Jennifer Hill-Hart - October 19, 2006
Alternative Energy Resources Organization

Highwood Coal Plant
The proposed Highwood coal-fired power plant, East of Great Falls, Montana, will add another 250 megawatts of power to Montana with an estimated construction cost of $550 million dollars. Is it really necessary to generate new electricity using old technology, when better energy investments can be made at a much lower cost? Are new coal power plants that continue to pollute Montana and rely on finite fossil fuels the best alternative for Montanans, when safer, more affordable and truly clean alternatives exist?

The full costs of coal power include not only the initial costs of construction and operation, but also the cost to the environment. These “externalities” – the costs typically not captured in the market price – include air pollution, water use, and land use from mining. Beneath the coal-to-fuel and coal-to-electricity scenarios lay questions about the optimistic visions and cost-effectiveness of this so-called “clean coal”.

Let’s talk cost.
New coal-fired generating facilities, like the proposed Highwood plant will charge electric rates at 5 to 7 cents per kwh. Energy efficiency investments like replacing incandescent light bulbs with much more efficient compact fluorescent bulbs, installing double or triple paned windows, adding more insulation to walls and ceilings, and buying energy efficient appliances saves 1 to 2 cents per kilowatt-hour.
If new power truly is needed, then wind is a cheaper source than coal. The 20-year contract for power from the Judith Gap Wind Farm averages about 3.16 cents per kwh. This includes arranging for back-up power when the wind is not blowing, add this and windpower still has an average rate under 4 cents per kwh.
The construction cost of a windpower plant would be about $200 million dollars less than the proposed Highwood plant, while providing the same amount of power for the same projected plant lifespan. Windpower has another advantage: more flexible financing. Wind farms go up much faster than large centralized coal-fired power plants. Judith Gap went up in less than a year whereas the Highwood plant is estimated to take five years or more. Windpower facilities can also come online in smaller increments, making them less of a burden to finance.

The cost of coal must include the enormous amount of water used in the power plant operation. Each year the Highwood plant is projected to burn 1.1 million tons of coal and consume 1.7 billion gallons of water which amounts to about 4.6 million gallons of water per day—nearly 90% of this water will evaporate. Wind machines do not require water.
The cost of coal must include the infrastructure, fuel bills, and pollution required to transport coal to a power plant. Unlike coal-fired power plants the fuel for renewable energies like wind, is free.

The cost of coal must include the greenhouse gases released into the air, exacerbating global warming, accelerating climate change, and polluting Montana skies. The Highwood plant advertises itself as clean and efficient, but even so, according to the draft air quality permit, CO2 emissions alone represent a yearly increase of 7.5% over all sources of greenhouse gases in Montana.

Let’s talk clean.
Coal power pollutes the soil, surface waters and air, plants and animals—not to mention humans—with mercury, fly ash and particulate matter, greenhouse gases, and other toxic substances. Wind machines, like coal-fired power plants, are manufactured from steel and other materials, but after that, it’s clean. Wind machines do not emit greenhouse gases.
The partners in the proposed Highwood plant, five of Montana's rural electric cooperatives, along with the City of Great Falls, still can walk away from this enormous capital investment in an expensive, polluting, centralized fossil fuel plant and invest, first, in energy conservation, and second, in decentralized, diverse renewable energy facilities – wind, solar, and biofuels. With electrical co-ops, facilities can be sited on members’ properties, allowing them to earn income by feeding power into the co-ops’ own lines. If Montana co-ops work with their members to invest in insulation, weatherization, cogeneration and other forms of energy efficiency, they could produce all the power they need from a variety of decentralized, clean, renewable sources.

Much of the information for this commentary came from Wilbur Wood, one of the founding members of AERO. He, and other AERO members, have been working on a blueprint for sustainable energy policies for Montana. To learn more about how Montana can use clean, renewable energy to meet its current and future needs, join us at the AERO annual meeting in Fort Benton, Montana, on October 27-29. Go to www.aeromt.org for more information.
I’m Jennifer Hill Hart for the Alternative Energy Resources Organization. AERO welcomes your comments and perspectives. AERO is a grassroots membership organization working to help create farm, food, energy and growth solutions for communities throughout Montana. For more information about our programs call us in Helena at 406-443-7272.