OK, so coal doesn’t kill very often and you won’t get pneumoconiosis from a coal plant. (Open Wide) I was joooookkkkinnnnggg. I consider myself a right-of-center citizen (like a right tackle) but have recently had my conservativeness challenged because of my posts on the proposed coal plant. I have been referred to as a 'week-kneed liberal, hippie, brie lover, childish, lacking business knowledge and accused of being asleep during civics lessons'. And those were just Mrs. Hawkeye’s words. The most hurtful insult came from a blogster named Captblackraven, who pontificates from his royal nest at the Tribune forum. He states, “While you claim to be a conservative, you think like a liberal”. Ouch.
My sense is that there is actually broad disapproval for the coal plant and that the majority of citizens would not support it if it came to a vote. I do not feel this is a partisan issue but more of a common sense ‘what is good for this community issue’ that both Republicans and Democrats in Great Falls share.
Conservatives believe in limited government and should be asking ‘Why is the city involved in this?’ The coal plant, from Great Falls perspective, is an answer looking for a problem. While SME may need this alternative now, we don’t. An energy shortage is not predicted for Great Falls anytime soon. We live adjacent to plenty of hydroelectric energy. The proposed coal plant may provide the city with market rates for electricity or price stability as our city administrator says. Although I favor competition, taxpayers who are footing 25% of the risk, won't necessarily be paying less for their energy. Great Falls and SME will consume a small portion of the electricity and then the rest will be sold to markets east of here, hopefully for a profit. The coal plant is just an investment idea from Great Falls perspective.
So the basic question is whether this is a good investment. Where is the detailed financial plan outlining the costs, benefits, and particularly risks? Most fiscal conservatives invest their money with people they trust, not those with poor track records. The city’s record does not need further description. SME has never actually run a coal plant although I am convinced that SME’s general manger, Tim Gregori, has hit a home run for his company in pulling this deal off. (Let's see … we need power in rural Billings so lets put the coal plant in Great Falls.)
We should invest in what we know. The city is in over their heads with this plant. There are no energy experts on our side. Would you invest your own money in this venture with a city administrator who says, "There's no risk," it simply takes time to work it out. The city is covered." Conservatives place value on what they own. Any idea what the city’s water rights were worth? Was there analysis done on that? Did we essentially give it away? We sold off substantial water rights to get 25% of the coal plant power yet putting up thirty or so windmills would have given us the same amount and kept our water rights to be used for other business opportunities. Windy city = Windmills. Keeping it simple is often the best approach.
There has been a general lack of common sense by city administration. While I am all for representative government, it’s a coal plant for gosh sakes. It is counterintuitive (incredulous actually) that the commissioners went out of their way to eliminate a public vote on such a controversial and expensive issue. The electorate gets to vote on a few million dollars for swimming pool renovations but not on our share of a $720 million and rising speculative investment.
Some of the financial risks include environmental issues such as emission controls on mercury and CO2, future taxes on CO2 emissions, lawsuits, and future cleanup. The plant will be obsolete from a clean coal technology perspective by the time it is built. It will pollute to some degree and SME may or may not care one iota about it. One dirty coal plant will beget another. It makes more sense to wait until a national and state energy policy is determined rather than proceeding now and taking greater risk unnecessarily. The coal will still be there.
I believe that the majority of us are concerned about issues such as limiting government, making good investments, thoroughly assessing risks, asking for competency and common sense from our elected officials. Many of the risks Great Falls faces in developing local energy involving coal could be mitigated by waiting several years. Denny Reberg recently said, "While development of a national energy policy and the time for Montana to be part of the comprehensive national energy policy is now, it certainly shouldn't be a matter of politics". I couldn't agree more.
7 comments:
"I believe that the majority of us are concerned about issues such as limiting government, making good investments, thoroughly assessing risks, asking for competency and common sense from our elected officials".
I could not agree more with your statement. As a very conservative voter I can hardly wait for the next election! Lets clean up this mess ASAP!
Please look up the word "incredulous." You used it incorrectly. The taxpayers are not at risk for 25% of the plant - that will be funded by the sale of revenue bonds. If they don't sell, the city will not participate.
The dams are not owned by Great Falls, but by PPL, and the enrgy they generate is sold out of state, not here. Northwestern buys a portion of it, but also buys enrgy generated by "dirty" coal plant out of state.
