February 22, 2007

Senator Max Baucus

113 Third Street North

Great Falls, MT 59405

Re: Highwood coal plant

Dear Senator Baucus,

Thank you for meeting with us. We appreciate your willingness to better understand the proposed coal plant near Great Falls.

In summary, our chief objections to the plant are:

1) The CFB plant utilizes an outdated and inefficient technology that will make the plant obsolete before it is completed.

2) The Rural Utility Service (RUS) of the USDA should not place taxpayer dollars at risk to fund a polluting coal-fired power plant that will emit heavy metals and acids that will result in cumulative damage to prime agricultural lands of statewide importance within the “Golden Triangle”. The recent Cascade County zone change from “agricultural” to “heavy industrial” is being legally challenged by 49 area landowners.

3) The Rural Utility Service cannot legally place taxpayer dollars at risk to fund electricity generation that is not intended to benefit rural communities. The vast majority of electricity generated by the Highwood facility will go either to the City of Great Falls or to the market.

4) The Rural Utility Service of the USDA cannot legally place taxpayer dollars at risk to fund a power plant that is unnecessary to meet the reasonable needs of its consumers. Before the Rural Utilities Service can back a new plant, it has to be sure that existing sources of electricity are inadequate to meet demand. Neither the agency nor Southern Montana electric (“SME”) has ever undertaken any meaningful analysis of the many alternatives to building a coal-fired power plant.

5) The RUS should not place taxpayer dollars at risk to fund a venture based on inaccurate and incomplete load projections and outdated cost analyses.

6) We strongly believe that the Highwood coal plant violates our constitutional right as Montanans to a “clean and healthful environment”.

7) We are concerned about the greenhouse gases that will be produced by this plant (the equivalent of more than 500,000 cars) and the lack of a proven technology to sequester the CO2 from a coal plant of this type. The likelihood of a future carbon tax will make this plant noncompetitive with energy from renewable sources.

8) We believe that the coal plant will disproportionately affect vulnerable populations, including women during childbearing years, newborns and nursing infants, and Native Americans living downwind who heavily depend upon fishing and game animals for sustenance. It will also adversely affect asthmatic children and elderly patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases.

9) We are concerned that the power generated by this facility will charge higher rates than the default supplier. Furthermore, we are concerned about the vulnerability of relying on a single power source to provide uninterrupted electrical service to our municipality.

10) We believe the plant is needlessly wasteful of our precious water resources, consuming and evaporating approximately half of what the entire City of Great Falls uses on a winter day. (Because the water rights being used by the plant are relatively recent, it is also possible that if droughts continue the plant will be closed for lack of water supply).

11) The coal plant and its plume of smoke will destroy the integrity of the Lewis and Clark National Historic Landmark, which is becoming an increasingly important tourism asset. Furthermore, we assert the manner in which the Salem site was selected was misrepresented to the public.

12) We believe that the Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is incomplete, inasmuch as very few financial details are disclosed. This severely restricts the public’s ability to comment on the coal plant before the March 12 deadline. Before issuing a loan, any bank requires detailed financial information, and we believe that the loan process for public monies should be at least as stringent. We are formally requesting a Supplemental EIS with this financial information, along with an appropriate opportunity for additional public comment.

We leave you with petitions against the plant containing the signatures of more than a thousand Montanans, copies of 25 letters from Native Americans on the Rocky Boy Reservation, and a prepublication Feb. 25, 2007, Tribune advertisement enumerating the concerns about the coal plant from more than a hundred physicians and other healthcare professionals.

Again, thank you for taking the time to meet with us to better understand the strong and growing opposition to the coal plant.

Respectfully yours,