phase of the project is also expected to be completed in 2012 and will be 630 megawatts, the developers have said. The second phase would take it to 1,000 megawatts.
Oregon ranks fifth among states in existing wind projects, following Texas, Iowa, California and Minnesota, the American Wind Energy Association says. Oregon has been aggressively pursuing renewable-energy firms with a 50% tax credit to offset capital costs.
Although in Oregon, the Shepherds Flat farm will supply energy to California's Southern California Edison utility, which must secure 33% of its power from renewable sources by 2020.
The Shepherds Flat farm is being built by New York-based Caithness Energy. Construction will begin next year. In addition to supplying 338 wind turbines, GE will provide 10 years of operational and maintenance services to the project.
The farm, to be constructed in north-central Oregon in Gilliam and Morrow counties, will employ 400 workers during construction and 35 during operation, Caithness Energy says. It's received the majority of the permits it needs, the companies say. Gilliam County has 1,850 people, County Judge Pat Shaw says. "This is a big thing," she says.
By Julie Schmit http://www.pennenergy.com/index/articles/newsdisplay/138768787.html
The largest wind farm proposed in the U.S. will be built in Oregon and provide enough power for 235,000 homes and use $1.4 billion in turbines and services from GE, the companies said Thursday.
When completed in 2012, the $2 billion Shepherds Flat wind farm will be larger than any wind farm in operation worldwide, GE says.
Now, the largest operating wind farm in the world is the 781-megawatt farm near Roscoe, Texas, the American Wind Energy Association says. The Oregon farm is planned to cover 30 square miles and produce 845 megawatts of power.
Wind farms have ratcheted up in size in recent years as developers seek economies of scale, says Vic Abate, GE vice president of renewables.
The larger projects also underscore the rapid rise of wind-generated power in the U.S. In the past two years, 40% of new electricity added to the grid came from wind, Abate says. Wind generates about 2% of the nation's electricity.
It's growing abroad, too. Earlier this year, a 1,000-megawatt offshore wind farm was announced that's expected to supply power to a quarter of the homes in the greater London area. That first phase of the project is also expected to be completed in 2012 and will be 630 megawatts, the developers have said. The second phase would take it to 1,000 megawatts.
Oregon ranks fifth among states in existing wind projects, following Texas, Iowa, California and Minnesota, the American Wind Energy Association says. Oregon has been aggressively pursuing renewable-energy firms with a 50% tax credit to offset capital costs.
Although in Oregon, the Shepherds Flat farm will supply energy to California's Southern California Edison utility, which must secure 33% of its power from renewable sources by 2020.
The Shepherds Flat farm is being built by New York-based Caithness Energy. Construction will begin next year. In addition to supplying 338 wind turbines, GE will provide 10 years of operational and maintenance services to the project.
The farm, to be constructed in north-central Oregon in Gilliam and Morrow counties, will employ 400 workers during construction and 35 during operation, Caithness Energy says. It's received the majority of the permits it needs, the companies say. Gilliam County has 1,850 people, County Judge Pat Shaw says. "This is a big thing," she says.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Heated Words at Electric City Power Board Meeting
Originally printed at http://www.kfbb.com/news/local/78741742.html
Heated debate continued tonight (Monday, 12/7) in Great Falls over the city's involvement with the electricity supplier known as Electric City Power.
It was ECP’s first board meeting since the release of a consulting firm's financial review. It is also the first meeting since ECP was fined about $23,000 by the Public Service Commission.
The report suggests that the city should continue its involvement with the ECP. The ECP Board moved to postpone action on the report until next month, when newly-elected city commissioners will be present, as well as a representative from engineering firm Burns and McDonnell of Kansas City.
"The City has lost millions because of ECP,” said Great Falls CPA Larry Rezentes. “There is no good reason to have it."
"It's good for the city to have its own power,” said ECP Board Member Ole Stimac. “They can lure companies to Great Falls."
Last week, the Public Service Commission fined ECP more than $23,000 for failing to obtain renewable energy credits in 2008. The board says it was a misinterpretation of regulation and that their waivers requests were denied. But some feel it is troubling news.
"I'm concerned about the fines because the tax payers have to pay the fines," said Aart Dolman of Citizens for Clean Energy
ECP has 18 customers. It has operated in Great Falls since 2006. The consultant's report recommends the city continue supplying ECP customers will electricity. Critics say the report is flawed and should have been conducted by an independent committee.
"We created a big problem by foolishly getting involved in an endeavor with no competency or background to manage it," Rezentes said.
"I hope that ECP can go forward and build the Highwood Station," said Stimac. “I hope we can look back on this someday and say we made the right decision."
The EPC board says it will formally discuss the consultant's report at a meeting in January, and invites city officials and the general public. Officials from Burns and McDonnell could appear via teleconference.
Heated Words at Electric City Power Board Meeting*
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Historic EPA finding: Greenhouse gases harm humans
By H. JOSEF HEBERT and DINA CAPPIELLO, Associated Press Writers
December 7, 2009
WASHINGTON – The Obama administration took a major step Monday toward imposing the first federal limits on climate-changing pollution from cars, power plants and factories, declaring there was compelling scientific evidence that global warming from manmade greenhouse gases endangers Americans' health.
The announcement by the Environmental Protection Agency was clearly timed to build momentum toward an agreement at the international conference on climate change that opened Monday in Copenhagen, Denmark. It signaled the administration was prepared to push ahead for significant controls in the U.S. if Congress doesn't act first on its own.
The price could be steep for both industry and consumers. The EPA finding clears the way for rules that eventually could force the sale of more fuel-efficient vehicles and require plants to install costly new equipment — at a cost of billions or even many tens of billions of dollars — or shift to other forms of energy.
No analysis has been conducted by the EPA on costs of such broad regulations, although the agency put the price tag of its proposed climate-related car rules at $60 billion, with an estimated benefit of $250 billion.
Energy prices for many Americans probably would rise, too — though Monday's finding will have no immediate impact since regulations have yet to be written. Supporters of separate legislation in Congress argue they could craft measures that would mitigate some of those costs.
Environmentalists hailed the EPA announcement as a clear indication the United States will take steps to attack climate change even if Congress fails to act. And they welcomed the timing of the declaration, saying it will help the Obama administration convince delegates at the international climate talks that the U.S. is serious about addressing the problem. Obama will address the conference next week.
But business groups said regulating carbon emissions through the EPA under existing clean air law would put new economic burdens on manufacturers, cost jobs and drive up energy prices.
"It will choke off growth by adding new mandates to virtually every major construction and renovation project," declared Thomas Donohue, president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which in recent months has been particularly critical of the EPA's attempt to address climate change.
The EPA signaled last April that it was inclined to view heat-trapping pollution as a threat to public health and welfare and began to take public comments for formal rulemaking. That marked a reversal from the Bush administration, which had refused to issue the finding, despite a conclusion by EPA scientists that it was warranted.
EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said Monday, "There are no more excuses for delaying," adding that the so-called endangerment analysis from global warming had been under consideration at the agency for three years. After the official finding, she said the agency is now "obligated to make reasonable efforts to reduce greenhouse pollutants under the Clean Air Act."
White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said President Barack Obama "still believes the best way to move forward is through the legislative process" — something Obama has expressed on a number of occasions as he has pressed Congress to shift the nation's energy priorities away from fossil fuels and to reduce climate-changing pollution.
The EPA said scientific evidence clearly shows that greenhouse gases "threaten the public health and welfare of the American people" and that the pollutants — mainly carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels — should be reduced, if not by Congress then by the agency responsible for enforcing air pollution.
"These long-overdue findings cement 2009's place in history as the year when the United States government began addressing the challenge of greenhouse-gas pollution," said Jackson.
