Archive for Guest Editorial

Guest column: Montana’s renewable energy remains bright in wake of ’13 session – Bozeman Daily Chronicle, May 28, 2013

By Larry Winslow · Comments (0)
Tuesday, May 28th, 2013

http://www.bozemandailychronicle.com/opinions/article_5cee7a2e-c7a6-11e2-b259-001a4bcf887a.html

By Jeff L. Fox

Montana’s promising future as a producer of renewable energy remains bright, thanks in part to Gov. Steve Bullock and his success in defending energy standards and development policies that put people to work while improving our energy supply.

The recently concluded 2013 legislative session saw a flurry of bills dealing with – and sometimes attacking – renewable energy development. The governor vetoed three misguided measures that could have stifled new, renewable energy development. He also signed two helpful bills into law – one that he greatly improved and with amendments he wanted.

The net effect is that Montana remains fertile ground for new energy development that diversifies our energy supply and brings good jobs and sustainable economic activity to rural areas.

Montana’s Legislature in 2005 passed a law requiring large utilities to obtain 15 percent of the power they sell in the state from renewable sources by 2015. Twenty-eight other U.S. states have adopted similar laws, often called “Renewable Energy Standards” or RES, and these standards have helped bring our power supply into the 21st century.

One of the bills Gov. Bullock just vetoed – Senate Bill 31 – would have watered down Montana’s RES by declaring future large-scale hydroelectric plants possibly located in Canada as eligible to meet our Montana standard. Former Gov. Brian Schweitzer vetoed a bill nearly identical to SB 31 two years ago.

Legislators also tried undermining a complex but successful program that encourages development of small-scale renewable energy projects, often in rural communities. Gov. Bullock vetoed that measure – House Bill 188 – noting that the issue is better handled by the state Public Service Commission.

Some lawmakers attempted to weaken a 2005 law that requires utilities to obtain a portion of the renewable energy they sell from small, community-owned projects. The governor expressed a desire to find a compromise, but SB 125 arrived on his desk after the Legislature adjourned, so he vetoed the measure. His action will allow at least one new 25-megawatt community project to move forward in rural Montana.

The Legislature and governor found common ground on some renewable-energy bills. They enacted SB 45, revising the RES to include power from incremental upgrades at hydroelectric dams. Initially written to apply retroactively to past dam improvements – contrary to the spirit of Montana’s RES and the goal of adding new renewable-energy resources – legislators reworked the bill at the governor’s insistence to apply it only to new projects.

So, after a long, sometimes grueling session, Montana’s renewable-energy policies remain much as they were – supportive of new development. And there’s good reason to hope they will stay that way. That’s because lawmakers also approved a resolution calling for a study of the impacts of Montana’s Renewable Energy Standard.

Renewable-energy advocates embraced the study, seeing it as an opportunity to provide the next Legislature with hard facts to replace the ideological opinions too often injected into debate over energy policy. A balanced examination of the RES and its broad benefits is likely to confirm that it’s good energy policy and smart economic-development policy.

Indeed, Montana’s RES already has helped support some $1.6 billion in new investment, diversifying our power supply with 650 new megawatts of renewable generating capacity. The RPS has supported 1,500 high-paying construction jobs and more than 100 good, permanent jobs in rural communities. And the least-expensive sources of long-term power for NorthWestern Energy customers today comes from wind turbines.

The pace of additional renewable-energy development in the years ahead is tough to predict. Much depends on the economy, market conditions and improvements to transmission lines. But our democratic process has once again affirmed Montana’s welcoming environment for renewable energy.

Renewable energy is working for Montana, and our state is poised to make the most of new opportunities under Gov. Bullock’s leadership.

Jeff L. Fox is the Montana policy manager for Renewable Northwest Project, a nonprofit regional advocacy group promoting environmentally responsible renewable-energy resources.

