http://www.cce-mt.org/index.htmlProposed Coal Fired Power Plantenenlisa-hardiman@bresnan.netCopyright 2006 Lisa Hardiman2006-10-25T23:22:43-06:00 hourly 1 2000-01-01T12:00+00:00 Wed, 12 Dec 2007 01:07:53 -0700lisa-hardiman@bresnan.netWork2006-10-25T23:22:43-06:00http://www.cce-mt.org/archives/page26/files/d5db13c9aa89d54e22bef56d63c51a2f-43.html#unique-entry-id-43http://www.cce-mt.org/archives/page26/files/d5db13c9aa89d54e22bef56d63c51a2f-43.html#unique-entry-id-43Two heroes today.  Mary Jolley and a neighbor of the proposed Highwood Plant.  Thanks.  Both are heroes. 

Please take time to write a comment opposing the zone change.  We have 30 days to comment.  Either fax it at 454-6903 or email to sconell@co.cascade.mt.us or mail to Cascade County Commissioners/ Courthouse Annex/325 2nd Ave. N. / Great Falls, MT 59401.  Please use Paul’s letter below as a basis for writing.   Any neighbors who are known to oppose this, please tell them to get a hold of Lisa Hardiman at 455-6412 or Richard Liebert at 736-5791.  All neighbors who come forth, your names will not be shared.  Thanks  lisa

To:  Cascade County Commissioners and Planners
Re:  Urquhart family request to rezone agricultural land to Heavy Industrial use
for the construction of a coal-fired power generation facility
 
A portion of the legal zoning regulation for heavy industrial is listed below. It can also be found on the county's website under planning and zoning regulations (on electronic page 77, actual page 73): http://www.co.cascade.mt.us/getfile.phtml?ido=263
_______________
 
7.4.2.6 Site Plan Review and Approval
In each case where an I-2 industrial building or use is proposed, the Zoning Administrator shall review the site plan of the proposal in accordance with Section 9.7 and shall approve, or approve with modifications, or disapprove such site plan. In modifying or disapproving such site plan, the Zoning Administrator shall enter his reasons for such action in Office of Zoning Administrator's records. The Zoning Administrator shall also review the plan considering the noxious or injurious effects of the industrial operation for the purpose of protecting the health, safety and general welfare of the community.
7.4.2.7 Affidavit Required
Any applicant applying for a permit in an I-2 Heavy Industrial District shall file with the Zoning Administrator, on forms provided, an affidavit together with description of industrial occupancy and operation relative to the following:
(a) Noise (b) Smoke (c) Odor (d) Dust and Dirt (e) Noxious Gases (f) Glare and Heat
(g) Fire Hazards (h) Industrial Wastes (j) Aesthetics (i) Transportation & Traffic
(k) Psychological Effects
_______________
Apparently, the Environmental Impact Statement (still in Draft form, and not approved or modified to include numerous corrections and objections to the conclusions reached therein) is being provided to serve as the "Affidavit Required" under County zoning rules. It is precisely the issues enumerated here which cause us to object to the zoning change.  Every category above, a-k, will be impacted by the Highwood Generating Station.  More importantly, these effects will extend far beyond the boundaries of the Urquhart property, which has arbitrarily been defined as its own "District" for zoning purposes, thus excluding neighbors and people downwind from having any say in this zoning change.  At least that was the "ruling" made by the County Attorney present at the Planning Board hearing last week. 
We insist that everyone impacted by this proposed Generating Station be allowed to protest, and their property rights, health, and welfare be seriously taken into account in this zoning change.  It is obvious to us that a corrected Environmental Impact Statement will show that the harm and costs to the people of Cascade and adjoining counties will absolutely preclude the construction of such a facility in this location, and that the Commissioners should refuse the request for a zoning change.  At the least, this request should be tabled until such time as the final Environmental Impact Statement has been approved, financing has been obtained for the plant, and other uncertainties answered. 
This is not simply a request for a zoning change:  it is a request by specific parties to site a specific facility at this location.  Since this is a major industrial facility which will forever change the character of the immediate environment, and the lives, health, and property values of everyone in the vicinity, as well as those downwind and downstream in the Missouri River Basin, it is imperative that the Commission not grant this application without a great deal of further study and testimony from those concerned. 
Sincerely,
(s) Paul Stephens   greateco@3rivers.net
]]>lisa-hardiman@bresnan.netLisa's Page2006-10-06T20:21:00-06:00http://www.cce-mt.org/archives/page26/files/65fe17e6e8af11f177bbcd73a47a945d-40.html#unique-entry-id-40http://www.cce-mt.org/archives/page26/files/65fe17e6e8af11f177bbcd73a47a945d-40.html#unique-entry-id-40 
Canaries in the Coal Mine:  Climate Change, Windmills and Birds
 