She rejected claims by climate skeptics that the science of global warming remains in doubt, an argument given additional attention in recent weeks with the disclosure through intercepted e-mails that a British scientist had privately discussed ways to shield certain climate data from public scrutiny.
"The vast body of evidence not only remains unassailable, it has grown even stronger," said Jackson.
Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., a lead author of a climate bill before the Senate, said of the finding: "This is a clear message to Copenhagen of the Obama administration's commitments to address global climate change. ... The message to Congress is crystal clear: Get moving."
Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., also a co-author, said, "The Senate has a duty to act."
Business groups have strongly argued against tackling global warming through the Clean Air Act, saying it is less flexible and more costly than the cap-and-trade legislation being considered by Congress. Any regulations from the EPA are certain to spawn lawsuits and a lengthy legal fights.
"Such regulations would be intrusive, inefficient and excessively costly, chill job growth and delay business expansion," argued Jack Gerard, president of the American Petroleum Institute, which also has been critical of the climate legislation before Congress.
"The Clean Air Act can complement legislation," said Jackson. In fact, if Congress were to cap greenhouse gas emissions, the EPA probably would be given the responsibility of implementing the law.
The EPA's involvement in reducing climate-changing pollution, stems from a 2007 Supreme Court decision that declared that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are pollutants under the Clean Air Act. But the court said the EPA would have to determine if these pollutants pose a danger to public health and welfare before it could regulate them.
By H. JOSEF HEBERT and DINA CAPPIELLO, Associated Press Writers
December 7, 2009
WASHINGTON – The Obama administration took a major step Monday toward imposing the first federal limits on climate-changing pollution from cars, power plants and factories, declaring there was compelling scientific evidence that global warming from manmade greenhouse gases endangers Americans' health.
The announcement by the Environmental Protection Agency was clearly timed to build momentum toward an agreement at the international conference on climate change that opened Monday in Copenhagen, Denmark. It signaled the administration was prepared to push ahead for significant controls in the U.S. if Congress doesn't act first on its own.
The price could be steep for both industry and consumers. The EPA finding clears the way for rules that eventually could force the sale of more fuel-efficient vehicles and require plants to install costly new equipment — at a cost of billions or even many tens of billions of dollars — or shift to other forms of energy.
No analysis has been conducted by the EPA on costs of such broad regulations, although the agency put the price tag of its proposed climate-related car rules at $60 billion, with an estimated benefit of $250 billion.
Energy prices for many Americans probably would rise, too — though Monday's finding will have no immediate impact since regulations have yet to be written. Supporters of separate legislation in Congress argue they could craft measures that would mitigate some of those costs.
Environmentalists hailed the EPA announcement as a clear indication the United States will take steps to attack climate change even if Congress fails to act. And they welcomed the timing of the declaration, saying it will help the Obama administration convince delegates at the international climate talks that the U.S. is serious about addressing the problem. Obama will address the conference next week.
But business groups said regulating carbon emissions through the EPA under existing clean air law would put new economic burdens on manufacturers, cost jobs and drive up energy prices.
"It will choke off growth by adding new mandates to virtually every major construction and renovation project," declared Thomas Donohue, president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which in recent months has been particularly critical of the EPA's attempt to address climate change.
The EPA signaled last April that it was inclined to view heat-trapping pollution as a threat to public health and welfare and began to take public comments for formal rulemaking. That marked a reversal from the Bush administration, which had refused to issue the finding, despite a conclusion by EPA scientists that it was warranted.
EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said Monday, "There are no more excuses for delaying," adding that the so-called endangerment analysis from global warming had been under consideration at the agency for three years. After the official finding, she said the agency is now "obligated to make reasonable efforts to reduce greenhouse pollutants under the Clean Air Act."
White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said President Barack Obama "still believes the best way to move forward is through the legislative process" — something Obama has expressed on a number of occasions as he has pressed Congress to shift the nation's energy priorities away from fossil fuels and to reduce climate-changing pollution.
The EPA said scientific evidence clearly shows that greenhouse gases "threaten the public health and welfare of the American people" and that the pollutants — mainly carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels — should be reduced, if not by Congress then by the agency responsible for enforcing air pollution.
"These long-overdue findings cement 2009's place in history as the year when the United States government began addressing the challenge of greenhouse-gas pollution," said Jackson.
She rejected claims by climate skeptics that the science of global warming remains in doubt, an argument given additional attention in recent weeks with the disclosure through intercepted e-mails that a British scientist had privately discussed ways to shield certain climate data from public scrutiny.
"The vast body of evidence not only remains unassailable, it has grown even stronger," said Jackson.
Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., a lead author of a climate bill before the Senate, said of the finding: "This is a clear message to Copenhagen of the Obama administration's commitments to address global climate change. ... The message to Congress is crystal clear: Get moving."
Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., also a co-author, said, "The Senate has a duty to act."
Business groups have strongly argued against tackling global warming through the Clean Air Act, saying it is less flexible and more costly than the cap-and-trade legislation being considered by Congress. Any regulations from the EPA are certain to spawn lawsuits and a lengthy legal fights.
"Such regulations would be intrusive, inefficient and excessively costly, chill job growth and delay business expansion," argued Jack Gerard, president of the American Petroleum Institute, which also has been critical of the climate legislation before Congress.
"The Clean Air Act can complement legislation," said Jackson. In fact, if Congress were to cap greenhouse gas emissions, the EPA probably would be given the responsibility of implementing the law.
The EPA's involvement in reducing climate-changing pollution, stems from a 2007 Supreme Court decision that declared that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are pollutants under the Clean Air Act. But the court said the EPA would have to determine if these pollutants pose a danger to public health and welfare before it could regulate them.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
UN says climate finale may have happy ending
By ARTHUR MAX, Associated Press Writer
December 6, 2009
COPENHAGEN – Delegates converged Sunday for the grand finale of two years of tough, sometimes bitter negotiations on a climate change treaty, as U.N. officials calculated that pledges offered in the last few weeks to reduce greenhouse gases put the world within reach of keeping global warming under control.
Yvo de Boer, the U.N.'s top climate official, said on the eve of the 192-nation conference that despite unprecedented unity and concessions, industrial countries and emerging nations need to dig deeper.
"Time is up," de Boer said. "Over the next two weeks governments have to deliver."
Finance — billions of dollars immediately and hundreds of billions of dollars annually within a decade — was emerging as the key to unblocking an agreement that would bind the global community to a sweeping plan to combat climate change.
Nations also must need to commit to larger emission reductions, de Boer said.
South Africa on Sunday became the latest country to announce an emissions target. It said over the next 10 years it would reduce emissions by 34 percent from "business as usual," the level they would reach under ordinary circumstances. By 2025 that figure would peak at 42 percent, effectively leveling off and thereafter begin to decline.
"This makes South Africa one of the stars of the negotiations," said the environmental group Greenpeace.
President Barack Obama's decision to attend the conclusion of the two-week conference, after phone consultations with other heads of state, was taken as a signal that an agreement was getting closer. He originally planned to make an hourslong stop in the Danish capital this week.
More than 100 heads of state and government have said they will attend the last day or two, making Copenhagen the largest and most important summit ever held on climate.
"Never in the 17 years of climate negotiations have so many different nations made so many firm pledges together," de Boer said. "It's simply unprecedented."
Some were arriving to the summit on trains splashed with a green stripe to symbolize efforts to reduce the convention's carbon footprint. One train carried 450 U.N. officials, delegates, climate activists and journalists from Brussels and more trains were leaving from other European capitals.
Along with roughly 15,000 delegates and at least 100 world leaders, officials expect many protesters to descend on Copenhagen for the climate conference. Authorities were beefing up security in preparation.
