GeeGuy has an interesting post up. Well, more than one, of course. One I find more interesting because of a couple coincidences. I was messing around on the SME site this morning, tweaking a post I have been half-assed working on, got frustrated, closed it down, did other things. I read this post. Chuckled a bit. Happened to read the paper, this letter, and the next one, which happened to be about water. 

Well, since that post was about several of the things  DeeDee Isaacs, director, Tongue River Electric, Ashland mentioned, I stayed up late to write about it… 

(Just an aside.) 

Anyway.
“Do you have any idea how disappointed we east-of-the­divide folk were when the SME engineers said the power plant was not feasible here? Three potential sites were nixed due to lack of water, transmission, labor supply, rail lines, and other infrastructure.” 

First off, what side of the divide does this woman think Great Falls is on? For the life of me, I cannot find a divide between us and Ashland. Second, why the heck does eastern Montanas lack of water, people and infrastructure mean we should pay to build a power plant for them? 

Since I am a bit pissy about being called a sniveler, let me expand on Ashland, Montana for a moment. In 2000, 464 people lived in Ashland. 52% of them used electricity to heat their $20,700 homes. By 2005, the estimated median household income was $24,600. The unemployment rate is over 12%. Local jobs? How’s that for irony. 

“It’s confusing as to what kind of electricity generation you want - no coal, no nuclear, no wind turbines to impact your harmonious element if you might want to take a stroll out in the middle of nowhere.” 

Now, this is becoming redundant. I don’t really have a problem with coal as “electricity generation”. I have no problem with wind turbines. Happen to think they are kinda cool. I do hold the opinion, which I believe I am entitled to, that the City of Great Falls has better things to do with its time and money than supply power for DeeDee in Ashland. 

Eastern Montana is already aesthetically challenged, has crappy water, and apparently, crappy quality of life, so they can have the damn plant. How bout Ashland puts up the money. Maybe Rosebud County (population approximately 9,400) can toss some in, and with the help of Custer Co, (11,696), Powder River Co. (1,858) Treasure Co. (861) we get a grand total of 23,415 people. 

I bet they would like the jobs. “Because of the specialized expertise required, the construction workforce is expected to be primarily drawn from outside the region. Based on a rough estimate that 75 percent of the power plant construction workers required would come from outside the region (SME, 2005j; Warren, 2004)” (Final EIS)  That would be an economic boom for that area.

It would be good for Ashland. I don’t want it.  I don’t want a coal plant on the edge of town, I do not think that the possible benefits to this city justify the negatives. I don’t believe the City needs to run an electric utility, it is not a municipal service when the residents cannot utilize it. It is losing money now, and will probably continue to do so. It’s not good for Great Falls, and it isn’t my responsibility to build it here because DeeDee can’t have it in her own backyard.

Oh, and those three other sites? Don’t have to look far to see what the big problem there was.

Water. Circle: Fort Peck Reservoir. Possible, with convoluted agreements with either the Corp of Engineers or the Reservation. Hysham: Yellowstone River. Significant water rights issues. Flows in the Yellowstone River fluctuate, and as a very junior water rights user, they would be the first to lose access to water when river flows drop, which they do every summer. Decker: Tongue River. Average daily flow is lower than existing water rights allocations. 

Which brings me to the next letter in the Trib.

Perhaps I’ll post that tomorrow.

6 January 2008 | Life | Comments