Russell Doty, CEO New World Wind Power, Executive Director of Green Electricity Buying Coop and Great Falls born and raised, will be our guest October 9th.  Mr.. Doty will present a program that covers global warming, bird kills as a result of global warming (it isn't just wind power that kills birds), and the cost to personally commit to reducing global warming.Mr. Doty has served in the Montana legislature, worked for the Public Service Commission, wrote environmental law in Minnesota, practiced private law and has also worked for the Untied States Postal Service in his varied career.  Come with questions, come with friends and family. 
 
The public is welcome to attend all Upper Missouri Breaks Audubon meetings.  We meet on the second Monday of the month at the Rainbow Retirement Center, #20 3rd Street North, across from the US Post Office.  The meeting is held in the lower level meeting room.  The meeting starts at 7 PM with bird identification and social time, the program starts about 7:30 PM.]]>lisa-hardiman@bresnan.netLisa's Page2006-10-04T20:56:00-06:00http://www.cce-mt.org/archives/page26/files/8ed29a593f9bd2b4d3ec6fd2afa0697b-39.html#unique-entry-id-39http://www.cce-mt.org/archives/page26/files/8ed29a593f9bd2b4d3ec6fd2afa0697b-39.html#unique-entry-id-39 Posted: Wed Oct 04, 2006 8:36 pm Post subject: Schweitzer's
$1.3
billion IGCC plant
There are several important points which should be noted
about
this event. First, it is exactly the sort of plant which we've been
telling
the city and SME they should build near Great Falls -- if they want or
need
to build more coal-based energy systems (and we insist they don't need
to do
this). Basin Electric, a North Dakota co-op, is building a similar
facility,
and has offered to sell SME power at long-term, cost-effective rates.
Second, it will only add to Montana's generating capacity,
which
is already more than double what we use, here. Thus, this plant (and
indeed,
all new proposed plants) are really "merchant plants", whose power will
be
exported to other states, leaving us with depleted resources, huge
pollution
streams, and superfund cleanup sites down the road. This is a very bad
idea
for "economic development" and "cheap power."
Third, we advocated IGCC technology over CFB (straight
coal-burners) for the Highwood Station because it is relatively
pollution-free; and the huge amount of CO2 it emits (the equivalent of
560,000 cars and trucks for the Highwood plant) can potentially be
"sequestered", or pumped back into the ground so it doesn't add to
global
warming. These are all pluses for the Bull Mountain plant.
SME and Mr Lawton have been lying to us all along, that IGCC
isn't financeable and is "unproven" technology. About 1/4 of currently
proposed coal plants are IGCC (some 30 of them nationwide). We must do
IGCC
for the local Highwood station, or no coal at all. Carbon taxes will
soon
increase the cost of coal-fired power by a factor of 2-3, or even more,
once
wind is widely established. The Highwood Station as proposed will never
cover its costs, and will be a great liability both to city and local
finances and to our health, the tourist industry, the arts, and other
major
growth sectors in central Montana. Those who want to build the Highwood
station are out to harm us. The "benefits" they offer in turn are merely
taxes and a few jobs. Think about it. Should it take an investment of
$550
million dollars to create 65 jobs? This is absurd. The Highwood Station
will
never produce any power for the people of Great Falls.
Paul Stephens Member of Citizens for Clean Energy]]>lisa-hardiman@bresnan.netLisa's Page2006-09-22T10:35:00-06:00http://www.cce-mt.org/archives/page26/files/113580cb93a295a306a204120043e1c7-38.html#unique-entry-id-38http://www.cce-mt.org/archives/page26/files/113580cb93a295a306a204120043e1c7-38.html#unique-entry-id-38
Helena Independent Record http://www.helenair.com/
Mailing Address:
The Independent Record
P.O. Box 4249
Helena, MT 59604

Billings Gazette http://billingsgazette.net/info/?h/letters
PO Box 36300
Billings, MT 59197-6300

Bozeman Daily Chronicle
Use this online form, or send letters to:
Editor, Bozeman Daily Chronicle, P.O. Box 1188, Bozeman, MT 59771. Or
email
citydesk@dailychronicle.com

Missoulian
Letters must contain the writer's name, address and telephone number
(phone numbers are for verification, not publication).
Mail to: Missoulian Letters, P.O. Box 8029, Missoula, MT 59807.
Fax: 406-523-5294.
E-mail: oped@missoulian.com.

