Article published Nov 9, 2007

City OKs gas power plant zone change

By RICHARD ECKE

Tribune Staff Writer

Seeking a zone change for a power plant?

The type of fuel used may make a difference in how much trouble is generated by the request.

Choose coal and sparks will probably fly. That's the pattern so far for the Highwood Generating Station, a coal-fired power plant proposed for east of Great Falls that some critics love to hate.

Then there is Montana Megawatts, a natural gas-fired power plant proposed for north of Great Falls by Texas-based Montgomery Energy Partners.

The new plant, promised Taylor Cheek, a Montgomery Energy official, "will be the cleanest fossil-fuel generator in the state of Montana." Cheek is the company's managing director of business development.

The 277-megawatt project sailed through Tuesday night's City Commission meeting, although a few speakers expressed reservations about how much water the plant will use to cool its equipment.

On successive 5-0 votes, the City Commission agreed to annex the Montana Megawatts property, give it I-2 heavy industrial zoning, and sell water to the plant.

"For me, this gas-fired plant is the way to firm up our wind," said City Commissioner Sandy Hinz, who opposes the coal-fired plant. "It's not nearly as dirty, in my mind, as coal."

In the case of the 250-megawatt Highwood Generating Station, public hearings seeking a zone change in the county to heavy industrial have been heated. The coal-fired power plant would be built by five rural electric co-operatives and the city of Great Falls. A new hearing on that zone change — the first one was rescinded because a lawsuit was filed — is scheduled to take place Dec. 4 before the County Planning Board.

According to the U.S. Department of Energy, natural gas-fired plants emitted 37 percent less carbon dioxide than coal-fired plants in 1999. Carbon dioxide is the most common of the world's greenhouse gases, which many scientists believe contribute to climate change.

Montgomery Energy's Montana Megawatts plant has a green connection. The plant would be used for peaking power — electricity that residents, businesses and industry use during high-use periods. It also would provide firming power for wind farms planned in Central Montana, which means that when the wind is not blowing, the plant could generate electricity to supplement wind power.

"This is a very exciting project," said Brett Doney, president of the Great Falls Development Authority. He said the gas plant will provide a key critical link to four proposed wind farms that would be connected to a new transmission line planned between Great Falls and Lethbridge, Alberta. Doney said the gas plant also would create additional tax revenue, which would enable local government to complete the purchase of a rail spur from a malt plant just north of the city.

City Commissioner-elect Mary Jolley praised the project, with reservations.

"Welcome to town," Jolley told Cheek. "I think it's a great idea."

The proposed plant sparked a number of questions, and several people, including Jolley, asked that city approvals be delayed.

"There's no rush on this," Jolley said, shortly before commissioners approved all three aspects of the project.

Several spectators, including members of Citizens for Clean Energy, a group opposed to the coal-fired plant, urged caution about the gas plant, although most said they were not outright opposed to it.

Gloria Smith of Great Falls noted the plant would use an average of 780,000 gallons of water a day.

"This is a lot of water to come out of our river," Smith said.

City Fiscal Officer Coleen Balzarini said the plant would use untreated river water amounting to less than one-tenth of one percent of the river's flow, and would pay an estimated $64,000 to $124,000 per year for it.

Doney said selling untreated water to the gas plant would be "a wise use" of the water, since the plant is expected to help spark "another billion dollars in energy investment," notably wind farms east of the Rocky Mountains.

Cheek said about 80 percent of the water would evaporate as it cooled plant equipment, adding that the water leaving the plant would be "the exact same water that came in."

Ron Gessaman, a CCE member, questioned that statement, saying the water used will be treated with chemicals to keep algae from forming. He said the water discharged by the plant would not be nearly as clean as Cheek suggested.

Gessaman also asked whether the plant would make noise.

"We can't be any louder than anyone else in town," Cheek said. "The highway will make much more noise than the plant would make."

Commissioner John Rosenbaum asked whether users of natural gas heat might see "a tremendous increase" in their utility bills because of the gas-fired plant.

"It won't have any impact on you" or the heat bills, Cheek said. He added the plant will be "a fairly small user" of natural gas.

One looming issue for the plant is a dispute between Montgomery Energy and NorthWestern Energy, the area's electricity utility. Montgomery has asked the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to place the company first in line to use NorthWestern's transmission lines. The Highwood Generating Station has laid claim to the top spot, although it would not be online until 2011 at the earliest. Gas plants take less time to build than coal-fired facilities.

Cheek acknowledged the disagreement with NorthWestern, but said the company has looked into alternatives if the filing with the federal agency does not bear fruit. He didn't specify what other options the plant would have for distributing the power generated by the facility.

Montana Megawatts would be located on a 55-acre parcel of land off U.S. Highway 87 on the north edge of the city. Cheek said the Austin-based company has been operating in Texas for four years and has no debt.