A study released by the U.N. Environment Program Sunday indicated that pledges by industrial countries and major emerging nations fall just short of the reductions of greenhouse gas emissions that scientists have said are needed.
"For those who claim a deal in Copenhagen is impossible, they are simply wrong," said U.N. Environment Program Director Achim Steiner, releasing the report compiled by British economist Lord Nicholas Stern and the Grantham Research Institute.
Environmentalists have warned that emissions commitments were dangerously short of what U.N. scientists have said were needed to keep average temperatures from rising more than 2 degrees C (3.6F).
But most of those warnings were based on pledges only from industrial countries. The U.N. report included pledges from China and other rapidly developing countries, which in turn were contingent on rich-country funding to help.
All countries together should emit no more than 44 billion tons of carbon dioxide by 2020 to avoid the worst consequences of a warming world, the report said.
Computing the high end of all commitments publicly announced so far, the report said emissions will total some 46 billion tons annually in 2020. Emissions today are about 47 billion tons.
"We are within a few gigatons of having a deal," Steiner said. "The gap has narrowed significantly."
Negotiations on a new climate treaty began in earnest two years ago with the aim of crafting a successor to the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, which bound industrial countries to cut emissions of carbon dioxide and other Earth-warming gases from 1990 levels, but which made no obligations on countries such as India and China. That omission caused much resentment and the United States rejected Kyoto.
Months of deadlock were broken in the last few weeks when China and India announced voluntary targets for lowering the greenhouse gas component of economic growth. Emissions would continue to climb, but at a lower rate. They said, however, they would not accept legally binding targets that could imply consequences if they fall short.
At the same time, Obama said he would commit to an emissions cut of 17 percent from 2005, even though those cuts have not yet been approved by Congress.
U.S. can show flexibility, even if it cannot raise its emissions offer, said Jonathan Pershing, the senior U.S. delegate at the talks. He said the Obama administration was showing its seriousness through budget allocations and regulatory actions on big polluters.
Pershing defended the U.S. position as a radical change from the former administration under George W. Bush.
A year ago "we had a position that this issue was not essential and not critical," he said, calling the shift staggering. "Think about how long it takes for a major country to fundamentally change its position, and this is a miraculously short period of rapid change," he said.
Delegates from several developing countries, however, were less optimistic, and were concerned that the major powers were cutting a deal behind the scenes that could betray the interests of poorer nations.
By ARTHUR MAX, Associated Press Writer
December 6, 2009
COPENHAGEN – Delegates converged Sunday for the grand finale of two years of tough, sometimes bitter negotiations on a climate change treaty, as U.N. officials calculated that pledges offered in the last few weeks to reduce greenhouse gases put the world within reach of keeping global warming under control.
Yvo de Boer, the U.N.'s top climate official, said on the eve of the 192-nation conference that despite unprecedented unity and concessions, industrial countries and emerging nations need to dig deeper.
"Time is up," de Boer said. "Over the next two weeks governments have to deliver."
Finance — billions of dollars immediately and hundreds of billions of dollars annually within a decade — was emerging as the key to unblocking an agreement that would bind the global community to a sweeping plan to combat climate change.
Nations also must need to commit to larger emission reductions, de Boer said.
South Africa on Sunday became the latest country to announce an emissions target. It said over the next 10 years it would reduce emissions by 34 percent from "business as usual," the level they would reach under ordinary circumstances. By 2025 that figure would peak at 42 percent, effectively leveling off and thereafter begin to decline.
"This makes South Africa one of the stars of the negotiations," said the environmental group Greenpeace.
President Barack Obama's decision to attend the conclusion of the two-week conference, after phone consultations with other heads of state, was taken as a signal that an agreement was getting closer. He originally planned to make an hourslong stop in the Danish capital this week.
More than 100 heads of state and government have said they will attend the last day or two, making Copenhagen the largest and most important summit ever held on climate.
"Never in the 17 years of climate negotiations have so many different nations made so many firm pledges together," de Boer said. "It's simply unprecedented."
Some were arriving to the summit on trains splashed with a green stripe to symbolize efforts to reduce the convention's carbon footprint. One train carried 450 U.N. officials, delegates, climate activists and journalists from Brussels and more trains were leaving from other European capitals.
Along with roughly 15,000 delegates and at least 100 world leaders, officials expect many protesters to descend on Copenhagen for the climate conference. Authorities were beefing up security in preparation.
A study released by the U.N. Environment Program Sunday indicated that pledges by industrial countries and major emerging nations fall just short of the reductions of greenhouse gas emissions that scientists have said are needed.
"For those who claim a deal in Copenhagen is impossible, they are simply wrong," said U.N. Environment Program Director Achim Steiner, releasing the report compiled by British economist Lord Nicholas Stern and the Grantham Research Institute.
Environmentalists have warned that emissions commitments were dangerously short of what U.N. scientists have said were needed to keep average temperatures from rising more than 2 degrees C (3.6F).
But most of those warnings were based on pledges only from industrial countries. The U.N. report included pledges from China and other rapidly developing countries, which in turn were contingent on rich-country funding to help.
All countries together should emit no more than 44 billion tons of carbon dioxide by 2020 to avoid the worst consequences of a warming world, the report said.
Computing the high end of all commitments publicly announced so far, the report said emissions will total some 46 billion tons annually in 2020. Emissions today are about 47 billion tons.
"We are within a few gigatons of having a deal," Steiner said. "The gap has narrowed significantly."
Negotiations on a new climate treaty began in earnest two years ago with the aim of crafting a successor to the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, which bound industrial countries to cut emissions of carbon dioxide and other Earth-warming gases from 1990 levels, but which made no obligations on countries such as India and China. That omission caused much resentment and the United States rejected Kyoto.
Months of deadlock were broken in the last few weeks when China and India announced voluntary targets for lowering the greenhouse gas component of economic growth. Emissions would continue to climb, but at a lower rate. They said, however, they would not accept legally binding targets that could imply consequences if they fall short.
At the same time, Obama said he would commit to an emissions cut of 17 percent from 2005, even though those cuts have not yet been approved by Congress.
U.S. can show flexibility, even if it cannot raise its emissions offer, said Jonathan Pershing, the senior U.S. delegate at the talks. He said the Obama administration was showing its seriousness through budget allocations and regulatory actions on big polluters.
Pershing defended the U.S. position as a radical change from the former administration under George W. Bush.
A year ago "we had a position that this issue was not essential and not critical," he said, calling the shift staggering. "Think about how long it takes for a major country to fundamentally change its position, and this is a miraculously short period of rapid change," he said.
Delegates from several developing countries, however, were less optimistic, and were concerned that the major powers were cutting a deal behind the scenes that could betray the interests of poorer nations.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Duke Energy brings Wyoming wind farm on line
Associated Press | Posted: Wednesday, December 2, 2009 6:55 am
CHEYENNE, Wyo. - Duke Energy says it has brought a 99-megawatt wind farm on line in Converse County.
The Campbell Hill project's 66 turbines produce enough electricity to power about 30,000 homes each year.
Duke says the project will supply wind energy to PacifiCorp under a 20-year purchase agreement.
Duke Energy also has announced plans to build a 200-megawatt wind power project near Casper next year.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
$23,260
November 30th, 2009 by Travis Kavulla
Just got off the phone with a staffer at the Public Service Commission. The above figure is the amount of the fine levied against Electric City Power for its management’s failure to procure renewable energy credits in 2008, as required by state law.
Since the law requires public utilities not to raise rates to pay such fines, looks like it’ll be coming out of the City’s tax dollars.
This is such a clear demonstration of why the City should not have a power company; it simply is too small and inexperienced to have the needed organizational competence to navigate the myriad laws and administrative rules that govern this particular topic.