Daily Interlake http://www.dailyinterlake.com/
http://www.dailyinterlake.com/forms/letters.php
727 East Idaho Street / Kalispell, Montana 59901 / 406-755-7000
PO Box 7610
Kalispell, MT 59904

Havre Daily News http://havredailynews.com/
PO Box 431
Havre, Montana 59501

Montana Standard (Butte, Dillon)
25 W. Granite St.
Butte, MT 59701
http://www.mtstandard.com/newsopinion/

Lewistown News-Argus
P.0. Box 900 . 521 W. Main St. . Lewistown, MT 59457
406-535-3401 . 800-879-5627 . Fax: 406-535-3405
E-mail: newsstaff@lewistownnews.com]]>lisa-hardiman@bresnan.netLisa's Page2006-09-20T10:25:00-06:00http://www.cce-mt.org/archives/page26/files/716b40cc6456e705c64783901ce2b260-37.html#unique-entry-id-37http://www.cce-mt.org/archives/page26/files/716b40cc6456e705c64783901ce2b260-37.html#unique-entry-id-37The mercury rule components that were voted on last week are as follows. I will tell you what the rule says, what it means and why it is a problem. The board seems enamored with the term “soft landing” so I will point out to you the myriad of soft landings being provided by the rule. I count at least 7 soft landings in the following rule. There are a few more, but I won’t bore you with those details.    In short, the current problems with the rule are:  

1. Gives agency almost unfettered discretion to establish emission limits
2. Does not require honest mercury controls until 2018 (or beyond if a company uses banking).
3. Sets a emission standard in 2018 that facilities could meet today.
4. Gives weaker limits to lignite coal, the dirtiest type of coal in Montana.
5. Encourages companies to burn lignite coal by giving them a weaker standard, despite the fact that Montana is loaded with higher quality coals.
6. Allows cap and trade in Montana in perpetuity. Companies can buy and sell their way out of complying with emission limits.
7. Establishes future limits based upon the weaker best available control technology standard and not the normal standard for hazardous air pollutants which is the stricter maximum achievable control technology standard. BACT is driven by economic factors. MACT is driven by what the best facilities in the country achieve.

