Comments on: Coal Plant: Now What?

By: firefly

firefly — Wed, 31 Jan 2007 20:03:16 +0000

“Allowing a coal plant” is a different question than “financing a municipal utility” in any case.

By: Gee Guy

Gee Guy — Mon, 29 Jan 2007 13:45:36 +0000

I looked at the AG opinion, Mary, and I cannot find any language in it that requires a public vote in our case. Please help me out here.

By: mary jolley

mary jolley — Mon, 29 Jan 2007 02:40:20 +0000

Lance, if the question is, “Should we allow a coal plant here?” there is no provision in state law to allow such a vote. This was the mayor’s response. WRONG The law calls for a vote by the people before the city spends money on a municipal utility. The Attorney General’s Opinion supporting this can be found on city web site. It was used to create Electric City Power in Oct. of 2003. Ignorance of the law is no excuse for me, it can not be a valid excuse for elected officials, city managers or fiscal services directors.

By: Lance

Lance — Sun, 28 Jan 2007 20:33:47 +0000

Are you backers still going to push dirty old coal? Gov. Schweitzer says “We are not going to extend tax incentives to Highwood” People are not going to let this stinking heap move forward. What about the wasted tax money spent chasing this foul air spewing monster? We want some accountability. This policy position did not come about overnight.

Time for a special investigator.

By: sean

sean — Sat, 20 Jan 2007 15:57:30 +0000

To me the pollution problem is the smaller issue we face right now, I’m concerned about the money the city is wanting to commit. Much like they put the pool bonds to vote we need to vote on the Highwood plant. The bi-centennial got Mayor Grey defeated not Mayor Stebbins and the Highwood plant will probably get her defeated.

By: wolfpack

wolfpack — Fri, 19 Jan 2007 04:20:32 +0000

GeeGuy, I agree the financials and partnership agreements should be more transparent. This wouldn’t be as big an issue if it weren’t for Lawton’s legendary creative accounting and subdiffusion. I would be more at ease if this project was just handed over to a consultant with a good reputation for these kinds of endeavors. This consultant should report directly to the commissioners not the city manager. How is it that our city government can take on managing a project like this without hiring one or more people of talent to work it full time? We are using existing staff who have no expertise in this field. Even if the city staff has by now figured out what they are doing it must be taking up a great deal of their time. What city functions are not being attended to while our top dogs are working the coal plant issue? If everything is being attended to properly then we had to many management employees to start with, which again makes me question current management.

By: GeeGuy

GeeGuy — Fri, 19 Jan 2007 01:10:59 +0000

I guess I need to speak up.

By: Dona Stebbins

Dona Stebbins — Thu, 18 Jan 2007 23:27:12 +0000

Lance, if the question is, “Should we allow a coal plant here?” there is no provision in state law to allow such a vote. Land use questions are handled by city and county commissions and never up to the voters.
Wolfpack, Yellowstone Park emits 400 pounds of naturally occuring mercury per year. CCE should move forward and close that park – look downwind at all the thriving communities that have suffered harm from the Park. (A little sarcasm, sorry;)
The bottom line is that we have an opportunity here, including many jobs and increased economic vitality. Over 50% of the nation’s electricity is coal-powered, and Highwood Generating Station will use the best available control technology with Circulating Fluidized Bed technology.
This will prevent us from having to buy power from plants that cause far more pollution than HGS.
Those who are touting IGCC as preferable refuse to recognize that it is immature and unreliable technology, not to mention unfinanceable.
I know this post will change no one’s mind, but I hope that those with open minds will will read it and do their own homework, instead of swallowing what they have been spoon fed.

By: GeeGuy

GeeGuy — Thu, 18 Jan 2007 23:10:37 +0000

Wolfpack, that is exactly why I am not focusing on the whole pollution issue; I just don’t know enough about it.

I am far more worried about the financial issues.

And Mayor, while I am glad that the Tribune has “been given access to all public documents,” I am curious why the rest of us are having such a hard time getting our hands on them.

By: wolfpack

wolfpack — Thu, 18 Jan 2007 19:57:45 +0000

Funny, when you look at the mortality rates for the different states ( http://www.census.gov/population/projections/MethTab2.xls ) it’s hard to find any correlation with coal plant concentration (East Coast) and life expectancy. Despite the “ill health effects” of coal plants Montana is below many states, in longevity, which have several coal plants. My point isn’t that breathing flue gas is good for you but that the additional money spent on other costlier technologies could be better used elsewhere to improve our health, via the concept of diminishing returns. A teenager is more likely to be murdered ( http://health.allrefer.com/health/death-among-children-and-adolescents-2.html ) than die of cancer so where is our money best spent? Nobody is for pollution but we would be far worse off living in the Stone Age when there was none.