Copper And Silver Mine Under Lawsuit

MONTANA, Jun 27 2008 (Neo Natura) - A lawsuit seeks to block development of a copper and silver mine beneath the federal Cabinet Mountains Wilderness in northwestern Montana.

Conservation groups claiming the Rock Creek Mine would jeopardize sensitive bull trout filed a case this week charging the tentative state permit for the project is the wrong kind and imposes only run-of-the-mill requirements. The suit in state court seeks an order demanding a comparatively stringent permit for the mine proposed by Washington-based Revett Minerals Inc., which has said mining would not disturb the surface of the wilderness area. State work preceding that permit would include a study to assess the potential for water degradation from mining.

Plaintiffs Trout Unlimited, Earthworks, the Rock Creek Alliance and the Clark Fork Coalition also say the state's present plan for issuing a permit does not include sufficient public involvement.

The suit filed in Helena names Revett and the Montana Department of Environmental Quality. Other cases against the mine are pending in federal court.

Revett Vice President Carson Rife said Tuesday that he had not seen the suit, but based on a summary, the case appears "baseless." DEQ lawyer John North said he also had not seen the suit. North declined to comment.

The suit says that DEQ and Revett expect mine development to move forward with a general permit, rather than with a water-quality permit. The latter would require consideration of conditions surrounding the mine project, which stands to harm fish by increasing sediment in Rock Creek, according to the complaint. It says the steps for issuing a water-quality permit would trigger public involvement requirements, as well.

The general permit never was intended for projects where "unique ecological resources are at stake," said Trout Unlimited's Loren Albright. "If Rock Creek doesn't meet that definition, I don't know what does."

Native fish in Rock Creek cannot tolerate sediment beyond the existing level, the conservation groups say.

Rife said Revett plans sediment control, and expects to remove many tons before and after mining begins.

"The plan is to reduce existing sediment loads, not increase them," he said.

On the issue of the permit classification and public involvement Rife said, "We feel Montana DEQ knows the law, knows the process and is following the law."

Revett has for years sought approval for the mine and recently began constructing warehouse and office buildings at the site.

Ongoing federal cases against the mine include allegations that reviews by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service did not satisfy requirements of the Endangered Species Act. Besides bull trout, federally classified as a threatened species, mine critics have expressed concern about effects on grizzly bears.

Northwestern Energy Price Hike

MONTANA, Jun 26 2008 (Neo Natura) - As regulators decide soon whether to grant NorthWestern Energy a $15 million annual rate increase, they may look at another aspect of company finances: NorthWestern’s unusually high payouts to stockholders.

For the past two years, NorthWestern paid dividends to its shareholder-owners in an amount more than the company’s entire net earnings, according to its financial statements.

In 2006 and 2007, NorthWestern reported $91 million of net income, but paid out $91.3 million in dividends to owners of company stock.

A critic of the rate increase says if the company needs more operating cash, it should reduce these dividends, instead of raising rates on customers.

NorthWestern is “paying out way more dividends to its shareholders and creditors than anyone should allow,” says Owen Orndorff, a Boise attorney and independent power-plant owner.

NorthWestern says Orndorff’s arguments on the dividends are irrelevant and have nothing to do with whether the $15 million rate increase is “just and reasonable” or necessary.

The dividend-to-income ratio also looks abnormally high, company officials say, because NorthWestern had to reduce its income by $19 million in 2006 because of a court judgment that is on appeal.

NorthWestern says restricting its dividend payouts could harm the company and drive up its cost of capital, by making the company less attractive for investors.

Public Service Commission Chairman Greg Jergeson, D-Chinook, says the five-member PSC may consider the dividend issue when it rules on the rate increase in early July.

“I’m sure we can have something to say about that,” he says. “The concern is if they pay dividends beyond what net earnings can reasonably support, they are reducing their equity, and that can’t go on indefinitely.”

The $15 million annual rate increase would be a 2 percent hike in electric and natural gas rates for NorthWestern’s 320,000 Montana customers.

It’s part of a proposed deal negotiated by NorthWestern and the Montana Consumer Counsel, a state office that represents utility consumers in rate cases before the PSC.

As part of the deal, NorthWestern also agreed to provide to consumers some electricity that is slightly discounted from market prices for the next 6½ years, and to reduce rates or rate increases in the future.