How is my recollection of how the board voted and issues still open before the board: • The Board voted against requiring stronger standards for lignite. Robin Shropshire made the motion, but instead of voting the board directed DEQ to provide it with the basis for the weak standards on lignite. The Board was not satisfied with the industry lignite experts testimony showing these facilities can reach 90% control. • Robin Shropshire made the motion to give lignite the same trading credits as cleaner coals. The board rule gives them nearly double of cleaner coals. That motion failed. Robin Shropshire was the only vote in favor. • Robin Shropshire made a motion to prohibit banking. That motion failed unanimously with Don Marble abstaining and Joe Russell not finishing the vote since it was clearly going down. • Bill Rossbach made a motion to direct DEQ to establish some criteria by which the agency will make permitting decisions. That motion passed unanimously. Unfortunately, the rule still allows for little to no oversight by the board or courts for the decisions DEQ makes. • Joe Russell made a motion to establish a maximum emission limit after 2018 of no more than 1.1 lbs/Tbtu. Motion passed with only Kim Lacey dissenting. She was concerned it might hurt Great Northern’s proposal to build a 500 MW lignite plant near Circle. Summary of current rule: 1. All facilities have to submit an application to DEQ on Jan. 1. 2009 that demonstrates the ability to meet a 0.9 lbs/Tbtu emission limit. This provision is good. If facilities were indeed required to meet this limit it would be acceptable. 2. All facilities can violate the 0.9 standard at any time. As long as over the course of the year, their average annual emissions are not higher, they will not be penalized. SOFT LANDING. 3. If a facility fails to achieve 0.9 lbs/Tbtu over the course of the year they must submit a permit modification 18 months after they start operating. As currently written DEQ has no discretion in issuing that new permit for a higher limit (this new limit is known as an alternative emission limit). No enforcement action can be taken against them if they fail to meet their initial emission limit provided that DEQ determines they tried to meet the 0.9 lbs/Tbtu emission limit. SOFT LANDING. The Board asked DEQ to amend the rule to come up with criteria by which DEQ will decide whether and how an alternative emission limit will be issued. 4. DEQ has complete discretion as to whether a facility gets an alternative emission limit and they have almost complete discretion on what that new limit should be. DEQ cannot set the limits above a certain level though. But these levels are arbitrary, extremely weak and differ by coal type. For example, new facilities like the Highwood Generating Station near Great Falls would have an upper limit of 1.5 lbs/Tbtu  (which happens to be the same level as DEQ put in its draft permit) which is only only 26% control of mercury. Existing lignite has a limit of 4.8 lbs/Tbtu. The Great Northern lignite plant in eastern Montana which hasn’t even applied for a permit yet, will have an upper limit of 3.6 lbs/Tbtu. New lignite after 1/1/2009 will have an upper limit of 2.16 lbs/Tbtu.  The board or courts have have no ability, or at best and extremely limited ability, to review any agency decision on emission limits. SOFT LANDING. The numbers are completely arbitrary. The industries lignite expert who testified in Billings showed test results on lignite in which most results showed 90% reductions. These upper limits are more in the range of 30-50% reduction. DEQ argues that these are maximum limits they can set, but DEQ has gone along with industry on every power plant permitting decision to date. And with no oversight, there will be tremendous pressure on the agency, and incentive for the companies to convince the agency, that the weakest limit is the best they can do. 5. Facilities are not required to ever install mercury control equipment. If a facility can convince DEQ that its boiler can reduce mercury to the limit, it will not be required to install mercury controls. It can then get an alternative limit (weaker limit) even though it has NEVER installed mercury controls. This is troublesome because despite the fact that two facilities have already agreed to install mercury controls, DEQ is still saying those controls are not best available control technology and is therefore not requiring the Great Falls power plant to install mercury controls. If a company can convince DEQ that it doesn’t need to install mercury controls in the initial permit, it won’t have to install those controls until 2018, if ever. 6. Alternative limits (weaker limits) are good from the time DEQ establishes them (probably late 2011) until 2018 – approximately 7 years. SOFT LANDING. This provides an incentive for companies to convince DEQ that a cheap technology can meet 0.9 lbs/Tbtu and then for them to fail to meet that limit and therefore delay investment in mercury control technology. 7. If a company has an alternative limit (weaker limit) it will have to submit a permit application to DEQ in 2014 showing what “best available control technology” is for that facility. Hazardous air pollutants are supposed to be regulated under a maximum achievable control technology standard. A BACT standard is MUCH weaker than a MACT standard. The BACT standard is driven by economic factors. A MACT standard is driven by what the best facilities in the country are able to achieve. This is why EPA is being sued by 15 states and numerous public health organizations. MACT standards are required for hazardous air pollutants like mercury. 8. A facility that is operating under an alternative limit has to comply with a  BACT limit by Jan 1, 2018. The limit set by DEQ must be no worse than 1.1 lbs/Tbtu.  SOFT LANDING. The 1.1 lbs/Tbtu limit is 20% higher than the limit they are supposedly required to meet in 2010. 9. Trading of mercury credits is allowed. From 2010 until 2018 all nonlignite facilities will receive credits up to 0.9 lbs/Tbtu. Lignite facilities will get more credits, or credits up to 1.5 lbs/TBtu. If the plant can do better than those limits it can sell credits. If it cannot achieve those limits it has to buy credits down to that amount. So if Great Northern has an emission standard in its permit of 3.6 lbs/Tbtu but is actually able to achieve 1.1 lbs/Tbtu, it can sell those credits it received between 1.1 lbs/Tbtu and 1.5 lbs/Tbtu.  It will profit off of failing to meet its supposed required emission rate of 0.9 lbs/Tbtu. SOFT LANDING. 10. Banking of mercury credits is allowed. That means that if a company does better than its limit, it can save those credits until after 2018 and instead of meeting its emission limit after 2018, it can apply those unused credits it accumulated before that date to its emissions to show that on paper (although no in practice) it is meeting its emission limit. SOFT LANDING 11. All facilities must go through BACT review every 10 years. Again, BACT is an analysis that is driven by how economical it is to control pollution. The standard should be MACT. ********************** Anne Hedges Program Director Montana Environmental Information Center P.O. Box 1184 Helena, MT 59624 (406) 443-2520 fax: (406) 443-2507 ahedges@meic.org http://www.meic.org]]>lisa-hardiman@bresnan.netLisa's Page2006-09-19T10:07:00-06:00http://www.cce-mt.org/archives/page26/files/909d66e787842079166fbcf2c222a567-36.html#unique-entry-id-36http://www.cce-mt.org/archives/page26/files/909d66e787842079166fbcf2c222a567-36.html#unique-entry-id-36From Hilary
 
