Article
published Feb 1, 2008
County approves zoning change for coal-fired power plant
By KARL PUCKETT
Tribune Staff Writer
Cascade
County commissioners on Thursday voted 2-1 to approve a heavy industrial zoning
designation necessary for construction of a coal-fired power plant proposed
east of Great Falls.
The
move brought quick criticism from opponents of the plant.
"I
feel like we've been betrayed," said Bob Lassila, who owns land abutting
the site. "It's almost like they're asking for litigation."
But
the plant's developer and the owner of the land where it would be constructed
called the rezoning the right decision.
"Of
course we're pleased," Mary Urquhart, one of the owners of the proposed
site, said after the vote. "But we're not elated the neighbors feel like
they do."
The
Urquhart family plans to sell the land to Southern Montana Electric Generation
& Transmission, which wants to construct the Highwood Generating Station, a
250-megawatt power plant.
The
farmland requires an industrial zoning for the plant to proceed.
Commissioners
Joe Briggs and Lance Olson supported the rezoning, but stopped short endorsing
Highwood Generating Station.
"There
are elements of this proposal about which I am very positive and others which
concern me mightily," Briggs said.
His
concerns relate to the state's review of small particulate emissions and the
potential use of eminent domain to secure utility right-of-ways associated with
the plant.
State
law allows rural utilities to use eminent domain. However, Briggs said this
case is unusual because the owners who might be asked to sacrifice land are not
in SME's electricity service area.
Commissioner
Peggy Beltrone voted no to the rezoning, calling it a case of spot zoning.
The
power plant would supply 60,000 customers served by SME, which is made up of
five rural utilities and the utility arm of the city of Great Falls.
One
more commission vote is needed to finalize the rezoning. That vote will follow
a 30-day protest period.
"We
respect the difficult time the commission had in dealing with this rather
contentious issue," SME General Manager Tim Gregori said.
After
the meeting, landowners issued a statement saying the rezoning of the
agricultural land to heavy industrial "will forever change the footprint
of our community."
Environmental
and financing challenges remain for the power plant, which SME officials
originally said they hoped to begin constructing in March 2007.
The
plant has received an air-quality permit from the state Department of
Environmental Quality, but that's being challenged before the Montana Board of
Environmental Review.
The
environmental impact statement prepared by DEQ and the federal Rural Utilities
Service, is the subject of a lawsuit in federal court.
Gregori
said SME is taking a closer look at private financing for the $720 million
facility and making "considerable progress."
SME
also is applying for a federal loan from RUS to cover 85 percent of the cost of
the plant.
Gregori
said there are challenges to receiving public financing because Congress has
yet to fund the power supply division of RUS, which is part of the U.S.
Department of Agriculture.
"Typically,
it's done by this time," he said.
In
late 2006, commissioners also voted 2-1 to approve the rezoning, with Briggs
and Olson approving it and Beltrone voting no.
That
decision was later rescinded following a legal challenge to the county's zoning
rules. A second application to rezone the power plant site was submitted after
the rules were changed.
On
Thursday, Briggs and Olson read from prepared statements.
Briggs
said he was sorry to disappoint the plant's opponents, whose arguments had
"won my heart."
But,
he noted that the application complies with the county's growth policy and
meets the legal requirements for a valid zoning request and, as such, should be
granted.
A
zoning action by a county commission is not the appropriate vehicle to
"set environmental policy or overrule the precedents of eminent
domain," he added.
Olson
said he accepted a favorable report by the planning staff and a recommendation
for approval by the Cascade County Planning Board.
Every
chair in the commission chambers was occupied as the clocked ticked toward 9:30
a.m. Thursday.
Opponents
had hoped that information about the project presented during the past year
would lead to a different outcome from the commission's first affirmative vote,
Lassila said.
"We had a 50-50 chance," he said.