Dear Mr. Hardliner,

I did some research on energy development. As you know, I have an interest in this topic as I've posted here before.

The only disconnect in this discussion is the one between the accusations and the facts. The “strictest emission standard” you reference was for toxic mercury, but you got it all wrong. Industry was actually pleased with the standard because it encouraged development by drawing a distinction between lignite and sub-bituminous coal.

HB 610 had to do with keeping citizens from challenging agency actions in court. It had nothing to do with whether energy is actually developed. The fact is, more energy has been developed during the Schweitzer administration than in the previous three administrations combined—that is, energy measured in real kilowatts and BTU’s—not just in hot air.

And the “new mandate” you speak of is the requirement that 15% of Montana’s power be produced from renewable sources like wind by the year 2015. In reality, the cost of power produced from the state’s large, new wind farm came in at less than the cost of power from a new coal-fired plant. And please produce the evidence showing how this new power standard has “driven up the price of electricity.” The only evidence you’ll find for increased rates will point to increased demand and the colossal failure called utility deregulation enacted under former Governor Marc Racicot, with the help of greedy industry representatives and members of his own party.

You claim “the Schweitzer administration’s Board of Environmental Review is making overtures that they will implement new emission standards on CO2 – and do it without legislative approval.” What you choose to ignore is that the board actually decided not to require the plant in question to regulate CO2. Is this the type of “anti-development roadblock” you are referring to? Please, try again. The claim is bogus.

You also claim that “Wyoming, North Dakota, and South Dakota are all seeing more energy development than Montana.” Please, provide the evidence. Have you seen Montana’s rig count compared to that of Wyoming or South Dakota? Please tell us specifically how they are “cashing in on cutting-edge coal development technologies like gasification, liquefaction, and cleaner-burning power plants.” The same developers are at the same stages of development in Montana.

If you talk to industry representatives who are really in the game of energy development—those who actually make the investments and build the plants—you’ll find that Governor Schweitzer is their favorite governor. They’ll tell you that he’s one of only a few who can carry on a meaningful, intelligent conversation about energy development.

Viola,

Thanks for the comments, but I have some corrections and clarifications for you.

First of all, industry was not pleased with the mercury standard, and it says exactly that in the Mike Dennison article that I linked above. The Schweitzer administration has set mercury standards stricter than the federal standards, which puts Montana at a very real competitive disadvantage.

Go back and read the committee testimony on HB 610 - experts who work in the energy field testified that this bill would have been good for the energy industry. It would not have prevented citizens from challenging any substantive standards in court - but it would have taken away one of the frivolous tools the environmental lawyers use to shut down development.

Your contention that the Schweitzer administration has developed more energy than "the three previous administrations combined" is misleading, not to mention I think you're exaggerating the numbers a little bit. You're including oil and gas development - which is all a direct result of a combination of the Republican tax cuts in the 1990s and the world energy market. If we hadn't cut taxes on oil and gas in the 90s, we never would have attracted new exploration in Eastern Montana - and if the price of oil wasn't as high as it is now, we wouldn't be pumping as much oil as we are. And by the way - Brian Schweitzer had absolutely nothing to do with this. So it might be correct to say that MONTANA is creating more energy now than any previous time in history, but please don't take credit for it when you had nothing to do with it.

Schweitzer's new green energy mandate is requiring NorthWest Energy to buy more wind power, which is driving up the price of electricity - and that's according to the PSC. Here's a related article that I posted earlier this year - http://www.thehardliner.com/main/psc-rule-change-will-mean-pricier-electricity.html. The article is about qualifying facilities, but the same is true for NWE and wind power as well. Nice play of the dereg card, but get real, that bill was passed with strong bi-partisan support and you know it, so quit trying to blame Republicans. Plus, dereg did not increase electricity prices by as much as popularly perceived, I believe the number was about a 10% increase after about 15 years of no increase in electricity prices - these numbers are approximate as I could find no source.

And finally, on the CO2 - the go back and read the article that I linked to. It says right there that the board decided that it didn't have the authority to retroactively put a CO2 mandate on the Highwood Generating facility, but that the board did believe that it has the authority to put in place CO2 standards in place - that last part alone is enough to convince energy companies to stay out of Montana. So yes, this is exactly the type of roadblock the Schweitzer administration is putting up to keep development out of Montana.

The comments about our surrounding states are based on data from the US Department of Energy: According to the US Department of Energy's web site, there are currently 7 coal and oil and gas research and development projects ongoing in Wyoming with an investment valued at $70 million. They have produced an estimated 2,000 jobs as a result of this investment. In North Dakota, DOE is participating in 13 coal research and development projects valued at $118 million which have produced an estimated 3,351 jobs. In Montana, DOE is participating in 1 coal and 1 oil and gas R&D projects with an investment of just $2 million and an estimated 70 jobs. The R&D investments in these states just goes to show who puts energy as a priority and who doesn't. Here's the link: http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/projectdatabase/stateprofiles/

And on your last point - you're half right. The industry representatives who stand to benefit from green energy development all love Schweitzer. The global warming nuts all love Schweitzer. And the MEIC crowd may butt heads with the administration from time to time, but they have to be pleased that we're not digging more coal on Schweitzer's watch. But the energy industry experts that I work with in traditional energy are all frustrated as hell that this administration talks a big game but constantly stands in the way of actual development.

I have heard Schweitzer's claim that more kilowatts of electricity have come on line during his administration that during the previous three (Republican) administrations. That claim is true as far as it goes... He is talking about Judith Gap and Basin Creek. Both of those projects were in the works long before Schweitzer ever become governor. So they came on line during his administration, but in reality he has zero claim to the credit for making them happen.