In fact the Board was so annoyed by all the phone calls that I was not allowed to make my comments at the hearing.  Board Chairman Joe Russell said he had already had two days "wasted" by all the phone calls coming in and he wanted to finish the business on their agenda and go home for dinner, they already knew mercury was a poison.  My message was not specifically about mercury being a poison, but I wasn't allowed to continue.  My time is also precious and I could have been at home harvesting my produce in advance of this storm instead of "wasting" my time trying to give these people my honest comments.  It was apparent to me that the rule being considered was not adequate, since it contained cap and trade provisions, the timelines were too long for compliance, there was no hard rule to even require compliance, and the burning of lignite coal was actually encouraged because of extremely limited emission limits.  Anne must feel pretty badly about the way they have messed up the rule she proposed.  When I heard the industry people praising the Board on producing a rule that was beginning to look like something they could live with, I wanted even more to give these people a piece of my mind.  Bill Rossbach, Don Marble, Ms. Shropshire, and Mr. Russell did in fact engage in lots of discussion with the DEQ personnel to try to pin down the ins and outs of this unwieldy rule, and so I had hope they would not entirely buy into it.  I was not prepared for the hostility I received from Mr. Russell and since I am not experienced with these things I was totally nonplussed and ineffective, and felt put down and embarrassed.  I am guessing there is a great deal of pressure from the Governor's office, and if that is the case, I am afraid Mr. Schweitzer is a turncoat and I am very disappointed in him.
 
It would seem there is no hope for the right thing to be done short of litigation to tie things up until a change in administration and the makeup of the Legislature will make a more favorable environment for our issues.  I am feeling very discouraged.
 
Hilary]]>lisa-hardiman@bresnan.netLisa's Page2006-09-16T22:57:00-06:00http://www.cce-mt.org/archives/page26/files/d8e72b23d476c9c81e65320a0dd69821-35.html#unique-entry-id-35http://www.cce-mt.org/archives/page26/files/d8e72b23d476c9c81e65320a0dd69821-35.html#unique-entry-id-35The Coal Burning Plant in Thompson Falls just got a permit to run again.  This time with fewer restrictions.]]>lisa-hardiman@bresnan.netLisa's Page2006-09-12T15:44:00-06:00http://www.cce-mt.org/archives/page26/files/9336903553d4e35f087a74aef706dc1f-34.html#unique-entry-id-34http://www.cce-mt.org/archives/page26/files/9336903553d4e35f087a74aef706dc1f-34.html#unique-entry-id-34PARTY!  FIESTA!
 Ken Thornton is an engineer who built a home 80% off the grid with solar and wind.  He is also on the Climate Change committee.  Lisa
 
We are looking forward to having people out next Sunday. 
 
When:   1:30 pm, Sunday, Sept. 17th
 
Where:  31 Paradise Lane   [ take Flood Rd. going South from town (Flood Rd. runs parallel to Fox Farm Rd about a half mile west of Fox Farm- it can be accessed off Exit 0 by Market Place, just after Tony Roma's turn left over RR tracks and continue South Or/ Take Fox Farm Rd. to Dick Rd, turn right.  Dick Rd dead-ends into Flood Rd, take a left and continue South.  )  Take Flood Road all the way to the "road closed" sign.  Turn right over RR tracks, veer left on Paradise Lane.  We are the first house on the right with the windmill  :)  ]
 
Bring:  Something to share for eating, BYOB and a lawn chair if the weather is nice
 
Please call Ken at 452-1909 to let him know if you are coming and give him a head count. 
 
See you then!
 
