HELENA, Mont. – The struggle is ramping up over the Colstrip coal-fired power plant and Montana's energy future.

A headline-grabbing measure in the Legislature, nicknamed the Save Colstrip bill, would have allowed the utility NorthWestern Energy to buy a unit of the coal plant without regulatory oversight and pass the costs on to customers.

That bill failed, but House Bill 467 passed. It allows interest rates of 2% to 3% to pay off Colstrip after the plant stops producing energy.

Customers are currently paying more than 8% interest as they pay down the $407 million plant until 2042.

Anne Hedges, deputy director of the Montana Environmental Information Center, says HB 467 could save Montanans $100 million.

"Do customers get stuck with a bill that they shouldn't, or do customers have some type of relief?” she raises. “And this bill is all about providing customers with relief."

Hedges says the lowered interest rate is comparable to refinancing a house and will save money when the plant is no longer operational – likely more than a decade before it is fully paid off.

Gov. Steve Bullock signed HB 467 last week.

NorthWestern Energy CEO Bob Rowe says Colstrip has been a year-round, reliable source of energy. He maintains the Save Colstrip bill was needed to provide financial certainty for the plant.

The Montana Environmental Information Center and Sierra Club counter there could be a faster way to bring down energy costs. They and other groups questioned NorthWestern's $400 million investment in Colstrip a decade ago, since the utility bought that stake for roughly $190 million.

Now, NorthWestern is in the middle of a rate case.

Mike Scott, a senior representative with Sierra Club's Beyond Coal campaign in Montana, says the regulatory commission overseeing the process should consider Colstrip's current value.

"We think it's appropriate that if they want to use this model of how to establish rates that they should take a look at what the value of the plant is now, not what it was 10 years ago,” he states. “And we think that's going to be a dramatic difference, and probably a good cost-savings for Montana ratepayers."

Hedges adds while NorthWestern is passing on costs for an unsustainable coal plant, it also is trying to hike rates for rooftop solar.

With renewables surpassing coal for energy production in the U.S. for the first time in April, Hedges describes Montana as in a struggle for its energy future.

"It is very much about the future of our energy system, because if NorthWestern gets overcompensated for coal and manages to functionally eliminate net-metering, you know where the state's going,” she stresses. “It's going in the opposite direction of every other utility and state in this nation."

Oregon Gov. Tina Kotek has signed into law the first set of statewide policies in the country supporting community-owned microgrids.

Microgrids are local, self-contained energy systems that use renewable energy sources, such as wind or solar power.

Dylan Kruse - president of Sustainable Northwest, a nonprofit involved in drafting the legislation - said microgrids can help mitigate the uptick in power outages caused by wildfires and extreme weather, especially in rural parts of the state.

"We're seeing an increased interest from small towns, from communities, from tribes," said Kruse, "saying 'look, if the lights go out, we need to have options so we can continue to provide emergency services, we can provide communications.'"

Microgrids can power critical facilities, such as hospitals or fire stations, operating either connected to the main grid or independently during emergencies.

Joshua Basofin - clean energy program director with Climate Solutions - said that while some microgrids are being developed in Oregon alongside utility companies, they are most valuable when communities reap the economic and resiliency benefits.

"When communities own those systems themselves," said Basofin, "they actually have the ability to control those microgrids as they need for their own purposes."

Oregon's new law requires the state Public Utility Commission to establish clear rules for the operation and ownership of community microgrids, which Kruse said he believes will expedite their construction.

He said while other states have considered moving in this direction, Oregon is the first to take this step.

"This legislation," said Kruse, "is the most ambitious, comprehensive legislation in the country of its kind."




get more stories like this via email

Rural Alaska power customers are likely to pay higher electricity rates as a result of the elimination of incentives to switch away from traditional fossil fuels.

The new Trump administration budget eliminated tax credits designed to encourage investment in wind and solar projects.

More than 90% of Alaska residents rely on power cooperatives for their electricity, which have made an effort in recent years to invest in wind and solar - especially in the most remote areas.

Alaska Energy blog author Erin McKittrick said rate payers will pay higher prices as a result of fewer alternative energy options.

"Renewable energy is holding out this promise to maybe keep rates down, but the way things are going we may not get that option, or if we get it, it might be more expensive than it is otherwise," said McKittrick. "So, everybody is going to see their rates go up."

U.S. Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-AK, tried to negotiate some alternative energy tax credits back into the bill for her state just prior to a final vote - but was not able to secure money for Alaska's indigenous whale hunters to buy equipment they rely on for subsistence hunting and fishing.

Beyond affecting larger power co-ops, McKittrick said the elimination of the tax incentives will also hurt small companies that install wind and solar power in Alaska's remote locations.

"They don't have this position where they have a huge portfolio of lots of things going on and they can handle uncertainty for one or another project," said McKittrick. "Whether they exist at all in the future is questionable I would think."

The League of Conservation Voters is working at the grassroots level in Alaska to find ways to keep wind and solar projects alive in the state as it tries to move away from a heavy dependence on diesel fuel and a dwindling supply of natural gas.

More than $7 billion in Colorado's GDP and 9,600 jobs are projected to be lost under President Donald Trump's signature tax and spending bill which cuts incentives for clean energy, according to a new report by the nonpartisan think tank Energy Innovation.

Solar and wind capacity is expected to drop by 340 gigawatts, raising home energy costs by an extra $170 per year.

Margaret Kran-Annexstein, director of the Colorado chapter of the Sierra Club, said the new law reverses years of work transitioning to a clean energy economy.

"We have seen how investments in clean energy programs can attract more jobs, and can help people lower their electricity costs," Kran-Annexstein pointed out.

Trump campaigned on promises to end climate mitigation efforts and to bring down energy costs by increasing the use of fossil fuels. Republicans critical of clean energy tax credits have argued they amount to the government picking industry winners and losers. According to a separate industry analysis, just 30% of U.S. solar and 57% of wind projects are expected to survive under the new GOP law.

Oil and gas companies have benefited from taxpayer subsidies for decades and currently receive $170 billion a year. Kran-Annexstein noted efforts to boost clean energy, to slow climate change and reduce air pollution, pale by comparison.

"This bill is going to be giving polluters an additional $15 billion tax break, while gutting clean energy programs," Kran-Annexstein explained. "We need to be investing in solutions, and we also need to not be giving tax breaks to the companies that are causing these problems."

The new GOP law cuts more than $1 trillion from Medicaid and SNAP to finance Trump administration priorities including extending 2017 tax cuts. Kran-Annexstein worries ramping up fossil fuel production and limiting health coverage will produce dire consequences.

"If we're revoking people's access to health care, and we're going to be seeing increases in the amount of pollution, people are going to be sick and people are going to die," Kran-Annexstein contended.