 

Comments (0)
Categories : Clean Energy, Guest Editorial, Legislature

Guest opinion: PSC sides with polluters, not public health – Helena Independent Record, May 22, 2013

By Larry Winslow · Comments (0)
Wednesday, May 22nd, 2013

http://helenair.com/news/opinion/readers_alley/psc-sides-with-polluters-not-public-health/article_9c2cbff2-c26f-11e2-b060-001a4bcf887a.html

By Dr. Georgia Milan Dr. Robert Merchant

The recent action by the Montana Public Service Commission to oppose standards for carbon pollution from power plants is the wrong prescription for better health.

By siding with those who would weaken, block or unjustly delay the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency from fully implementing the Clean Air Act, the PSC puts polluters ahead of the public.

America’s coal-fired pollutants are the nation’s most significant industrial source of smog-forming emissions, including ozone. Additionally, scientists warn that the buildup of carbon pollution will create warmer temperatures, which may increase the risk of dangerous smog levels. More smog means more childhood asthma attacks and complications for those with lung disease.

With some members of Congress and the Montana Legislature refusing to acknowledge that climate change is happening, the EPA’s implementation and enforcement of the Clear Air Act not only is our best defense against air pollutants that cut lives short, but also helps mitigate the ever-increasing climate change crisis.

Those most vulnerable among us are at greatest risk from ozone pollution. People with lung disease such as asthma or emphysema, children, anyone 65 years old or older and also those who simply work or exercise outdoors are more likely to experience shortness of breath, inflammation in the lining of their lungs and increased susceptibility to respiratory infections. People living with lung disease are more likely to require medical treatment or even to be hospitalized on days when ozone levels are high.

Additionally, children who are raised in communities where ozone levels do not meet basic public health standards may face reduced lung function in adulthood, which increases their risk of lung disease later in life.

Power plants continue to pump out the essential ingredients necessary to form smog. The formula is alarmingly simple; two raw gases produced by smokestacks and tailpipes — nitrogen oxides and hydrocarbons — become smog when temperatures rise on hot sunny days. The more unseasonably warm summers and winters we have, the more ozone pollution will threaten our health.

Along with the adoption of the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards, which promise to save 11,000 lives each year, limits on carbon pollution will do much to protect the air we breathe, preventing tens of thousands of asthma attacks, bronchitis cases and heart attacks.

The PSC cites its responsibility to ensure that Montanans have access to safe, reliable and affordable energy. But commissioners’ opposition to standards that will protect public health and reduce health care costs by preventing disease, indicates they are placing the interests of industry over the well-being of Montanans. We urge them to reconsider this stance.

Dr. Georgia Milan is a physician from Missoula. Dr. Robert Merchant is a physician from Billings.

Comments (0)
Categories : Coal, Guest Editorial, Member news

Guest opinion: Agriculture could lose out with expanded coal mining, shipping – Billings Gazette, May 11, 2013

By Larry Winslow · Comments (0)
Monday, May 13th, 2013

http://billingsgazette.com/news/opinion/guest/guest-opinion-agriculture-could-lose-out-with-expanded-coal-mining/article_93edcc23-9233-5654-91c8-74102562dafc.html

By Arlo Skari

Montanans are no strangers to conflict over coal.

It was four decades ago when multinational mining companies began buying coal seams in southeastern Montana, and sparked debate with ranchers concerned for grazing lands and water. Today ranchers in the region are again worried about expansion of coal operations. Many now have years of experience with the damage the industry does to clean water.

But there’s another important difference today: how much farther concerns about coal have spread.

My family and I grow wheat near the Canadian border in northern Montana’s Golden Triangle region. We’ve been farming here since 1947. We’re far from the coal fields, so back in the ’70s when coal company land men were stirring controversy there, it wasn’t something that mattered to us farmers up north. Today it does.

Why? Coal companies’ expansion plans today involve mining in the Powder River Basin, transporting the coal across Montana on open rail cars to proposed new terminals in the Pacific Northwest, and shipping it overseas to China to burn. It’s a plan being driven by the shift in the U.S. from coal to cleaner energy sources.

