EL07-102
The interesting things you can find on the internet.
In a Tribune piece about RUS dumping Highwood, these two things are printed.
“Litigation in the Highwood case also was a factor in RUS’s decision, Newby said. “There’s a possibility of additional litigation, too,” Newby said.
“In the letter to SME, RUS also said it was concerned that 40 percent of the capacity of the proposed plant was not under contract through the entire term of the proposed financing agreement.”
Montgomery Great Falls Energy Partners L.P. (Montgomery)is seeking to “leapfrog” over SME’s Highwood project in the generation interconnection queue of NorthWestern.
In a Motion to Intervene and Comments submitted 10/09/07 by SME, it says “Permitting Montgomery Great Falls’ undeveloped project to jump over SME’s viable Highwood Station project in NorthWestern’s generator interconnection queue for connection at the Great Falls substation could result in SME’s project being further removed from further consideration for financing by the RUS. This would effectively prevent SME’s project from being completed” etc.
I wonder if the FERC believes these guys are going to find financing now, without RUS.
A bit later, it notes “Indeed, Montgomery Great Falls’ filing presents the only significant obstacle to completion of SME’s project.”
See above.
SME takes a couple shots at Montgomery, “Despite the attempt of the complaint to cast the Great Falls project as viable, there has been no construction activity at the Montgomery Great Falls project site. The site is an overgrown, fenced enclosure with a few concrete pads remaining from the long-abandoned “Montana Megawatts” project discussed in the complaint.”
Dudes, your site is a wheat field, and I don’t think it is really even yours yet. And everyone knows the zoning is going to get litigated.
SME also mentions that the Montgomery project has not obtained firm contracts for the offtake of power from the proposed facility.
Hmm. I believe in the RUS letter to SME, it was mentioned that RUS was concerned that 40 percent of the capacity of the proposed plant was not under contract through the entire term of the proposed financing agreement.
Interesting how things change. Especially when there is no risk. Oh, and This link should get you to the FERC site, if you are interested.
3 Responses to “EL07-102”
1 LT 5 April 2008 @ 7:25 am
Nice post. I needed a good laugh and this fit the bill. SME stands for smoking meth everyday.
Hey Tim nobody is listing to your line. Give it up.
2 mary jolley 5 April 2008 @ 8:59 am
Thanks again Firefly.
This is exactly the kind of information that elected city official should have but don’t get from staff.
At our Feb. City Agenda Meeting when I brought up the Memo from Lawton about there being a new “scenario” and “we” were still involved - I opined that we reevaluate our involvement. We no longer needed a feasibility study; we now have history as a guide. Mr. Lawton said the Memo, “was just for us.” I mentioned the lawsuits (we were not provided a copy of the RUS letter, Ms Balzarini said “we did not need one”) in particular I mentioned that the suit dealing with 2.5 particular matter might have legs. Mr. Bronson got angry for some reason by my mild remark as to the possibly that there might be monkey wrenches in the works.
Last night I took another look at our Growth Police, I think Mr. Bronson had a hand in its creation. Well there is information in the environmental section that tells of the new regulations for measuring 2.5 particulates. There is a measurment of what the City of Great Falls is at now. One of the lawsuits says that SME in its FEIS should have measured for that size too.
Mr. Gregori is a con man. He has a ready answer for everything and the answer is ever changeable.
This is not somebody the city should be involved with.
Being in charge of our energy future is akin to being in “Charge of the Light Brigade.”
3 gffirefly 5 April 2008 @ 9:22 am
I was short of time when I put this up. One thing I need to find out is what SME’s completion date is in their priority status. I know the Montana Megawatts project lost its place in the queue because it could not be up and running by a certain date. At this point, SME seems to be near the same situation…
Another thing of note, this proceeding is not being defended by Luxan & Murfitt. SME is using Wolf Block Schorr and Solis-Cohen LLP, out of Harrisburg, PA. as counsel. And I assume we, as members of SME, are paying for part of that defense.
Leave a Reply