fbpx

Montana Politicians, Unions Wary of Clean Power Plan

Conservation groups say cutting carbon emissions offers economic and environmental opportunities

By Tristan Scott
Powerlines. Beacon File Photo

Montana’s top politicians and union leaders are skeptical about President Barack Obama’s ambitious new Clean Power Plan to dramatically cut carbon emissions, and while statewide utilities avow to continue to mount renewable resource projects that could buoy the economy, the blueprint for meeting the new plan’s standards remains vague.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency rolled out its final rule Aug. 3, calling for an even more ambitious level of carbon emissions reduction than initially proposed last year, prompting statewide consternation about federal overreach and confusion over the new targets.

Gov. Steve Bullock accused the federal government of “moving the goalpost” on Montana after floating a less stringent draft plan last year, and Attorney General Tim Fox promised to pursue “all available legal options” to resist the plan.

Officials with the Montana Department of Environmental Quality, the state agency responsible for overseeing and implementing the cuts, are still trying to determine how to meet the new reduction targets after having prepared for months to meet the previous plan’s standards, about which they were optimistic.

Tom Livers, the head of the state DEQ, said he was dismayed by the new thresholds because they are more stringent than what was previously proposed, forcing regulators to return to the drawing board.

“We were fairly optimistic about the original plan, and we spent months figuring out how to meet those intensity targets,” Livers said. “The new plan represents a fundamental shift in methodology, so none of the previous targets we prepared for are applicable to the final rule.”

The draft of the rule released last year set a target for Montana to reduce its overall carbon dioxide emissions by 21 percent, but the new rule could more than double that target. Livers said his department is still trying to work out exactly what the new target is.

“The new target could be anywhere from around 32 or 33 percent to as high as 47 percent,” Livers said. “We’re just trying to dive into the weeds and make some sense of it.”

The new Clean Power Plan changes several different variables in how Montana’s CO2 emissions are calculated, including its baseline level of pollution, and how much credit it gets from sources of non-polluting renewable energy in the state.

“There are a lot of moving pieces in the new rule, and there are enough changes that we will be learning for quite some time,” Livers said. “We definitely have some challenges ahead of us.”

Even though the state hasn’t worked out its specific target for reducing carbon dioxide emissions yet, Bullock said he’s “extremely disappointed” that the Obama administration changed the standard.

Labor unions like the AFL-CIO and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers also questioned the new proposed reduction goals, saying the final rule goes beyond what was expected. Union leaders say cutting emissions so dramatically in a short period of time will cost the state hundreds of jobs, mainly at power plants.

“We’ve spent the better part of a year talking to our members and we thought the initial plan would be workable,” according to Al Ekblad, executive secretary of the Montana AFL-CIO, which represents more than 44,000 Montana workers and their families. “However, the number was unexpected and seems unreasonable. President Obama literally changed the rules on us.”

“The number appears to be much higher than what was in the proposed rule that came out last year,” Ekblad continued. “We are worried about what this means for the hundreds of working families whose livelihoods depend on the coal industry, the communities that depend on those jobs, Montana’s tax base and the ratepayer’s that could be impacted by these changes.”

Conservation groups, meanwhile, say the new plan provides a unique opportunity to create jobs by developing infrastructure to support renewable resources.

Anne Hedges, of the Montana Environmental Information Center, said the heightened cuts are an opportunity to create additional jobs and grow the state’s renewable energy infrastructure.

“If Montana wants to protect pubic health and export its vast wind and solar resources, we must invest now in the next phase of renewable energy – not hold onto the outdated fossil fuel plants of the last century,” Hedges said.

Bob Rowe, president of NorthWestern Energy, which provides electricity and natural gas to approximately 692,600 customers in Montana, South Dakota and Nebraska, said the company has been working for months to develop an understanding of the draft Clean Power Plan and its potential effects on its customers. He said the company is prepared to move forward under the new guidelines.

“We will carefully study the final rule and will work with others in Montana and South Dakota to consider all of our options,” Rowe said. “States will have a key role in implementation; we will work with state agencies and others to ensure that the investments our customers have supported in zero emissions resources are recognized.”

In Montana, NorthWestern put a renewable-based system in place with the purchase of the integrated Montana hydroelectric system in 2014, along with substantial wind generation. About 56 percent of the electricity that NorthWestern provides to its customers is generated with zero-carbon water and wind.

Still, the company has a 30 percent stake in Colstrip Unit 4, a coal-fired power plant, and coal continues to be important to NorthWestern’s ability to provide customers with reliable, affordable electricity, Rowe said.

“Although NorthWestern owns only about 8 percent of the coal generation in Montana, Colstrip 4’s 90 percent availability to meet peak demand means it is critical to meet customers’ needs, especially on the hottest and coldest days,” he said.

Livers said communicating and cooperating with energy companies will be integral to meeting the plan’s standards, and the agency intends to take advantage of the flexibility that the Clean Power Plan affords individual states. While the rule gives Montana latitude in how it implements the plan, failing to develop a plan at the state level would mean accepting a template plan that isn’t tailored to Montana’s unique resources.

“We would rather take the initiative than accept a federal default,” Livers said. “Even if it is going to be tough we want to control our own destiny. If we ignore this rule, we give all control to the federal government. That would obviously be a huge mistake.”