Economic risk

For many grain growers, the specter of a lot more coal train traffic raises an economic risk. The vast majority of the wheat we grow in the Golden Triangle is sent by rail to West Coast terminals to ship to Asia. For the first time in a long time, demand is up and the price for our wheat is pretty good. We’re going to need more rail access, not less. With land coming out of the Conservation Reserve Program back into production on our farm, for example, we’ll be seeding about 25 percent more acreage.

So what happens if coal companies put another 30-60 trains on the tracks through Montana under their export plans, as is being predicted under some scenarios?

One plausible result is that costs to ship could rise as rail demand rises. And if congestion and track access gets so tight that our grain shipments are delayed, even a little, we risk losing out to competitors from countries like Australia or Argentina that can deliver on time.

The coal industry will tell us not to worry. To gauge how much to trust those assurances we should ask ranchers near Colstrip who were assured that waste ponds with toxic coal ash wouldn’t leak (they did, and still do).

Climate change concerns

There’s another factor that has broadened concern about coal today: Communities across the country have seen two consecutive years of severe droughts, wildfires, heat, floods, and storms that have cost more than $135 billion in federal disaster relief.

Choices about fossil fuels nowadays come at a time when we’re coming to grips with the implications for our climate. They also come in an era where renewable energy can boost local jobs and revenues. Montana has huge wind power potential, and we can do solar and geothermal too. It’s where electricity is going and we should be getting in the game as aggressively as possible.

Sometimes I’ll hear conflict over coal characterized as an “environmental debate.” It’s clearly broader. It’s an economic issue for ranchers concerned about new coal train tracks cutting cattle off from water. It’s an economic issue for wheat growers concerned about shipping in a time-sensitive and competitive market. It’s a safety and health issue for emergency response teams in rail cities and towns concerned about more delays at rail crossings.

As a businessman I think about the issue of a potential ramp-up of coal operations for export in terms of the risks for our family farm. As a grandfather I think about what today’s choices will mean for our younger generations, for my great grandkids, for the land, water, and climate they will live with. We all need to.

Arlo Skari grows wheat near Chester and is a member of Northern Plains Resource Council.

Comments (0)
Categories : Agriculture, Climate change, Coal, Guest Editorial, Northern Plains Resource Council

Guest opinion: Mine management honors Good Neighbor Agreement – Billings Gazette, April 8, 2013

By Larry Winslow · Comments (0)
Monday, April 8th, 2013

http://billingsgazette.com/news/opinion/guest/guest-opinion-mine-management-honors-good-neighbor-agreement/article_6ccb2747-1925-5ce7-bd73-b10c16328b10.html

By Jerry Iverson

The success of the Good Neighbor Agreement is proof that strong environmental protection and cooperation with local communities make good economic sense.

The mines on the Stillwater and East Boulder rivers are dynamic and expanding ventures which must address constantly changing conditions on the ground and in the marketplace. The board and management of Stillwater Mining Company have shown that natural resource development can occur in a responsible, sustainable, and environmentally proactive manner while remaining profitable. A transparent and cooperative relationship with members of the local community also reduces the risks to the company of legal conflict and delays. It pays to be good neighbors.

In 1999, after years of litigation and conflict, Northern Plains Resource Council and its affiliates, Cottonwood Resource Council and Stillwater Protective Association, entered into year-long negotiations with SMC which resulted in the signing of the GNA. This Agreement is a legally binding contract between the councils and SMC which establishes limits and performance standards on certain activities related to the Stillwater Mine near Nye, and the East Boulder Mine near Big Timber.

The terms established in the GNA bind all successors, and are specific and measurable, including:

- Comprehensive busing and traffic reduction programs at each mine.

- Water quality and biological monitoring requirements that are stricter than state standards.

- No mine sponsored housing (man camps) outside of the city limits of Big Timber, Absarokee, or Columbus.

- Conservation easements that limit subdivisions on company owned private land.

