New Topic; Highwood Generating Station

As a community, we need to fully understand all of the implications of the Highwood Generating Station, the 250 megawatt coal-fired power plant which Southern Montana Energy, a co-op of five Montana communities including Great Falls, has proposed to build East of Great Falls.

Philosophically, I have problems with a municipality owning and managing a resource I would argue is inherently commercial. My problems are lessened by the fact that the resource would actually be owned by a co-op, but it is a co-op owned by governmental organizations. However, I don't think that such concerns should be paramount in this debate.

What should be paramount? Well, we need to examine the advantages and disadvantages, the costs and the benefits, to the stakeholders, i.e., us. We, the taxpayers of the City of Great Falls, will own 25% of this plant. More than that, the proposed plant will be built and run here, by our residents. The majority of any environmental problems resulting from the plant will also be felt here.

What does this station mean for our community? What are the benefits? Well, one thing it does mean is jobs and tax revenue. How much?

Discounting the construction jobs and revenue (which are considerable), in its first year of operation this plant is budgeted to employ 45-60 people, at an average wage of $45,000. Millions of dollars in annual payroll, and in annual tax revenue for our county and school districts.

Consider the one-time shot in the arm generated by the construction of the plant. That revenue represents more than triple the amount currently under protest by PPL. Quite frankly, this debate renders our upcoming hard decisions about school closures moot.

It could mean more jobs than just that. Manufacturing requires great amounts of power, and locating a manufacturing plant near a power station means that your plant does not have to pay nearly as much in transmission costs. A 250 megawatt facility would almost certainly bring more primary sector jobs to our community. In a declining local economy, the benefits of the growth offered by this proposal are a substantial benefit that we neither can nor should ignore.


So, what are some of the costs and disadvantages?

First, if our city were running this operation I would definitely be opposed. Our city has proved that it does not have the ability to run a large, complicated facility like this. However, while we will be stakeholders, our municipal leaders will not be managing this operation.

In addition, plant detractors have raised legitimate concerns regarding the environmental impact of this plant. The plant's stack will generate emissions. In addition to carbon dioxide, those emissions will include roughly half a flask, or 35 lbs., of mercury per year. In addition to stack emissions, the plant will also generate a large amount of ash which must be dealt with as a by-product.

The plant will also utilize water as a cooling agent in the boiler. Indeed, most of the emissions of the stack will be steam. Approximately 1/10 of 1% of our municipal water supply will have to be diverted to the plant for its operations.

Personally, I submit that the water consumption is negligible and the plant will be paying the city for its use. In addition, I submit that the plant's plan for the ash (to place it in lined pits covered by clay) are sufficient remediation. The pressing environmental issues seem to be the CO2 and Mercury emissions.

Are these emissions worth the benefits we receive from the growth and jobs offered by the plant? I submit that question is the issue before us.

A side issue, the benefits of IGCC (coal gasification) techonology vs. CFB (Circulating Fluidized Bed) technology also requires some debate. My next post will begin to discuss that issue.