Article published Jul 23, 2007

Groups ask judge to halt power-plant loan

Conservation groups attempted a preemptive strike against the Highwood Generating Station Monday, suing a federal agency to prevent it from giving the coal-fired project a loan of more than $600 million.

In a lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., three groups cited the National Environmental Policy Act in asking a judge to prohibit the agency from approving the loan and disbursing the money. The plaintiffs are the Helena-based Montana Environmental Information Center, Great Falls-based Citizens for Clean Energy, and the San Francisco-based Sierra Club.

The groups said federal officials failed to consider alternative sources of energy and alternative plant sites.

An arm of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the Rural Utilities Service, issued a record of decision May 10 indicating it would lend the money to the Highwood plant, which would be located about eight miles east of Great Falls. Defendants in the suit are U.S. Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns; James Andrew, administrator of the Rural Utilities Service, and Richard Fristik, senior environmental protection specialist for RUS. 

The plant’s developer is Southern Montana Electric Generation & Transmission Cooperative, featuring five rural Montana co-ops and the City of Great Falls.
The lawsuit also asks a federal judge to invalidate the record of decision RUS issued in May.

Kenneth A. Reich, an SME attorney in the Boston firm of WolfBlock, said officials had not yet been able to examine the lawsuit thoroughly, although he rejected many of the plaintiffs' main themes.

“We’re confident that the EIS (environmental impact statement) and the Record of Decision were thoroughly reviewed and studied,” Reich said.

The lawsuit also asks a federal judge to invalidate an RUS record of decision issued in May.

“We’re confident that RUS’s decision will be upheld,” Reich said. “There’s no basis to invalidate it.”

The plaintiffs argued the plant will contribute to global warming, may contaminate groundwater, would damage a national landmark, and "would amount to an enormously risky investment of federal taxpayer dollars."

Plant opponents also claimed at least one-fourth of the plant's power would be sold to outsiders, and that SME could obtain power more cheaply from wind farms in Montana.