- An independent, third party technical consultant paid for by the company to inform the Councils about the complex technical issues of mining.

- Direct input and comments from the councils on draft permit applications before the application is sent to the federal and state agencies.

- Regular meetings between SMC and the councils to implement terms of the agreement.

In 2005, the parties went through the document word-for-word and amended the terms to adopt the lessons learned during the first five years. While we got most of the bugs worked out, at times, we still strongly disagree with each other and must rely upon provisions in the GNA to arrive at a consensus as to how to move forward. One of the most important consequences of this long-term relationship is a mutual trust that each party is working in good faith. We bring our disagreements to the table, say what we think, and ultimately find a solution.

The GNA provides a stable and predictable business environment in which the standards of performance are clear and the lines of communication are open. The councils appreciate and respect the commitment shown by the current leadership of SMC over the last 12 years to implement and promote the GNA. The councils encourage shareholders of SMC to vote in support of the current board and management.

Jerry Iverson of Big Timber represents the East Boulder Oversight Committee. He collaborated on this opinion with Paul Hawks, Big Timber, also with East Boulder Oversight Committee; and Charles Sangmeister, and John Beers, both of Nye, representing Stillwater Oversight Committee.

Comments (0)
Categories : Guest Editorial, Hardrock Mining, Member news

Guest opinion: Legislature must address big needs of oil-impacted towns – Billings Gazette, April 8, 2013

By Larry Winslow · Comments (0)
Monday, April 8th, 2013

http://billingsgazette.com/news/opinion/guest/guest-opinion-legislature-must-address-big-needs-of-oil-impacted/article_1973b9be-6008-54d1-9009-fce3e351d47c.html

By Brandon Schmidt

From my home in Baker to Sidney to Billings, Eastern Montanans are living through the latest oil boom. Some impacts are from our neighbors to the east, and some are from within our own counties. With the nation focused on energy independence, Montana needs to realize that oil and gas development is here for the long term. While it comes with economic benefits, there are also impacts. Now is the time to make the responsible decision to invest in our stressed infrastructure and stretched community services, and to put Montanans’ interests first.

In today’s market, oil companies are making record profits. It is no longer appropriate to give out-of-state oil companies an 18-month holiday from paying their production taxes. But that’s what Montana law does. When it was created, the 18-month holiday was intended to incentivize drilling when the price of oil was at record low levels. Those days are long gone, yet the holiday remains.

Some argue that the holiday is needed for development and without it jobs and our economy are at risk. This ignores the fact that incentives are needed to boost a struggling economy. The oil and gas industry is not struggling. There is room for sensible reforms to help Eastern Montana. Reforms like placing a trigger on the holiday so that we provide incentive when the price drops and we don’t when profits deem it unnecessary.

$100 million tax break

The tax holiday for oil and gas companies means nearly $100 million in lost state revenue. The companies profiting the most need to pay their fair share. That money should go to repair and upgrade crumbling roads and bridges, to pay for expanded police, fire and ambulance service, to address overcrowded hospitals, and to address the Eastern Montana housing crisis.

Oil companies don’t need the financial help. We can no longer afford to shortchange Eastern Montana’s roads, schools, hospitals and emergency first responders — all of which are significantly stressed due to the oil boom. This is why it is so frustrating to see so little movement by the Montana Legislature to reform oil and gas tax revenue to get communities like mine the critical help they need.

There have been bills introduced to repeal (SB295) and reform (SB399) the tax holiday, connecting the lost revenue to the impacts in communities. Both measures were opposed by the oil industry. Both efforts have been tabled.

Raiding general fund

Instead of responsible reform, the Legislature seems intent on simply raiding the general fund to throw a few dollars at the impacts ($10 million here, $15 million there). None of these proposals are enough to help communities like mine that truly need it.

However, there is still time to act. Time before the burden of addressing impacts is placed on Montana families. Time before knowing that our needs won’t be met, and communities like Baker throughout Eastern Montana will suffer as a result.

