By Greg Lemon, 8-18-07
Missoula mayor John Engen has signed a letter of intent to purchase the city’s power from Electric City Power, Inc., which is the City of Great Falls’ non-profit energy corporation.
Contracting power from ECP could save Missoula about $70,000 a year, Engen said.
However, a key component for ECP’s future energy portfolio is the Highwood Generating Station, a coal fired power plant set to come on line in central Montana in 2011.
The coal aspect of ECP’s portfolio has created controversy over the decision to sign the letter of intent. However, the letter in no way binds the city to do business with ECP, Engen said.
Engen and his staff are working on a contract to purchase electricity from ECP and will present it to the city council for approval. Without a signed contract, the city is not bound to ECP.
The public will have ample opportunity to comment on the contract and whether or not the city should move forward with ECP, he said.
The plans for the Highwood plant call for it to be developed with current emission control technology, reducing harmful greenhouse gasses, but not eliminating them. When carbon sequestration technology becomes available, the plant will incorporate that into their facility, according to documents submitted to the city council.
However, no matter how well it is constructed and planned, the Highwood plant will still contribute to greenhouse gasses, said Bruce Farling, executive director of Montana Trout Unlimited. Farling is against the idea of buying power from a new coal plant.
“We’re one of the cities that has pledged to reduce greenhouse gas emissions,” he said.
It is inconsistent for the city to agree to that kind of pledge and then support a new coal plant, Farling said.
“The bottom line is: that coal plant is a loser,” he said. “They haven’t figured out how they’re going to do it with a zero emission type of approach.”
Electric City Power provides much of Great Falls electricity needs and also boasts a wide variety of other customers including MeadowGold Dairy, General Mills, and Great Falls International Airport.
Currently, Missoula gets its electricity from Northwestern Energy. If the city decides to change providers it must do it by Oct. 1, according to a House Bill 25, passed in the 2007 legislature. The bill was designed to help re-regulate power in Montana. If the city doesn’t drop Northwestern as their energy provider by Oct. 1 then they’ll be unable to make the change. However, if they switch to ECP before the deadline, they can return to Northwestern in the future.
In Helena, city officials are set to oppose the same offer from ECP, citing environmental and financial concerns.
On Aug. 1, the Administration and Finance committee heard a presentation from ECP and Great Falls city manager, John Lawton. The committee voted to support the letter of intent. The issue was passed forward to the city council on Aug. 6. The council voted in favor of the letter of intent as well.
Northwestern Energy also has coal-fired power plants as part of their portfolio, Engen said. But it’s old coal technology. By contracting with ECP, Missoula will have a role in the future of clean energy production.
“I’ve been pretty engaged in trying to work on some climate change solution and believe they happen at the local level,” he said. “If we’re going to use coal it ought to be clean or at least as clean as it can be.”
Engen sees ECP as part of the future of public controlled power. They have members and customers who are both public and private entities. Engen has been supportive of public-controlled electricity.
“The notion of public power and the ability to control our energy future is pretty appealing and Electric City is a piece of that puzzle,” he said. “I don’t discount the concerns, but I’d like us to at least talk about those concerns.”
Missoula could make their contract with ECP contingent on the Highwood plant upgrading to carbon sequestration technology, Engen said. They would never have that kind of voice with Northwestern Energy.
“We’re in a position to negotiate some performance standards and if those aren’t met we don’t need to take part in the supply into perpetuity,” he said.
With the deadline looming for cities to change providers or remain with Northwestern, Electric City is obviously going to be trying to recruit as many customers as they can, Farling said.
“I don’t think our councils have heard enough about this,” he said. “I just think they need to take a second look.”
Right now coal plants are polluting the environment and creating more coal power plants isn’t going to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, Farling said.
“What the city is doing is helping firm up the economic viability of a new source (of carbon emissions),” he said.
Engen expects to have a contract to the Administration and Finance committee within the next two weeks. He has also encouraged the council to hold a public hearing to discuss citizen’s concerns.