Orndorff, who owns two independent power plants in Montana that sell electricity to NorthWestern, has been the deal’s most vocal critic.

His power plants in Billings and Colstrip also buy power from NorthWestern, and he says the rate increase isn’t needed. He also says by paying out abnormally high dividends to shareholders, NorthWestern is putting the company at financial risk.

Since coming out of bankruptcy reorganization in late 2004, NorthWestern has paid out 85 percent of its net income in dividends to shareholders — the bulk of which are large investment funds.

As in most publicly held companies, NorthWestern executives and board members also hold significant amounts of stock, thus benefiting from the dividends. For example, President and Chief Executive Officer Mike Hanson owns nearly 32,000 shares and has received $83,000 in dividends since the company emerged from bankruptcy.

The industry average for dividend payouts is 60 percent to 70 percent of net earnings, according to NorthWestern and industry financial analysts.

Hanson says the 100 percent dividend payout of the past two years is an aberration, skewed by the $19 million income write-down stemming from the court judgment. The company hasn’t paid that money and has appealed the award, he said.

“When we normalize our income, we’ll be within the (standard) range for dividend payout,” he says.

The ability to pay dividends also is related more to the company’s cash flow, rather than net income, Hanson says.

An attorney representing NorthWestern says the company’s credit ratings have been improving and that Orndorff has offered no proof that the dividend payouts have negatively affected company finances.

Without that showing, the issue is irrelevant, John Alke of Helena wrote in documents filed with the Montana Public Service Commission last month.

“NorthWestern Energy’s cost of providing electric and natural gas service is not determined by the dividends paid by the corporation to its stockholders,” Alke wrote. “The payment of dividends by an investor-owned utility to its stockholders is a matter committed to the soundly exercised discretion of its management.”

Orndorff says dividend payouts at 100 percent of net earnings can’t be sustained, and that the Montana Public Service Commission should restrict the practice.

“There has to be a policeman on the beat, and that policeman is the PSC,” he says. “They’ve got to lay down the rules. They may not like it, but that’s the way it is.”

Judith Gap Bat Deaths

MONTANA, Jun 23 2008 (Neo Natura) -As wind power gears up in Montana, the effects of large-scale wind projects on wildlife remain a concern: Birds may be in the clear, but bats are running into trouble.

Turbine-related fatalities at Judith Gap Wind Energy Center near Harlowton were 1,206 bats and 406 birds, according to a 2007 preliminary study prepared by TRC Solutions’ Laramie, Wyo. office.

Roger Schoumacher, a biologist and consultant for TRC, said the bat fatality count is higher than what generally occurs in the West.

For more than a year, TRC has been preparing the first post-construction avian and bat fatality monitoring and grassland bird displacement surveys—at a cost of more than $200,000—for Judith Gap Energy, LLC, which is owned by Chicago-based Invenergy. The wind farm is the largest in Montana, spanning 14,300 acres of public land in Wheatland County.

Now, Invenergy has decided to go ahead with another year of study, said Judith Gap operations manager John Bacon, to get a “better feel” for the reasons behind the high bat mortality rate.

“The bats were a surprise for us,” he said.

Janet Ellis, a wind policy specialist with the Montana Audubon in Helena, said the bats found at Judith Gap were all forest bats from Alberta, Canada, coming through in August and September during fall migration.

“It wasn’t expected at all,” she said. “But we know so little about bats.”

According to Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks Biologist Allison Begley, many bird groups advocate for better-sited wind farms in order to lessen the impact on wildlife.

“Nobody’s opposed to green energy,” said Begley, who sits on the technical advisory committee for Judith Gap. “As far as wind energy and bird interactions, it seems that, using some preconstruction surveys, a well-sited wind farm has much fewer impacts on birds.”

In the late ‘80s, thousands of dead birds were collected at Altamont Pass and Solano County Wind Resource Areas near Livermore, Calif. The farm’s 7,000 turbines make up the largest wind farm in North America, and unfortunately for birds, the most dangerous. The death count sparked cries from the National Audubon Society and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and inspired a slew of follow-up studies on large-scale wind developments across the U.S., which has led to better turbine designs—employed at Judith Gap—to mitigate the effects on birds.