Brandon Schmidt is a member of the Baker City Council and a board member of the Montana Organizing Project.

 

 

Comments (0)
Categories : Guest Editorial, Oil and gas

Guest opinion: Oil, gas tax holiday is unfair – The Montana Standard, March 29, 2013

By Larry Winslow · Comments (0)
Friday, March 29th, 2013

http://mtstandard.com/news/opinion/oil-gas-tax-holiday-is-unfair/article_fa626644-9812-11e2-b19c-001a4bcf887a.html

By Julie French

I’ve lived in eastern Montana my whole life, seeing how frustrating economic development is for entire communities. So, nobody has to convince me that the Bakken oil boom is a welcome form of economic development.

But does my support for oil and gas development mean I ignore a fundamental Montana value – fairness? Yet there’s no question that Montana’s existing tax code is grossly unfair as it applies to oil and gas production.

I’m a mineral owner. I, along with family members, own the mineral rights in Daniels County. If a company were to strike oil where my minerals lie, I’d pay an oil-production tax of over 15 percent immediately!

Meanwhile, the oil company that extracts the oil would pay almost no tax on oil-production for the first year to year and a half. Montana has an oil production tax for companies of 9.26 percent – one of the lowest in the West – but current law suspends collection of all but 0.76 percent of the tax for the first year for all wells and the first 18 months for horizontal wells.

As a resident Montanan, I feel this isn’t fair. And to understand just how unfair it is, you have to know that Bakken wells typically produce more than half their total output of oil within the first 18 months. The so-called “tax holiday” is a huge tax giveaway totaling hundreds of millions of dollars in recent years – a tax break not available to mineral owners or other businesses.

We have a lot of different taxes in Montana, but they all amount to the same pool of money. So, a major tax break for oil companies means other taxpayers have to shoulder more of the burden.

And that burden is increasingly apparent. Along with the economic development that comes from oil production are significant community impacts to roads, schools and public services. Just one example: Communities in my part of the state have long relied on volunteer ambulance services. I’ve served as an ambulance volunteer. With oil development come more people, more accidents and new demand for a paid, full-time ambulance service. This is just one small example of the growing demands for services and expanded infrastructure across many counties.

Such expenses are a price of success, but somebody has to pay for them. If the oil companies are on tax holiday, taxes from the rest of us have to work harder. A dominant theme of this year’s legislative session has been how best to pay for these impacts. This challenge would be a lot easier to meet if oil companies were paying their fair share.

A recent report from Montana State University Extension’s Local Government Service calculated that the average Montana oil well generates $800,000 less in tax revenue during the first three years than a comparable well in North Dakota. No one should underestimate the positive impact of $800,000 in places like Fairview, Bainville and Culbertson.

That comparison with North Dakota is inevitable. In my part of the state, any discussion of oil development inspires comparisons with North Dakota. Around here, North Dakota, epicenter of the Bakken Boom, stands as the shining example of enlightened oil policy.

As it turns out, North Dakota also has an oil and gas tax holiday. But North Dakota’s tax holiday kicks in only at times when oil prices drop below a trigger price, set at about $60 a barrel. When oil prices are high – as they are today – companies don’t need tax breaks to stimulate development. If oil prices fall past the trigger point, the tax holiday kicks in to encourage development.

If that works in North Dakota, it would work in Montana. Tying the oil and gas tax holiday to a trigger would certainly be fairer than what we have today.

— Julie French is a former state representative from Scobey.

 

Comments (0)
Categories : Guest Editorial, Legislature, Oil and gas
Next Page »

Follow changes on the Northern Plains website by subscribing to our RSS:

Subscribe to RSS
Find us on Facebook
Archives
Categories

Go paperless!

Join our e-mail list:
Home | Contact Us | Career Opportunities | Membership | Site Map | Photo Credits
Find us on Facebook | Subscribe to RSS | LOGIN | Copyright © 2013 All Rights Reserved
Northern Plains Resource Council
Site design by Element L Design