[End of article]Whether Missoula buys power from Great Falls will not change things. See: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/14/AR2007081401331.html
>>>>>>>>>>
The global-warming debate's great unmentionable is this: We lack the technology to get from here to there. Just because Arnold Schwarzenegger wants to cut emissions 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050 doesn't mean it can happen. At best, we might curb the growth of emissions.
Consider a 2006 study from the International Energy Agency. Using present policies, it projected that emissions of carbon dioxide (a main greenhouse gas) would more than double by 2050; developing countries would account for almost 70 percent of the increase. The IEA then simulated an aggressive, global program to cut emissions that is based on the best available technologies: more solar, wind and biomass energy; more-efficient cars, appliances and buildings; more nuclear energy. Under this admitted fantasy, global emissions in 2050 would still slightly exceed 2003 levels.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
The real question may be for Great Falls to answer. As Ms. Ambrose-tubss wrote in her excellent High Country News essay on this topic, the controversy over the Highwood Generating Station is one of the most interesting conflicts in the West. The coal plant is supported by a wide range of residents who seem to feel that their city has no future. It is fascinating to read the comments on the project, concerning dying ag, dying commodities, the aging population, as if the coal plant will ride in, a knight in shining armor, to add a tiny bit of vigor to a dying city. When the reality is that Great Falls has everything it would ever need to join the boom in Montana - for good or ill-- mountains, skiing, the Missouri River, a hiking and biking trails system through the coulees that would be the envy of almost anywhere. The gardening and produce potentials are great, the xeriscaping, native plant landscaped yards some of the state's most interesting. And yet the citizens seem more than willing to sacrifice the air, soil, water, and quality of life that would reinvigorate their town with new residents and new economic development, as has happened from Lewistown to Dillon, for this outdated plant.
It fascinates me that the only folks left who will say yes to a smoke belching sub-tech coal plant used for selling electricity to cities where the residents would laugh at the mere mention of such a plant, are people who feel inexplicably hopeless for the future of their town. Somebody should do a study of that. The energy of unbased, mass pessimism commandeered for the agenda of farway profiteers, leading to a validation of the pessimism.
Hal
Link to Ambrose-Tubbs essay, and I apologize for the typo in her name above.
http://www.hcn.org/servlets/hcn.Article?article_id=17087
Hal
Gov. Schweitzer says he supports "clean coal" technologies, and especially emission sequestration (CO2 capture after burning coal). Incidently, lower CO2 emissions follows lower overall emissions--including mercury, sulfur compounds, and misc heavy metals. So why is the Gov. supporting this plant which is working to have a more lenient permit, has no sequestration plans, and will probably burn the dirtiest, lowest energy, (cheapest), coal from the Powder River Basin?? Want another example from Montana? Take a look at the Thompson Falls power plant. They violated ("broke the law") their permit--including not using a permitted water source for the boiler and turbine system, not providing adequate dust control, not using the proper fuel profiles as permitted, and emissions violations. They were fined. Highwood just seems to be more of the same. Where is the real change that is based on real science and facts, not politics and money changing hands?
Comment By Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers!, 8-27-07Actually, Hal, I did NOT think that article was "excellent". I thought it was kind of pathetic really. No one I know in Great Falls thinks our city is an "ugly stepsister"! Ambrose is an outta stater who has a bit of name recognition from her author/father. But she don't know SH*T about Montana! And her article reflects. Look, I'm LIVE in GF. I'm on the ground here. And I'll tell you this. NO ONE WANTS THAT GAWDAMMED PLANT! That is why they will allow no vote on it. And I'll tell you one more thing. If they attempt to actually build that plant, they will be trouble. It'll be ugly. The Environmental Rangers may have to get involved AGAIN! And we don't mess around. We deal harshly with criminals, and that is what SME is at this point. They can jump through all the hoops they want, but I've got some very, very bad news for them. WE ARE THE FINAL PART OF THE PERMITTING PROCESS! And if the Rangers say no, it ain't gonna happen. Mark my words. It ain't gonna happen.
This article was printed from www.newwest.net at the following URL: http://www.newwest.net/city/article/missoula_moves_to_buy_power_from_great_falls_controversy_builds_over_highwo/C8/L8/