Paul Williamson, director of hydrogen and alternative energy research and development at the University of Montana, said the reason for so many bird kills in California had partly to do with siting and turbine construction.

“When the wind turbines were first starting to be put in, California leaders didn’t know a couple things. They put some turbines in the flyways,” he said. “They didn’t know at what height to put wind turbines—some birds fly at one height and others [at] another.” And so birds were sliced and diced while attempting to pass through the rotor planes or when landing on top of the towers.

At ten to 20 rpm, the three propellers of the 90-some turbines at Judith Gap rotate slower than the original towers constructed for the California farm, and they do not consist of the lattice construction that can be less bird-friendly.

Bacon said at this point, the bird death count itself is not significant enough to hinder growth at Judith Gap, but if the results of the extended survey indicate an extremely large impact on bats, the cut-in speed of the turbines might have to be set higher.

“Turbines start at 6 mph. There’s been some work done where they know when bats are flying through the area, they’re flying through in lower winds,” he said. “If the winds are higher, they don’t fly. So what we could do is change our cut-in speed to 10 mph.”

Audubon would like the Montana Department of Environmental Quality to work with stakeholders to ensure new wind projects minimize impacts on wildlife.

“In general, in Montana wind farms are going to have more of a habitat fragmentation,” Ellis said. “The bat issue raises some concerns about the impacts of wind turbines on bats in specific areas.”

One of the positive things about the Judith Gap wind farm, she added, is that it doesn’t have a vast amount of water, which means no shore birds and fewer waterfowl frequenting the area.

“[Wind farms] all kill some birds,” Ellis said, “What we’re trying to do is figure out a way to make them have the least impact.” One way to do this, she said, is by coming up with criteria companies can follow.

“Hopefully the Judith Gap stuff is going to come out, and hopefully it’s still going to be a good site,” she said. “It’s the best site you could find in a place like Montana.”

Montana Renewables Company

MONTANA, Jun 20 2008 (Neo Natura) -Missoula’s Don Kiely and his son, Jason, have spent their lives in different settings - one in the chemistry lab and one in the forest - but they are teaming up in a new business venture that combines their passions.

Seeking a clean alternative to fossil fuels, the Kielys are part of a new Missoula-based company, Montana Renewables, that will start producing green “carbochemicals” this fall.

The biomass chemicals, which are derived from plant material, are designed to be used instead of petroleum-based chemicals in an array of industrial and consumer products. Montana Renewables will use a refining process patented at the University of Montana to make glucaric acid, a biodegradable compound, from raw sugars in corn syrup.

Officials at the technology startup envision a day when carbochemicals replace fossil fuels and Missoula is a hub of the nation’s burgeoning biomass industry.

Montana Renewables’ refining process generates no pollution or waste, takes a small amount of energy and can be produced on a large scale at a relatively low cost, said Jason Kiely.

“This is a sustainable idea with huge social and environmental benefits,” he said.

Petrochemicals are used in many everyday goods - from concrete and fabrics to pharmaceuticals and inks - but a growing number of companies nationwide are switching to biomass materials.

About 5 percent of global chemical sales currently are made up of green products, but the market share could rise to 20 percent by 2010 and may reach 66 percent of the total global economy, according to a North Carolina State University study.

The U.S. Department of Energy has identified glucaric acid as one of the top 12 building-block chemicals that can be converted to bio-based materials. Glucaric acid has been certified as safe by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

Montana Renewables, which incorporated earlier this year, was founded by Don Kiely, a University of Montana chemistry professor whose research team invented and patented the new refining process.

Kiely, 70, who is retiring this summer, is the director of the Shafizadeh Center for Wood and Carbohydrate Chemistry at UM, where he has taught since 1997.

He didn’t plan to become an entrepreneur, he said, but the refining process and polymers he had worked on for years needed to move from the laboratory to the marketplace.

Kiely said he expected his firm’s technology to benefit other western Montana manufacturers, generating jobs and profits, and helping to clean up the environment.

“I didn’t want to retire and see this technology just evaporate,” he said. “Our products will be competitively priced with existing products but without the toxic footprints. We want to make Missoula the center of the carbochemical industry.”

Montana Renewables has seven employees, including Mike Kadas, a former mayor of Missoula, and Jason Kiely, a former spokesman for Wildlands CPR, a Missoula conservation group.