You can follow the whole story at this link: http://electriccityweblog.com/?p=6859
November 30th, 2009 by Travis Kavulla
Just got off the phone with a staffer at the Public Service Commission. The above figure is the amount of the fine levied against Electric City Power for its management’s failure to procure renewable energy credits in 2008, as required by state law.
Since the law requires public utilities not to raise rates to pay such fines, looks like it’ll be coming out of the City’s tax dollars.
This is such a clear demonstration of why the City should not have a power company; it simply is too small and inexperienced to have the needed organizational competence to navigate the myriad laws and administrative rules that govern this particular topic.
You can follow the whole story at this link: http://electriccityweblog.com/?p=6859
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Rehberg opposes legislation that would bring clean energy jobs to Montana
JASON KIELY | Posted: Wednesday, November 25, 2009 12:00 am
Earlier this year, when given a clear choice between supporting new clean energy jobs for Montana or continuing to line the pockets of the big oil companies, Rep. Denny Rehberg sided with Big Oil.
Rehberg voted against a comprehensive clean energy jobs bill that would tap American ingenuity to jump-start technological advances and create more clean American power. He voted against the American Clean Energy and Security Act, which passed the U.S. House with bipartisan support.
Costs exaggerated
Instead of embracing America’s clean energy future, Rehberg (Nov. 22 guest opinion) continues singing from Big Oil’s song book, citing stats from the oil-industry-funded Heritage Foundation. The fact is that Big Oil and corporate polluters are grossly exaggerating the cost of clean energy legislation in an effort to block needed reform and protect their profits. Those same Washington special interests are filling Rep. Rehberg’s campaign war chest — he’s received more than $500,000 in contributions from Big Oil and energy interests.
Despite the congressman’s claims of supporting alternative energy, Rehberg has repeatedly said “no” when it comes to clean energy. Last year, when it very clearly came down to choosing between job-creating tax incentives for clean energy or protecting Big Oil’s profits, Rehberg voted to continue billions in taxpayer-funded giveaways to the oil industry.
Big Oil has been putting those corporate profits to good use with an anti-clean energy smear campaign. In 2008, the American Petroleum Institute spent over $75 million for public relations and advertising. In just the first six months of this year the oil and gas industries have doled out more than $82 million on lobbying.
We all know that Montana families are struggling and that the state has lost thousands of jobs, but the regressive energy policies supported by Rehberg and Big Oil won’t get us out of this mess. We’re spending $1 billion a day on foreign oil — money that could be invested to create clean energy jobs here at home. But without real reform to our energy policy, corporate polluters will continue to make record profits while family budgets suffer.
6,000 new energy jobs
The truth is that a comprehensive approach to energy — including limits on carbon pollution — will create the necessary stability in the market for clean energy industries to invest in their businesses and create new jobs. Analysis shows the bill would help bring more than 6,000 new jobs and $460 million in investment revenue into Montana, according to the Political Economy Research Institute at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst.
These new clean energy jobs look a lot like traditional American jobs: building wind power turbines requires sheet metal workers, machinists and truckers, and installing solar panels and improving the energy efficiency of our buildings creates work for roofers and carpenters. And while transitioning to a clean energy economy will require some short-term costs — about $175 a year per household — it’s better to invest that money in clean energy sources that are made in America than to let the new energy jobs of the future go overseas.
Now the campaign for energy reform moves on to the U.S. Senate. While Sen. Max Baucus did not vote for the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act in committee, we are encouraged by his recent statements of support for climate legislation and his commitment to work to get legislation through the Senate. We look forward to working with both Sens. Baucus and Tester to pass a strong, comprehensive clean energy and climate bill that creates new jobs, makes the United States more energy independent and protects Montana’s outdoors for future generations.
Jason Kiely, of Missoula, works for a renewable chemical business and volunteers as chairman of the Montana Conservation Voters board of directors.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Wind Development Seminar
Landowners concerned with commercial wind lease agreements and people
interested in small wind systems will have an opportunity to learn about
wind energy on Dec. 7 in Great Falls and Dec. 8 in Cut Bank.
MSU Extension is providing two, one-day trainings on issues of wind
energy, ranging from commercial wind development and land leasing issues
to small wind system information for homeowners.
The Central Montana Wind Energy Update will begin in Great Falls at the
MSU College of Technology, Heritage Hall at 11:30 a.m. on Dec. 7.
The same session will begin at the Elk’s Club at 11:30 a.m. in Cut Bank on
Dec. 8.
The first several hours of the update will provide landowners with a
review of commercial wind energy activity in the state, an overview of
legal issues to consider when leasing by James Hackstaff of Hackstaff,
Gessler, LLC, a law firm from Denver, perspectives on leasing from a
commercial wind developer, compass wind, an overview of landowner
association models, and an update on transmission line developments in
Montana.
The small wind session, which will begin at 6 p.m., will provide
information to the general public on small wind systems, how to select a
system, and financial assistance programs that can help to off-set
expenses associated with system installation.
The same session will be offered in both Great Falls and Cut Bank. A free
lunch will be served at both locations, but pre-registration for the meal
is required by noon on Dec. 4.
Please contact MSU Extension Cascade County (406) 454-6980 or MSU
Extension Glacier County (406) 873-2239 for further information.
Landowners concerned with commercial wind lease agreements and people
interested in small wind systems will have an opportunity to learn about
wind energy on Dec. 7 in Great Falls and Dec. 8 in Cut Bank.
MSU Extension is providing two, one-day trainings on issues of wind
energy, ranging from commercial wind development and land leasing issues
to small wind system information for homeowners.
The Central Montana Wind Energy Update will begin in Great Falls at the
MSU College of Technology, Heritage Hall at 11:30 a.m. on Dec. 7.
The same session will begin at the Elk’s Club at 11:30 a.m. in Cut Bank on
Dec. 8.
The first several hours of the update will provide landowners with a
review of commercial wind energy activity in the state, an overview of
legal issues to consider when leasing by James Hackstaff of Hackstaff,
Gessler, LLC, a law firm from Denver, perspectives on leasing from a
commercial wind developer, compass wind, an overview of landowner
association models, and an update on transmission line developments in
Montana.
The small wind session, which will begin at 6 p.m., will provide
information to the general public on small wind systems, how to select a
system, and financial assistance programs that can help to off-set
expenses associated with system installation.
The same session will be offered in both Great Falls and Cut Bank. A free
lunch will be served at both locations, but pre-registration for the meal
is required by noon on Dec. 4.
Please contact MSU Extension Cascade County (406) 454-6980 or MSU
Extension Glacier County (406) 873-2239 for further information.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Mayor Stebbins and Commissioners:
Please find attached a press release from Southern and a memorandum from Coleen describing the asset impairment process discussed by the Southern Board today. As I understand it, the write-down reduces the asset value of the city’s investment in the coal version of Highwood.
- Gtd
Gregory T. Doyon
City Manager
Great Falls, Montana
Office (406) 455-8450
Fax (406) 727-0005
Please find attached a press release from Southern and a memorandum from Coleen describing the asset impairment process discussed by the Southern Board today. As I understand it, the write-down reduces the asset value of the city’s investment in the coal version of Highwood.
- Gtd
Gregory T. Doyon
City Manager
Great Falls, Montana
Office (406) 455-8450
Fax (406) 727-0005
Inter-Office Memorandum City of Great Falls, Montana
DATE: November 20, 2009
TO: Greg Doyon, ECP Board Members
FROM: Coleen Balzarini, Fiscal Services Director
SUBJECT: HGS Asset Impairment
The Southern Montana Electric G&T’s (Southern) November 2009 Board meeting was held on Friday November 20, 2009, in Billings Montana.