Ken]]>lisa-hardiman@bresnan.netLisa's Page2006-09-12T11:35:00-06:00http://www.cce-mt.org/archives/page26/files/51ad0a8b03ab158bd8368c56f8ad02e6-33.html#unique-entry-id-33http://www.cce-mt.org/archives/page26/files/51ad0a8b03ab158bd8368c56f8ad02e6-33.html#unique-entry-id-33Hi, I am sorry I haven’t had a chance to split the email list yet. I have taped this morning from KUFM that DEQ wants mercury from coal fired plants reduced by 2/3 in the next 12 years.  This would cost the industry in MT $500 million and the industry is pushing through Allen Olsen of Roundup (state rep) for a full economic review through MEPA.  It is reported that the Colstrip plants alone profit 4 billion dollars a year.  Also letters on comment on the DEIS will be posted on our web site in the next few weeks.  Lisa]]>lisa-hardiman@bresnan.netLisa's Page2006-08-25T11:53:00-06:00http://www.cce-mt.org/archives/page26/files/70281a4b44f957f0231a4bf262f83cd1-31.html#unique-entry-id-31http://www.cce-mt.org/archives/page26/files/70281a4b44f957f0231a4bf262f83cd1-31.html#unique-entry-id-31We members of Citizens for Clean Energy strongly object to some of the reported statements made by Lawton and Balzarini, which are consistent with what they've said in the past. Clearly, if the SME Co-op is "backing the bonds" as the story claims, then the City of Great Falls, as a partner with SME, is also responsible for their share of the bonds -- presently $125 million, but expected to rise by at least 50% over original cost projections. The difference is that SME can borrow from a federal agency, the Rural Development Administration of the Department of Agriculture, at low interest rates and guarantees against default, while the City of Great Falls will have to enter the commercial bond market and service its debt at higher interest rates and greater risk to the City and the taxpayers. If the city doesn't guarantee the bonds, they can't be sold. And even if they can, they will have "junk bond" status, with much greater risk and higher interest rates.

Our best fiscal and economic analysis shows that this plant cannot be profitable, and in fact will probably have to be shut down or rebuilt with CO2-sequestering IGCC technology before it ever generates any electricity at all. And in that case, it would have been much cheaper to build it at the mine-head and near the customers in SE Montana. Great Falls doesn't need this electricity, and under existing and forthcoming regulations, the City cannot sell it to local commercial residential and commercial customers. They are not "the default provider" -- Northwestern Energy is, and they aren't planning any more coal-fired generation, either.

The fiscal and economic arguments against the Highwood Station are far more compelling - at least in the short-run - than the environmental and health care risks and costs, and each is more than decisive by itself. The city is wasting our time and money by pursuing this boondoggle. It is time for them to call a halt to it, before they embarrass themselves and destroy our local economy and quality of life any further.]]>lisa-hardiman@bresnan.netLisa's Page2006-08-17T10:09:00-06:00http://www.cce-mt.org/archives/page26/files/5e1e6d5026c2ba6fb5fe8292fed6f06d-29.html#unique-entry-id-29http://www.cce-mt.org/archives/page26/files/5e1e6d5026c2ba6fb5fe8292fed6f06d-29.html#unique-entry-id-29plant would adversely affect the Lewis and Clark portage route?"

Please participate and vote YES! 771-9824.

This coal plant will definitely degrade the quality of the experience
of visiting the portage site, which is located 1.25 miles from this
industrial eyesore.

Why vote yes? Read the front page banner headline in today's Tribune.

Federal agencies rank this as a Class IV of IV (highest) grade of
visual interference.

The constant 24 hour industrial noise will drown out all the natural
sounds.

The visual and auditory changes are irrevocable.

The person who is the plant's greatest proponent wants to sell his
property to the plant.

This plant belongs in an industrial site, not in front of our most
scenic view.

This is visual pollution. Not only will there be increased haze, but
the plant will become the dominant feature of the landscape.