The company has an exclusive license to develop its patents into products for the marketplace. Jason Kiely said the refining process will result in more high-value glucaric acid being produced for a lower cost than other carbochemical manufacturers.

Montana Renewables’ first products will be a nutritional supplement marketed for cancer prevention and detoxification, and a corrosion inhibitor used in road deicing salts.

Next year, the company plans to start making specialty chemicals and polymers derived from glucaric acid.

Other potential uses include building, industrial, environmental remediation, health and recreation products, such as paint, detergents, cosmetics and camping gear.

Montana Renewables also has developed an absorbent gel that could be used in biodegradable diapers and time-release fertilizers.

The company has raised $700,000 in startup capital and expects to attract $500,000 more by fall. It projects a financial loss during its first two years, but a net income of $5.6 million by 2010.

The Montana Community Development Corp. helped to create a business strategy for Montana Renewables, whose lab and offices will be housed at the Montana Technology Enterprise Center.

Steve Grover, MCDC’s business development manager, said Montana Renewables has high potential.

“It’s great to see technology coming out of the university with really nice marketing potential,” he said. “It’s a model that reflects MCDC’s own growth and the exciting growth of firms starting up in our area.”

Windfall Oil Tax

MONTANA, Jun 13 2008 (Neo Natura) - Montana Senator Jon Tester lashed out at Republicans on Tuesday, after the Consumer First Energy Act received only 51 votes, which was nine short of that needed to pass the legislation. The act was designed to roll back tax cuts for oil companies, impose a permanent windfall tax on those companies, and to help protect consumers from high gas prices caused by oil speculation.

"I remember when gas was a buck-46. It wasn't that long ago. It was before the Bush Administration took over. That was before the War in Iraq. Before speculators and market manipulators spiraled out of control. Before that $17 billion Bush tax cut for our nation's biggest oil companies." Tester said in a prepared statement.

Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ken.) said, "Hitting the gas companies might make for good campaign literature or evening news clips, but it won't address the problem. This bill isn't a serious response to gas prices. It is just a gimmick."

The purpose of the gas tax is simple: to raise revenue for building and maintaining roads and related infrastructure. This approach conforms to what economists call the "benefit principle" of taxation, which stipulates that consumers of government services should pay in proportion to the benefit they obtain from those services. It follows that the revenue raised from a tax that adheres to the benefit principle should be used solely to provide the good or service on which the tax is levied. Therefore, if gas taxes are paid by the individuals who benefit most from roads (drivers) and if the revenue is used solely for road building and maintenance, then the tax is a good one.

However, there is also the question of whether gas taxes should be used to decrease fuel consumption in order to protect the environment and reduce pollution. Pigouvian taxes, named after Arthur C. Pigou, a renowned English economist from the early 20th century, are taxes that attempt to make up for undesirable side effects of certain industries—what economists call "negative externalities." Pigouvian taxes are controversial and often difficult to calculate; they complicate the gas tax debate considerably.

Tax Foundation President Scott Hodge's Tax Gouging at the Pump and Record Taxes Paid before Record Oil Profits explain that oil companies actually pay more in taxes than they earn in profits, contrary to some people's notion that "greedy" oil companies are raking in huge profits without paying their fair share of taxes. The Tax Foundation Background Paper Paying at the Pump: Gasoline Taxes in America provides an in-depth look at the history and use of gas taxes. The Fiscal Fact Questions to Ask before Raising the Federal Gas Tax presents a concise discussion of the role of fuel taxes. The Distributional Impact of Windfall Profits Taxes and a Gas Tax Holiday shows how much money taxpayers in each income group stand to gain or lose under the gas tax proposals put forth by the presidential candidates.

The Democratic energy package would have imposed a 25 percent tax on any "unreasonable" profits of the five largest U.S. oil companies, which together made $36 billion during the first three months of the year. It also would have given the government more power to address oil market speculation, opened the way for antitrust actions against countries belonging to the OPEC oil cartel, and made energy price gouging a federal crime.

"Americans are furious about what's going on," declared Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D. He said they want Congress to do something about oil company profits and the "orgy of speculation" on oil markets.