The results of Southern's 2008 independent financial audit were presented to the Southern Board. The independent auditor’s opinion concluded that the financial statements, prepared by Southern, and independently audited, present fairly the financial condition of Southern. A motion was made, seconded, and passed to accept the audited financial report as presented.
A financial reporting adjustment, described as an “asset impairment” was included in Southern’s 2008 audited financial statements. An “asset impairment” occurs when there is a significant decline in the service utility of a capital asset. The impairment event must be conspicuous and known, and typically will have prompted discussion by the governing board, management, and/or the media.
Earlier this year, a decision was made to cease activities related to construction of a 250 MW circulating fluidized bed (CFB) coal-fired generating facility and direct efforts towards permitting and construction of a 120 MW gas-fired generating facility instead. The gas-fired facility will serve a portion of the energy needs of Southern’s members. The balance of energy needs will be served via energy supply contracts. Therefore, any monies previously paid out related to the CFB facility can no longer be reflected as construction of a long-lived earning asset on the balance sheets of Southern or its members.
The restatement of Electric City Power's financial statements will have the effect of moving $905,019 in historical costs paid to Southern from ECP's balance sheet to the FY 2009 operating statement. In other words, part of the booked value of an asset from prior years is now required to become an expense in FY 2009. The monies paid out in prior years were for site-selection, site-development, permitting, design, and construction.
The evaluation of the extent of the “asset impairment” was conducted in compliance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) as described in Financial Accounting Standards (FAS) Statements 71 and 90 and the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) Statement No. 42. Two consultants with expertise in asset valuations were engaged by Southern to determine which historic costs could continue to be reflected on the balance sheet as costs related to the 120 MW gas-fired generating facility. If the analysis demonstrated that the historical costs provided value to the gas-fired facility, then the value remains as an asset on the balance sheet. Historical costs attributable to the CFB facility have no future earning potential and therefore are restated as an expense in the operating statement.
The independent auditor then conducted their own due diligence in regards to the methodology used by Southern to evaluate the asset impairment. They reviewed legal documents related to Southern’s operations to understand the legal structure, duties, and obligations of Southern to its members in relation to the asset impairment evaluation. The auditor does not disagree with the analysis and process used by Southern to determine the value of the impairment or the cost allocation of the impairment to each of its six Southern members.
It is my recommendation that ECP rely upon the analysis conducted by Southern's experts and adjust ECP's financial statements in accordance with the values determined to be applicable to the City's investment in this endeavor. It is also my recommendation that $239,485 of capitalized interest expense reflected on ECP's balance sheet also be considered an impaired asset and expensed in the same manner.
There is no additional financial impacts to the City or ECP because of this financial reporting adjustment. The rates charged to ECP customers in future periods continue to be the source of payment for these previously incurred costs.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Baucus votes no on climate-change bill, but says he supports the effort
MIKE DENNISON Gazette State Bureau | Posted: Thursday, November 5, 2009 5:30 pm
HELENA - Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., was the only Democrat Thursday to vote against a climate-change bill that Democrats rammed through a Senate committee - but he said he still supports the effort to limit greenhouse gases causing global warming and pass a bill.
"I am committed to passing meaningful, balanced climate-change legislation - legislation that will protect our land and those whose livelihood depends on it," he said in a statement before his vote.
Montana spokesmen for a pair of mainstream conservation groups also said Thursday they believe Baucus wants to get a meaningful bill passed, and don't find his vote troubling.
"Groups that have been working on the bill understand that today's vote was just a step in the process, and we know that Sen. Baucus is working hard to pass strong climate-change legislation in the Senate," said Tom France of Missoula, regional executive director for the National Wildlife Federation.
"I understand that it was important for (Baucus) to address some of the issues he wanted to address in the bill," said Chuck Magraw, a Helena attorney representing the Natural Resource Defense Council.
Democrats on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee voted 11-1 on Thursday to approve the bill, sponsored by Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., sending it to the Senate floor.
Republicans on the panel boycotted the vote, saying they wanted more time to fully examine the bill's impact and cost.
Boxer already had delayed the vote for several days and said the Republican demands for more analysis were "duplicative and a waste of taxpayer dollars."
While the bill advances to the full Senate, supporters acknowledged that it will need 60 votes to break an expected Republican filibuster and said Thursday's vote is one step in what's expected to be a long, contentious road for the bill, which is one of the Obama administration's top priorities.
The measure would limit emissions that cause global warming, like carbon dioxide.
It also creates a system to limit emissions known as "cap and trade," allowing polluters to exceed emission caps if they buy enough credits from nonpolluting industries or sources that take actions to reduce emissions.
While Democrats moved the bill forward, the Republican boycott prevented the committee from taking up any amendments.
Baucus said he believes the current bill's goal of reducing global warming gases 20 percent by 2020 may be too ambitious, and wanted to amend it to 17 percent, with a trigger to go to 20 percent if other countries adopt similar measures.
"While I am voting 'no' on this particular bill, let me be crystal clear," he said. "As a member of the (Environment) and Agriculture committees, and most importantly as a Montanan who wants our children and grandchildren to be able to enjoy the outdoors the way we can today, I'm going to work to get climate-change legislation that can get 60 votes, get through the U.S. Senate and signed into law."
Baucus also mentioned that he sees the effect of global warming in Montana, such as forests being ravaged by pine-beetle infestation, sustained drought and increased wildfires.
Montana's other U.S. senator, Democrat Jon Tester, said he has concerns about the bill, too, such as trading energy "credits" under the cap-and-trade system like commodities.
"I have real problems with putting folks on Wall Street in charge of our energy security, given their record over the past few years," he said in a statement. "I want a plan that protects and creates jobs across Montana and rural America and strengthens our national and economic security by harnessing the potential of clean, homegrown energy."
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
November 3, 2009
Winters tops Bronson for city mayor; Burow, Jones claim commission seats
Newcomers took all three seats Tuesday night in the Great Falls city general election.
Michael Winters, founder of the Montana Veterans Memorial, defeated Commissioner Bill Bronson in the mayor’s race. On the commissioners’ side, auctioneer Fred Burow and retired police chief Robert Jones defeated incumbent John Rosenbaum and Donna Zook. During the campaign, Burow and Zook had roundly criticized the City Commission for debts run up by the city’s electric utility, and for raising property taxes on individual property owners by nearly 5 percent each year from 2003 to 2008. Winters also had criticized city officials for the city’s tight financial picture and for failing to involve citizens in energy decisions. Bronson argued he was best suited to run city meetings and represent the city at ceremonial events, while Rosenbaum pointed to improvements made in Great Falls during his 14 years as commissioner.
Here are the preliminary unofficial vote totals: MAYOR MICHAEL WINTERS, 8,430 votes BILL BRONSON, 5,759 votes
COMMISSIONER FRED BUROW, 7,629 votes ROBERT JONES, 7,256 votes DONNA ZOOK, 6,805 votes JOHN ROSENBAUM, 5,442 votes
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
An Important Message From CCE's Communications Manager
Hello All,
I was able to attend a presentation on mountaintop removal coal mining which is currently taking place in four states in central Appalachia. I was left with a sense of disbelief that such wanton destruction of the environment as well as the horrendous effects on the local populations could even be tolerated in this country.
The presenters were here to ask for our help in persuading Senators Baucus and Tester to cosponsor the Clean Water Protection Act, H.R. 1310. This bill is critical for stopping the dumping of mining waste into adjacent valleys from mountaintop removal coal mining. Support from our senators is crucial to getting this legislation passed.
The intent of this act is to clarify that fill material cannot be comprised of mining waste. Passing this legislation would protect all the nation's rivers, streams, and lakes from being used as garbage dumps for mining waste. It would also help end the destruction of the Appalachian Mountains.
