Article published Sep 18, 2007

Top plant official confident in Great Falls location

By RICHARD ECKE

Tribune Staff Writer

Several skirmishes remain unresolved in a battle over whether a coal-fired power plant will be built eight miles east of Great Falls.

A top plant official expressed confidence Sunday in Great Falls that the plant will be built. Tim Gregori said he was hopeful construction of the plant even could begin this year, although he wasn't guaranteeing that.

Several project opponents have already declared the project dead before its arrival, predicting the plant "will not be built."

"This plant is facing so many difficulties," said Abigail Dillen, an Earthjustice attorney representing plant opponents.

Gregori was in Great Falls Sunday to lead a tour of Lewis and Clark historic sites within a few miles of the plant site. Several news reporters, city officials and Lewis and Clark buffs accompanied Gregori and members of the Urquhart family. On the tour, Gregori expressed his affection for history and the Lewis and Clark Expedition.

Gregori, general manager of the Southern Montana Electric Generation & Transmission Cooperative, noted the power plant would not be visible from a Lewis and Clark encampment alongside the Missouri River. He added the plant's smokestack would be less obtrusive than a power pole as seen from a staging area uphill from the campsite.

Lewis and Clark's path between the river and modern-day city of Great Falls has become an issue in the power-plant project. A special study of the project's effects on the historic area has been completed, said Gregori and Helena consultant Jeff Chaffee, executive vice president of Bison Engineering.

In the "213" review, the National Park Service recommended the project site be moved elsewhere to keep it away from the Lewis and Clark National Historic Landmark, where the explorers portaged tons of their gear in 1805 and 1806. Chaffee said the federal Rural Utilities Service is considering final action on the review.

But Gregori strongly disputed the idea that the Rural Utilities Service might order the Highwood plant moved to accommodate historic concerns.

"The site selection is over," Gregori said in an interview. He contended the only remaining historical issue is how developers can mitigate the plant's effects on historic sites.

Gregori and Chaffee said the Rural Utilities Service will put together a memorandum of understanding for the affected parties, and later issue a final notice.

"If you don't want to sign it, you don't have to sign it," Gregori commented. It's not clear if the Park Service will sign the document if the project site remains the same, on Urquhart property east of Great Falls along Salem Road. But Gregori said the project could proceed even without some signatures.

On another matter, Gregori said two Rural Utilities Service loan committees are expected to take up a formal loan request soon from the developers for more than $600 million to build the Highwood Generating Station.

Gregori said the project is waiting in line for action by the federal loan committees; he expects the Highwood project's process will begin soon. He said financing also will depend upon how much money the Rural Utilities Service receives in its 2008 budget appropriation from Congress.

Two springtime rulings were in the plant's favor. The state Department of Environmental Quality granted the project an air quality permit, and the federal Rural Utilities Service issued a "record of decision" allowing the project to move forward. Both decisions have been challenged by plant opponents.

Gregori said the appeal of the state air quality permit was filed on narrow grounds. A lawsuit also was filed in Washington, D.C., by three conservation groups that challenged the Rural Utilities Service's record of decision.

Chaffee said the grounds of the lawsuit were "a little broader" than the air permit appeal. The lawsuit cited several issues — wind power as an alternative to coal, harm to the Lewis and Clark Historic Landmark, aggravation of global warming and financial risk to the federal government.

Dillen said the main action in the lawsuit so far has been SME intervened to join the lawsuit.

Dillen questioned whether the federal agency would grant a loan to the project when it faces so many hurdles.

"At this point, power plants are looking like a riskier and riskier investment," Dillen said.

Gregori Sunday expressed few worries about obtaining federal financing, but he acknowledged opponents to the project have been feisty.

"They've been aggressive, and they've been persistent," he said.

City Commissioner John Rosenbaum, who took the tour Sunday, said plant developers "wouldn't be building it if there wasn't a need."

Gregori took criticism Sunday from Mary Jolley, an opponent of city involvement in the plant. Gregori in a Tribune story Sunday said he believes an environmental impact statement showed the plant would not adversely affect the area's air, ground and water.

Jolley, a City Commission candidate, pointed out the environmental impact statement showed the plant would result in "minor to moderate" degradation of the area's air quality, and at certain times the plant's emissions would affect views of the Gates of the Mountains area north of Helena, and the Bob Marshall Wilderness west of Great Falls along the Rocky Mountain Front.

Another unsettled issue is that Cascade County has yet to grant industrial zoning for the project. Earlier action by county commissioners to rezone the property was thwarted by a lawsuit filed by opponents; the county since has rewritten its zoning laws to conform to state law and court decisions.

Final action on the county's new zoning law is expected in October; a petition by the Urquhart family to rezone the property also could be taken up in the autumn by county commissioners if it is filed. Commissioners voted for heavy industrial zoning for the site by a 2-1 vote, before a settlement of the lawsuit prompted the do-over by the county.