(City Manager John Lawton has said that this "history stuff" isn't that
important...let's tell him he's WRONG). Heritage tourism is important
to our economy, and as other places become increasingly less
attractive, it will become more and more important.
]]>lisa-hardiman@bresnan.netLisa's Page2006-08-16T19:52:00-06:00http://www.cce-mt.org/archives/page26/files/8bc1e4ae26e4f3d2da614558097f3ecc-28.html#unique-entry-id-28http://www.cce-mt.org/archives/page26/files/8bc1e4ae26e4f3d2da614558097f3ecc-28.html#unique-entry-id-28Hi, Folks, this is the end of the petition drive- yes!  If you have any petitions please send them to Stuart Lewin 615 3rd Ave. N. Great Falls, MT 59401
Also there is a 9:30 a.m. meeting on Friday at the Park and Ponder.  44 concerned citizens came to the library last night.  It was great!  lIsa]]>lisa-hardiman@bresnan.netLisa's Page2006-08-10T11:38:00-06:00http://www.cce-mt.org/archives/page26/files/da71af77eedc106b3fc3913deb9d6489-27.html#unique-entry-id-27http://www.cce-mt.org/archives/page26/files/da71af77eedc106b3fc3913deb9d6489-27.html#unique-entry-id-27
Public Service Announcement
For immediate Release August 8, 2006
Contact:  Lisa Hardiman at 455-6412  
Citizens for Clean Energy (CCE) is hosting a program about Global Warming on Tuesday, August 15th at the Great Falls Public Library (301 Second Ave. North) from 6 to 8 p.m..  There will be a panel discussion after the showing of two excellent documentaries entitled “Too Hot Not to Handle” which offers a guide of global warming in United States, and “The Air We Breathe” which documents overwhelming evidence that toxic particulates from coal generated power plants cause asthma in children.  These documentaries were provided to CCE by Marie Claude-Guy from HBO Corporate Headquarters with permission to use to educate the community on public health and environmental impact of the proposed the Highwood Generating Plant will have on our community and the earth.  A no-host dinner/snack will follow at the Rio Grill (220 Central Ave) at 8 p.m.   For further information about CCE call Lisa Hardiman at 455-6412 or Richard Liebert at 736-5791 or check out the web site at http://homepage.mac.com/neiltaylor1/cce/index.html]]>lisa-hardiman@bresnan.netLisa's Page2006-07-12T10:50:00-06:00http://www.cce-mt.org/archives/page26/files/3feb22f01f1d47b77f1ef81bb1d0dafa-16.html#unique-entry-id-16http://www.cce-mt.org/archives/page26/files/3feb22f01f1d47b77f1ef81bb1d0dafa-16.html#unique-entry-id-16Dear Citizens for Clean Energy: The most important hearing for our cause is coming up on the draft EIS on July 27th. This will be the last meaningful opportunity for public input on the coal-fired plant. A copy of the Environmental Impact Statement may be viewed at HYPERLINK "http://www.usda/gov/rus/water/ees/eis/htm" http://www.usda/gov/rus/water/ees/eis/htm or HYPERLINK "http://deq.mt.gov/eis/asp" http://deq.mt.gov/eis/asp or a hard copy is available at the Great Falls Public Library. You may also request your own hard copy by contacting Kathy Johnson at 406-444-1760 (email katjohnson@mt.gov). There is no charge for the document or the postage. The document is 700 pages long, but in the days ahead key points will be brought up and emailed to you in time of the public hearing. There will be a meeting of our members to discuss the public testimony of the EIS on Friday at 9:30 a.m. on July 21st at the Park and Ponder on the back patio. It is critical to have presence at this meeting and to publicly testify on July 27th. Written comments are also encouraged. Written comments need to be received by August 15th . CCE has requested an extension of this deadline, but at this time it is uncertain if this will be granted. These comments must include name, mailing address and date. A copy on a computer-generated disc should accompany all hardcopy comments over one page in length (although this electronic requirement is not essential, according to Mr. Fristik). All comments are part of the public record, and by law the government is required to address each concern. Question may be emailed or phoned to Mr. Fristik at 202-720-5093 (rrichard.fristik@wdc.usda.gov). Mail comments to: Richard Fristik USDA Rural Development, Utilities Programs 1400 Independence Ave. SW Mail Stop 1571, Room 2237 Washington D.C. 22050-1571 Or: Kathleen Johnson Department of Environment Quality Director’s Office P.O. Box 200901 Helena, MT 59620-0901 From the dates July 18 through the 28th any email message that needs to be passed to the group must have the word URGENT in the subject line. Also updated information will be in our web site, HYPERLINK "http://homepage.mac.com/neiltaylor1/cce/index.html" http://homepage.mac.com/neiltaylor1/cce/index.html]]>lisa-hardiman@bresnan.netLisa's Page2006-07-11T17:23:00-06:00http://www.cce-mt.org/archives/page26/files/ed506c39711a2e993d9bd701f9e92253-15.html#unique-entry-id-15http://www.cce-mt.org/archives/page26/files/ed506c39711a2e993d9bd701f9e92253-15.html#unique-entry-id-15FIRST CLIMATE CHANGE ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING SCHEDULED Helena - The first meeting of the Montana Climate Change Advisory Committee has been scheduled for Thursday July 13, 2006 in Helena. The meeting will be held from 9:00 A.M. until 5:00 P.M. in Room 111 of the Metcalf Building at 1520 East 6th Ave. The public is invited to attend the meeting, which will begin with a welcome by Lieutenant Governor John Bohlinger. Montana Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) Director Richard Opper said that he is very enthusiastic about launching this project. "Coming to terms with global climate change is absolutely essential to the welfare of Montana's present and future generations," Opper said. "Finding solutions will require the kind of vision and leadership that our kids will look back on and be proud of." The Climate Change Advisory Committee will formulate recommendations for specific actions to reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases, like carbon dioxide. The Council will also identify opportunities to promote energy efficient technologies and clean, renewable energy resources that will enhance economic growth. "Reducing and/or improving the efficiency of our use of energy is key to Montana's economic and environmental future," Opper said. The first meeting will focus on process issues and reviewing background information. The Committee is being assisted by the Center for Climate Strategies, a non-profit organization, which will help facilitate and provide technical assistance.
For more information about the meeting contact Lisa Peterson, DEQ Public Affairs Coordinator at 406-444-2929.]]>lisa-hardiman@bresnan.netLisa's Page2006-06-30T21:44:00-06:00http://www.cce-mt.org/archives/page26/files/f24c6c99b5e4d21fac035668236caef9-13.html#unique-entry-id-13http://www.cce-mt.org/archives/page26/files/f24c6c99b5e4d21fac035668236caef9-13.html#unique-entry-id-13lisa-hardiman@bresnan.netLisa's Page2006-06-29T22:51:00-06:00http://www.cce-mt.org/archives/page26/files/5a04de3090a5391acb4a44dff6919756-12.html#unique-entry-id-12http://www.cce-mt.org/archives/page26/files/5a04de3090a5391acb4a44dff6919756-12.html#unique-entry-id-12The EIS may be viewed at http://www.usda.gov/rus/water/ees/eis.htm or http://deq.mt.gov/eis.asp.  Hard copies are available at GF public library, MT state library in Helena, Mansfield library, UM Missoula, Missoula Pubic Library or MSU in Bozeman.]]>lisa-hardiman@bresnan.netLisa's Page2006-06-28T22:49:00-06:00http://www.cce-mt.org/archives/page26/files/35327b4efd1a3afe7437f40bd21f0fe1-10.html#unique-entry-id-10http://www.cce-mt.org/archives/page26/files/35327b4efd1a3afe7437f40bd21f0fe1-10.html#unique-entry-id-10Cheryl]]>lisa-hardiman@bresnan.netLisa's Page2006-06-26T23:22:00-06:00http://www.cce-mt.org/archives/page26/files/5d0d9e525a51dafad8575d6b68ed6544-9.html#unique-entry-id-9http://www.cce-mt.org/archives/page26/files/5d0d9e525a51dafad8575d6b68ed6544-9.html#unique-entry-id-9Someone on the list suggested we write Schweitzer and tell him our concerns of  the Highwood Station and Gov. Schweitzer’s endorsement of it than please email him or write him at:
Office of the Governor
State Capital
P.O. Box 200801
Helena, MT 59620
 