You can contact Senators Baucus and Tester in one of three ways:
Write a short note asking for their support of this bill to:
Sen. Max Baucus Sen. Jon Tester
113 3rd St. North 119 1st Ave. North Suite 102
Great Falls, Mt. 59401 Great Falls, MT. 59401
Sample Note: (include your address so they can send you a reply)
Dear Senator -----------------------
I am writing to ask you to become a cosponsor of the Clean Water Protection Act, H.R. 1310. Please help stop the devastation caused by the dumping of mining waste into the rivers and streams of Appalachia. This would also help protect all of our nation's rivers, streams, and lakes from being used as dumping grounds for mining waste.
Please join the many other representatives who have sponsored this crucial piece of legislation.
Thank you,
name
You can also call the local office of Senator Baucus at 761-1574, and Sen Tester at 452-9585.
You can e-mail Sen Baucus at max@baucus.senate.gov and Sen. Tester at senator@tester.senate.gov.
Thank you for helping!
Jeff Monheim.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
October 27, 2009
Kerry: US leadership at stake in climate debate
WASHINGTON (AP) — Senators tussled over the cost of climate legislation Tuesday with the leading author of the bill maintaining that while energy prices will increase, inaction on global warming would cause even worse economic and security problems.
“Are there some costs? Yes sir, there are some costs,” said Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass.. But of the array of studies that show restricting greenhouse gases will lead to higher energy prices, he said, “none of them factor in the cost of doing nothing.”
Kerry was the leadoff witness as the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee began a series of marathon hearings this week on a bill that would cap greenhouse gas pollution from power plants and large industrial facilities. The bill aims to reduce emissions 80 percent by mid-century. Kerry is an author of the legislation.
Republican members of the panel were in lock step in their criticism of the so-called “cap-and-trade” legislation, characterizing it as a huge energy tax on average Americans.
“Cap and trade is very expensive. This is something the American people can’t tolerate and I don’ think they will,” said Oklahoma Sen. James Inhofe, the panel’s ranking Republican and a vocal skeptic of climate chance science.
But Kerry said it has long been shown that voluntary action has not contained the carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that are being trapped in the atmosphere. Those gases are causing a dangerous warming of the earth, according to many climate scientists.
“Not taking action is more expensive,” said Kerry. He said a curb on fossil fuel use will lead to clean energy jobs and allow the United States to develop new technologies that otherwise would likely be developed by other countries including China.
“America’s leadership is on the line here,” Kerry said.
Top Obama administration officials sounded a similar theme in their testimony before the committee.
Energy Secretary Steven Chu said if the United states does not develop and produce clean energy technologies — from wind turbines to next-generation batteries and solar cells — “China and other countries will.” He said enactment of climate legislation is the “critical step (that) will drive investment decisions toward clean energy” in the United States.
“Only new legislation can bring about the comprehensive and integrated changes that are needed to restore America’s economic health and keep the nation secure over the long term,” added EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson.
But even some Democrats have reservations about the bill assembled by Kerry and Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., the committee chairman.
Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., said he had “serious reservations” about the bill’s aggressive effort to cut emissions over the next decade. The bill calls for greenhouse gases to be cut by 20 percent by 2020 compared to 2005 levels and 43 percent by 2030.
“Montana can’t afford the unmitigated impacts of climate change,” Baucus acknowledged. “But we also cannot afford the unmitigated effects of climate change legislation.” While the state is a producer and user of coal, it also has seen early effects of a warming trend, including loss of glaciers and the destruction of pine trees from a warmer weather beetle infestation.
Republicans complained that Boxer, who hopes to have a vote on the bill in early November, is trying to push the bill through without adequate study into its cost.
“Why are we trying to jam down this legislation now? Wouldn’t it be smarter to take our time and do it right,” said Sen. George Voinovich, R-Ohio. He said it is still unclear how the legislation would affect the price, reliability and supply of electricity or whether it would make a dent in the global warming problem since it is a global environmental concern.
But Kerry said the climate debate has been under way for 20 years and requires urgency. “The science is pleading us to take action,” he said.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Western states' lawmakers stress energy cooperation at forum
Associated Press | Posted: Monday, October 26, 2009 6:25 am
JACKSON, Wyo. - State lawmakers from around the West are gathering in the northern Wyoming resort town of Jackson over the next few days to figure out how to get better coordinated on energy issues. Many are also interested in showing a united front as Congress considers bills that could put a damper on the nation's longterm appetite for coal.
Wyoming has put up more than $400,000 to fund the Western States Energy and Environment Symposium. Organizers say about 75 state lawmakers from around the West are attending.
Wyoming, the leading coal-producing state in the nation, has a keen interest in legislation pending in Congress aimed at tackling global warming. The Senate is set to debate this week a bill intended to cut greenhouse gases by about 80 percent by 2050.
Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyo., told the state lawmakers he's concerned about projections that the pending federal legislation will cut jobs in Wyoming and elsewhere in the West.
"I'm in favor of the green jobs, but I'm also in favor of the red, white and blue jobs that we have right now in the Rocky Mountains," Barrasso said.
"Cap and trade will not keep energy affordable, and will weaken our economy," Barrasso said. The term "cap and trade" refers to a system that would allow companies to buy and sell permits to pollute.
Ted Boyer, a member of the Utah Public Service Commission, said in an interview that it appears bills pending in both the Senate and House would hurt western states that depend on coal-fired plans for the bulk of their power.
Boyer said he hopes western states can work together to reduce the risks of a cap and trade program.
Boyer said western states all have different energy resource portfolios. Wyoming, for example, has developed abundant natural gas and coal, and increasingly, wind power. States in the Southwest have solar resources, while those in the Northwest have hydropower, he said.
"If we can move more cooperatively, and use those resources on a regional basis, it seems to me that we can as a region, comply with whatever regime is imposed on us without drastic, catastrophic costs," Boyer said.
Edward Randolph, chief policy consultant to the California State Assembly's Committee on Utilities and Commerce, is representing his state. A special budget session prevented California lawmakers from attending.
Randolph said California law prohibits utilities in that state from signing new long-term contracts for electricity generated from burning coal. Even so, he said California sees value in the symposium.
"The other states potentially have markets for wind power, for solar power, for geothermal power, and in some cases, some natural gas," Randolph said. "So even without coal, a lot of the western states have some resources that I think we could use in the future.
"On the flip side, I think we're going to have some resources in the future that we expect to export to other western states as well. The prime spots for solar are all in California," Randolph said.
"Everybody wants their lights to stay on, but nobody wants a transmission line built anywhere near their house," Randolph said. "So you get into the standard fights of everybody thinking that over the next ridge line is the best place for a transmission line. Which has made siting and permitting a very difficult process."
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
October 26, 2009
City candidates clash over taxes
By RICHARD ECKE
Tribune Staff Writer
Great Falls city government increased property taxes by 28 percent over six years, from 2003 to 2008.
That's a 4.67 percent average annual increase. For the owner of an actual house in the city worth $170,200, city property taxes increased by $13.45 for the 2004 tax year, and by $10.65 this tax year.
To City Commission candidate Fred Burow that's a large increase. Burow's campaign assistant, Travis Kavulla, called the successive increases "outrageous," and said the city has been "spending recklessly."
City Commissioner Bill Bronson, who is seeking the mayor's seat, said he believes the increases have been pretty minimal.
"We haven't been spending recklessly or wildly," Bronson said. "The actual tax increases per year have been fairly modest."
"What's modest?" asked Michael Winters, Bronson's opponent in the mayor's race. He added that sitting commissioners should know exactly what's in the budget.
Nov. 3 will mark the end of the city of Great Falls' general election campaign, as voters choose two commissioners to serve four years each, and a mayor to serve a two-year term.
Aside from angst over city spending on energy ventures this decade, another substantial issue to emerge after two October candidate forums is taxes.