Hawkeye,
A true conservative would work at setting reasonable environmental standards then let the chips fall as they may. Under informed individuals (referring to commission meeting protesters) micromanaging every little project is exactly what we don't need more of in Great Falls. The Sunday Trib underscores how far under most regulatory limits the new CP will be. I was some what amused to find out that the refinery we have in the middle of town currently pollutes half of the amount proposed for the coal plant at maximum permit levels (actual levels are usually much less than permit levels per the article). This is clearly much more of a threat to GF public health since there is no mixing zone to dilute pollutants before we breathe them. Where is the outrage?
Great Falls will economically benefit huge from water sales and taxes alone without considering power sales. I don’t know what the property taxes on a $700M+ facility would be but I would estimate 1-1.5% market value which would be $7-10.5 million per year. As for the straw horse argument that coal will be obsolete soon, with our current dependence on coal I think we will see hydrogen fuel cell powered cars in every garage first (except we need a source of electricity to make the hydrogen).
Now as for your concerns over the cities ability to oversee our interests in this project, I agree 100%. We need to identify and support prospective candidates that are truly for making a change in city management style. I just hope the coal plant issue is not the sole source of inspiration for these new candidates. The change in management would have benefits/detriments far beyond the coal plant debate. Listen to Mrs. Hawkeye, she sounds like a well grounded woman, is she interested in public service?
Sorry for the repost but I noticed a typo in my first post and I didn't want to be diced up over it by you brie eaters.
Thank you for commenting anonymous one, anonymous two, and Wolfpack. I used the word ‘incredulous’ (not disposed or willing to believe; unbelieving) to describe my feelings regarding the city not having the sense to have a public vote on such a controversial issue. As in, it is hard to believe they did that. I get your point though.
I know that GF does not own the dams. My point is that we can buy electricity at market rate now or we can get involved in building a coal plant and end up still paying market rate. It is just an investment for GF, not a need. I understand we buy energy from coal plants elsewhere. I am in disbelief that we are actually going to build one here as a speculative investment.
I understand that the potential revenue of the proposed plant will be backing up the revenue bonds issued to finance the building of the plant (in addition to insurance I guess.) However, the city will still be 25% owner in a $720 million coal plant. It sounds like you agree with the city that there is "no risk".
Here are quotes from the Tribune one month ago regarding the proposed plant. I think the taxpayers are already participating, don't you?
"What if the coal plant does not get built at all?"
"Balzarini said if the plant is not built at all, the city electric utility fund would have to repay the $2 million. If the utility fund was unable to pay all the money back, the general fund (and city taxpayers) would be responsible, she wrote recently."
To Wolfpack: GeeGuy actually asks me to write because he knows I will make just enough mistakes to generate lots of good comments from posters like you and others.
FYI, there is a rumor circulating about the refinery doing a huge expansion. It could get really interesting.
Great post.
It seems to me that conservatives who are lining up behind this project are doing so only because of the old adage, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend".
Liberals are the enemy of coal plants (no matter who owns or finances them) and conservatives are the enemies of liberals, so therefore, conservatives have to be the friends of coal plants--no matter who owns or finances them.
Whereas, a real conservative would look at this project and think "state-sponsored corporatism" and go "I don't think so."
Hallie,
Your analysis here doesn’t fully apply. A Great Falls conservative has little reason to reflexively reject the coal plant as state sponsored corporatism. If the city built 1 or 100 coal plants there would be little effect on the local market for electricity since most of it is sold out of state. The proposed plant will not significantly effect a private companies decision to build another plant in our region. PPL will just sell more electricity out of state and it’s bottom line will be relatively unchanged. So a Great Falls conservative would reasonably temper his/her politics for the local good.
A liberal however would just as soon let this town dry up and blow away before they listen to any real debate on this issue. They see clean air or water as the only thing effecting public health and desire to have it maintained at any cost. The problem is that modern humane existence is not all fluffy white clouds. It’s a balancing act that trades modern standard of living for impacts on the environment. A liberal can climb into their SUV, drive down to the Civic center to protest the coal plant and not recognize the hypocrisy. A Liberal will browbeat me about CO2 and how definitively it is the sole reason for Global Warming over the next 100 years, then make a joke about the weatherman always being wrong and not see the hypocrisy. Over its lifespan the new plant will bring over a billion dollars to our community and a significant amount of that will improve the lives of workers in GF (ever had a friend who couldn’t afford to go to the doctor?). The Tribune article last weekend detailed out the environmental impacts for regulated pollutants and the proposed plant was well bellow the limits our government has established as safe. A true liberal would be in Helena protesting these limits and demanding legislative change instead of the NIMBY’s protesting here in Great Falls.
Post a Comment