governor@mt.gov
 
406-444-3111]]>lisa-hardiman@bresnan.netLisa's Page2006-06-26T23:22:00-06:00http://www.cce-mt.org/archives/page26/files/99f13ac69b5303c7319c999cfea4a3a8-8.html#unique-entry-id-8http://www.cce-mt.org/archives/page26/files/99f13ac69b5303c7319c999cfea4a3a8-8.html#unique-entry-id-8buying power from the city. The public meeting will be this Wedneday at 10
a.m. at Heritage Hall, MSU.

The message is ready to be sent with the following file or link attachments:

Shortcut to:
http://www.greatfallstribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060626/NEWS01/
606260307/1002]]>lisa-hardiman@bresnan.netLisa's Page2006-06-25T13:09:00-06:00http://www.cce-mt.org/archives/page26/files/f01c44346634f21aab089628007da043-1.html#unique-entry-id-1http://www.cce-mt.org/archives/page26/files/f01c44346634f21aab089628007da043-1.html#unique-entry-id-1Dear folks:  As those who read the Tribune know Schweitzer endorsed the Highwood plant.  It really means we need to focus on what we can do like the EIS and writing letters with hopes that the DEQ will give up the cap and trade.  Don’t forget to write your written comment to
Board of Environmental Review
1520 E. Sixth Ave.
P.O. Box 200901
Helena, MT 59620-0901
 
And say that we need mercury regulations. 
 
Here are web sites worth a viewing. 
 
http://www.sierraclub.org/cleanair/factsheets/power.asp
http://www.acfnewsource.org/science/mercury_policy.html
and some states actually passed mercury emissions regulations.  Here is an example of a bill in Connecticut. 
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2003/act/Pa/2003PA-00072-R00HB-06048-PA.htm
Please know that we that there is faith still and hope.  Peace, Lisa Lotte Hardiman]]>