The issue, which emerged at two candidates' forums Oct. 14 and Oct. 21, was first raised by Kavulla in a question from the audience, and punctuated by Burow, who held up a copy of the city's budget in answering the query.
City general election ballots were mailed Oct. 19, and 3,593 voters had returned them through Friday, according to the Cascade County Elections Office. That appears to be a brisker pace than for ballots mailed prior to the Sept. 15 primary election, said Kandy Sonsteng, deputy county election administrator. Both the primary and general city elections are mail-only.
Focus on figures
The original question by Kavulla, a Great Falls blogger and freelance writer, was, "Taxes have increased 44 percent over five years. What can we do to keep spending low?"
Kavulla said he took the figure from a city document listing the dollar amount of city mill levies from the tax years 2003 through 2008. The city took in $11,714,330 in property taxes in 2008, up 44 percent from $8,122,355 levied in 2003.
At the first forum, incumbents Bronson and John Rosenbaum doubted the figure. Bronson suggested that the 44 percent included growth in the city tax base over the period, and did not translate directly into tax increases for individual property owners.
At the next forum, Burow acknowledged Bronson's point.
"Your taxes didn't increase 44 percent," Burow said.
However, Burow said Saturday that the 44 percent figure is accurate in terms of total revenues.
"The whole revenue picture is up that much," he said. "I'll stand by it.
"I'm just going off of the city's own budget," he added.
The city's budget officer, Melissa Kinzler, produced figures at the request of the Tribune of four actual houses in the city to illustrate how much city taxes increased during the period in question.
The figures on the four Great Falls homes showed city property taxes rose 27.6 percent from 2003 to 2008, which rounds to a 28 percent average increase in city taxes for those homes.
The 28 percent figure is close to how much the city's actual mill levies increased from 2003 to 2008 — 30.9 percent. A mill, which is technically one-tenth of a cent, is a device commonly used by local governments in property tax calculations.
Following the forums, Rosenbaum later criticized Burow and Kavulla for not pointing out that a small slice of the city's property tax increases were prompted by special voter-approved taxes for swimming pool renovations and the new eastside soccer park. When not including the taxes for the pool and soccer projects, the city's mill levies rose by 25.4 percent from 2003 to 2008.
Great Falls' tax base grew by 8.2 percent from 2003 to 2008, from $2.237 billion to $2,419 billion. Growth from 2003 to 2009 was an even higher 11.7 percent, to $2,498 billion in 2009.
However, Kavulla said the city property tax increases outpaced the rise in property values.
Still, an element of confusion over the tax figures remained at Wednesday night's candidate forum.
"I think we're getting taxes mixed up with revenue gained from taxes," commissioner candidate Bob Jones said. "I think we're talking about two different things here."
Jones, the city's retired police chief, could not be reached Friday or Saturday to elaborate on his views on the city's property tax levels.
By week's end, there were fewer denials that city property taxes levied against individual property owners increased about 28 percent from 2003 to 2008.
Rosenbaum, who had been skeptical about both figures at the candidate forums, said Friday morning that he had not had a chance to research the numbers, while Burow criticized the incumbent commissioner.
"I think he should know better," Burow said of Rosenbaum. "He's been there for 14 years."
Bronson emphasized that the 28 percent increase was over six years, not just one.
"The impression that somebody gets is our taxes are going up 28 percent," he said.
Bronson also defended his and Rosenbaum's initial skepticism over the numbers.
"I don't think anybody's been evasive at all," he said.
So why did the city of Great Falls increase taxes by an average of between 4 and 5 percent each year from 2003 to 2008?
Rosenbaum cited the higher cost of tires, vehicle fuel, heating fuel and health insurance as primary factors.
"Inflation is a real factor that we have to deal with," he said.
Bronson said the city has tried to "hold the line" on its budget.
"But we don't want to sacrifice basic services, either," he said.
Rosenbaum and Bronson both said the city's highest expense is personnel costs, with city employees receiving 3 percent-plus raises the last few years. Some groups of employees received larger boosts than that in recent years.
"That's especially true with respect to the police," Bronson said.
He and Rosenbaum added that the city needs to offer salaries that are competitive with those offered by other Montana cities.
Commissioner candidate Donna Zook, a forensic psychologist, could not be reached for comment Friday or Saturday. She has criticized city government for wasting money on its electrical energy venture, contending that money could have been used for police and fire protection instead.
Burow, an auctioneer, wants city government to be more tight-fisted.
"We need to pull spending back in line," Burow said. "The city is just continually increasing (spending)."
He added that he believes dollars and cents will have a big effect on next week's election.
Rosenbaum said he believes the city must continue doing its best to maintain its roads and infrastructure, retain personnel and provide services the public expects.
"The criticizers and negative people have got their own agenda," the contractor added.
Meanwhile, Winters said the property tax issue has become a political football.
"This is political jargon that's going on now," the mayoral candidate said. Winters said challengers are trying to score political points with the tax issue, while incumbents "are naturally going to justify whatever increases came about."
He promised to pay close attention to budget figures if he is elected.
Bronson, an attorney, said his stance on property taxes will depend upon the state of the economy and other factors.
"In terms of the future, a lot's going to depend on the cost of living," Bronson said.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
October 23, 2009
Candidates share ideas at VisionXpo on how to keep city great
By ERIN MADISON
Tribune Staff Writer
Great Falls City Commission and mayoral candidates shared their visions for the city's future, which ranged from improving residents' attitudes about the city to making Great Falls a renewable energy hub, Thursday evening at a candidate forum.
The event, hosted by Great Falls VisionXpo, a Leadership Great Falls program, was a "café style" forum where candidates sat at tables and attendees rotated from table to table, engaging in conversations.
"The focus is on cross-pollination, on listening and sharing," event organizer Al Henry said.
All of the candidates were asked three questions: What makes Great Falls great? What keeps Great Falls from becoming greater? and What would help make Great Falls greater in the next 10 years?
The Leadership Great Falls class of 2008-09, a program run by the Great Falls Area Chamber of Commerce, has begun a grassroots visioning process, with the goal of asking people from all sectors of the community what their vision is for the city.
Mayoral candidate Michael Winters believes Great Falls sometimes lacks unity and leadership.
"There's nothing that holds us back except us," he said. "We have to promote us. We can't compare ourselves with Billings or Bozeman, or other communities in Montana."
Winters said Great Falls should capitalize on the fact that it's 100 miles from any other major city and can be a destination for people in the smaller nearby communities.
"We have to develop interest in our community to make people want to come here," he said.
City Commissioner Bill Bronson, who is running for mayor, said Great Falls residents often take some of the city's assets for granted.
"The locals, we don't talk enough about the good things that we have going on here," he said.
Bronson also emphasized the importance of bringing everyone to the table to craft a solution for Great Falls' problems and its future.
Commission candidate Donna Zook's vision of the city is for it to become a renewable energy hub — not just for wind, but solar and geothermal as well. Montana State University—Great Falls College of Technology could become a nationally known teaching center for renewable energy and Malmstrom Air Force Base could be a research center, she said.
Creating a community that will retain its children and allow them to raise families here is important to Great Falls, said commission candidate Bob Jones.
Great Falls also could capitalize on the seven nearby dams and refurbish all of them, he said.
Sitting city commissioner John Rosenbaum, who is running for re-election, said he thinks creating a strong work force in the Electric City will help draw more private investment.
Rather than using tax incentives to draw businesses here, the city could attract them with a large pool of potential employees, he said.
Commission candidate Fred Burow said he thought Thursday's event was a good example of how city government should get more residents to participate in decision making.
He would like to establish more working groups in Great Falls to help provide feedback to elected officials and city staff.
The VisionXpo group will continue to collect residents' visions for the community throughout the fall and winter. Those visions will be presented at an expo-style event April 17 at the Civic Center.
Additional Facts
Have an idea?
Leadership Great Falls has launched a blog to gather residents' thoughts about the city. Answers will be compiled and displayed at the Civic Center in April 2010 for the Great Falls VisionXpo. Visit greatfallsvisionxpo.blogspot. com to comment.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
October 22, 2009
Candidates debate secrecy, taxes
By RICHARD ECKE
Tribune Staff Writer
Cooler heads prevailed at a Great Falls candidates' forum at the Civic Center on Tuesday night.
But that didn't prevent four candidates for two open City Commission seats from clashing over secrecy in government, a new animal shelter and city property tax increases in front of about 35 spectators.
Fred Burow and Donna Zook, who finished third and fourth in the primary, respectively, filled the role of challengers, showing much more skepticism toward city government. Top vote-getters Bob Jones and John Rosenbaum were less critical of the city; Jones is the retired Great Falls Police chief and Rosenbaum is seeking a fourth commission term.
All of the candidates promised to listen to the public, if elected.
"I think everybody's opinion is worth something," Burow said.
All four candidates offered to bolster the Great Falls Police and Fire/Rescue departments. Rosenbaum and Jones said the city will hire four new community policing officers this year through three years of federal COPS grants. The city must pick up the full cost of the four officers' salaries for a fourth year.
However, none of the candidates said exactly how they would pay for additional staffing for the police and fire agencies.
Secrecy surrounding city meetings and documents was a sore point among at least one member of the audience, who asked why the city was keeping some documents secret. The audience members also claimed the city has held "secret votes."
Zook jumped on that question, referring to a so-called black box in which the city has placed documents related to its energy ventures and a proposed power plant east of Great Falls. Those records, which the city will not release, are the subject of a lawsuit.
"The first thing I intend to do is get into that secret box," Zook said. "I will make that knowledge available to the public. If I have to have a press conference, I will."
Burow also rapped the city for not being more open.
"Their records are supposed to be open to the public for public review," Burow said.
He added that when government starts to keep secrets, it fuels a lot of speculation.
Jones skirted the issue, saying only, "I don't want to go backwards. I want to go forwards."
Rosenbaum said the city is waiting for a state District Court judge to decide what documents the city should release as public. Until then, "we could be sued over it" if the city released papers containing trade secrets.
On the subject of a new animal shelter and animal control, Zook wants all parties to "sit down as adults" and settle the issue. She also suggested that city police officers not be involved in animal control.
Burow said he wants to see animal control back in private hands for economic reasons, but he would like Cascade County to help out.
Rosenbaum said the city plans to do animal control, while the Animal Foundation would handle pet adoptions.
Jones said he believes the animal control budget can be brought back into line, and that issues can be resolved.
Candidates also were somewhat skeptical about the South Arterial — a proposed bypass road south of Great Falls.
Burow suggested officials take another look at a north roadway "rather than going through a high-priced neighborhood" south of town near the Missouri River.
Jones said the tricky part of either route would be land acquisition.
Rosenbaum said the road's original goal of attracting truck traffic has shifted more toward use by local traffic.
Zook suggested focusing on Great Falls' Northwest Bypass, rather than building a new one.
A running debate on city property taxes continued from an Oct. 21 forum. Burow said city taxes have risen 44 percent by one measure, and 28 percent by another, over a recent six-year span.
Rosenbaum questioned how annual inflationary increases of less than 2 percent could add up to 28 percent, but Burow stood by his figures.
Scheduling conflicts for mayoral candidates kept the forum a commissioner-only affair. Two members of the Great Falls High School debate team kept time. The debate team also accepted the questions for the forum and was in charge of interpreting rules.
Aaron Weissman, Neighborhood Council No. 7 chairman, was moderator of the event, which was sponsored by the city's nine neighborhood councils.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
October 21, 2009
High court will hear rezoning argument for Highwood plant
By KARL PUCKETT
Tribune Staff Writer
The Montana Supreme Court has agreed to hear oral arguments next month in a Cascade County rezoning case involving construction of a power plant east of Great Falls.
Participants said the outcome of the land-use controversy could have consequences beyond just construction of the proposed Highwood Generating Station, which prompted the legal battle.
"I think this is a case that has statewide significance and the Supreme Court sees the importance of this case," said Anne Hedges of the Montana Environmental Information Center.
The MEIC and 60 landowners with property in the vicinity of the proposed plant are challenging the county's March 2008 decision to rezone 668 acres of farmland, a move requested by power plant developer Southern Montana Electric Generation & Transmission Cooperative.
Landowners and MEIC are arguing the rezoning to heavy industrial was illegal spot zoning because the industrial plant would be significantly different from the prevailing agricultural uses in the area. They say the decision amounted to special legislation for SME.
Cascade County and SME, which has intervened in the case on behalf of the county, have denied those claims. A District Court judge sided with the developer and county in May, prompting the appeal to the state Supreme Court.
"It was pretty much anticipated that would happen, and it did," said Brian Hopkins, a civil attorney for Cascade County.
In ruling on the case, justices could give guidance to local governments on what they consider spot zoning in a rural environment and on rezoning cases in which approvals are subject to conditions, Hopkins said. Cascade County's approval of the rezoning for the Highwood plant was subject to conditions.
Oral arguments are scheduled for 9 a.m. Nov. 18.
"The fact they've ordered up a hearing is something that they do with only a small percentage of cases," said Roger Sullivan, an attorney for MEIC and landowners.
The court usually assigns cases to five- or seven-justice panels, which then decide cases without hearing oral arguments, he said.
"It's a good indicator this case is important beyond just the issues at hand," Hedges added.
SME, which originally planned a coal-fired plant, now is planning a natural gas facility eight miles east of Great Falls. Last week, the state Department of Environmental Quality issued an air permit for the gas-fired plant, but construction can't begin until at least Nov. 1.
Alan McCormick of Missoula is representing the county in the case.
The county has legal insurance through the Montana Association of Counties, which is paying for the balance of McCormick's services after the county paid the $10,000 deductible, Hopkins said.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Sasol CTL Facility in South AfricaAir Force Abandons Efforts To Spur CTL Development
(10/21/2009)
Ben Geman, E&E senior reporter
The Air Force has quietly dropped plans to facilitate construction of
coal-to-liquids fuel plants under an effort to use domestically produced
alternative jet fuels.
In January, the Air Force rejected proposals for building a CTL plant at
Malmstrom Air Force Base in Montana, saying a review had found the proposals
were not viable
(Greenwire
Spokesman Gary Strasburg said today that the Air Force was no longer trying
to help with the development of any domestic CTL plants. "We are not
actively pursuing it," he said.
The decision represents a policy shift under the Obama administration. The
Air Force, which accounts for 10 percent of U.S. jet fuel demand, had been
seeking under the Bush administration to help drive development of a
domestic CTL market.
Potential contracts with the Air Force are viewed as a way to ensure a
market for expensive commercial-scale CTL plants, which have not been built
in the United States, although several companies have planned facilities.
Environmentalists have long opposed coal-based fuels due to their higher
greenhouse gas emissions if carbon capture and sequestration technologies --
which have yet to be commercially deployed -- are not used.
Strasburg said the Air Force maintains a goal of obtaining 50 percent of its
U.S. fuels by 2016 from domestic alternative blends that are "greener" than
conventional fuels. Such alternative fuels could include fossil sources like
coal and gas, as well as biomass-based fuels, he said.
The Air Force has already certified several planes, including the B-52, to
use 50-50 blends of synthetic and conventional jet fuel, and is testing
several others.
The Air Force and Navy are testing alternative fuels from several
feedstocks, including algae.