As with all tax initiatives instituted by governments, there is always a divide between those who are for and those who are against the tax. The benefits of a windfall tax include proceeds being directly used by governments to bolster funding for social programs. However, those against windfall taxes claim that they reduce companies' initiatives to seek out profits. They also believe that profits should be reinvested to promote innovation that will in turn benefit society as a whole.

There were arguments in the early 1980's about whether it made economic sense to tax away much of the gain from higher oil prices. But there was no question that the windfall tax was needed to ease the political sting of allowing the domestic price to rise to the level set by OPEC.

Congress hammered out a complicated formula for determining the revenue base liable for taxation and the tax rate. The criteria vary according to the date that oil was discovered, the difficulty of extraction and the size of the company. For some categories of oil, taxes phase out early in the 1990's. In all categories, the taxable base price is adjusted each year for inflation.

The tax raised a whopping $26 billion in 1981, 27 percent of domestic oil revenues. Thereafter, revenues sagged with the price of oil, running just $5.6 billion in 1985 and nothing in 1986. If the price inches above $20 a barrel, Washington may collect a few hundred million dollars this year from the owners of oil discovered before 1978. New discoveries won't be taxed again unless the price soars to $29.

Despite a number of government studies and congressional hearings, no evidence has been presented showing that the oil industry has colluded to keep retail gasoline prices high. For instance, the Energy Information Agency (EIA) in the U.S. Department of Energy found that approximately 85 percent of the changes in gasoline prices in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina were due to changes in the market price of crude oil.

Global energy markets determine the price at which oil is bought and sold by even the largest oil corporations. For instance, ExxonMobil, the world's largest private oil company, accounts for only 3 percent of the market and the prices it pays for crude oil are set by trading on commodities exchanges in London, Hong Kong and Chicago.

What they won't get, however, is nearly as much money out of such a tax as they probably think. A windfall profits tax targeted at earnings far beyond the U.S. industrial average would return zero revenue to the Treasury because windfall profits in the oil sector are figments of the imagination.

While the raw earnings figures sound big, they are unexceptional when we take into account the size of those companies. Divide profits by sales, for instance, and you'll find that in the fourth quarter of 2005 (the last quarter for which data are available), profit margins were 6.8 percent at British Petroleum, 7 percent at ConocoPhilips, 7.1 percent at Shell, 7.7 percent at Chevron, and 10.7 percent at ExxonMobil. The 20 largest investor-owned oil companies earned a collective 8.8 cents on every dollar of sales for that quarter.

While tariffs provide an incentive to increase supply, taxes will decrease demand and therefore prices. With a sufficiently low price expensive domestic production may be crowded out. In the extreme, a halving of demand from 20 to 10 mbd would not eliminate imports, but instead raise their share to 100% with all domestic production becoming uneconomic.

Glacier Wind Energy: New Wind Turbines

MONTANA, Jun 09 2008 (Neo Natura) - San Diego Gas & Electric said yesterday it has signed power-purchase agreements with a renewable energy company for electricity generated from two soon-to-be-constructed wind farms in Montana.

Under two 15-year contracts, Glacier Wind Energy will add 210 megawatts from wind energy facilities under development near Glacier National Park to SDG&E's total power-generating capacity. The wind facility is owned by a U.S. subsidiary of Naturener SA, a renewable energy company based in Madrid, Spain.

The wind farms are expected to increase the amount of electricity produced by renewable energy sources for San Diego's power grid by almost 4 percent by 2010, the utility said. Under a statewide mandate, 20 percent of SDG&E's power must be generated by renewable energy sources by 2010.

To meet that goal, state utility regulators allow California's major utilities to tap renewable energy sources throughout the western United States and Canada.

Yesterday, SDG&E said renewable energy sources now account for 6 percent of SDG&E's total energy mix, an upward adjustment from the 5.2 percent the utility used as recently as last month.

SDG&E said the contribution from the wind farms will bring its renewable energy total to 10 percent. But the company says meeting the 20-percent goal depends on completing its Sunrise Powerlink transmission line. That point is heatedly disputed by environmental opponents of the $1.5 billion, 150-mile power line from El Centro to Rancho Peñasquitos.

Turning Algae Into Energy

MONTANA, Jun 05 2008 (Neo Natura) - Algae, that green stuff in your pond, is being used to make biodiesel in New Zealand. Algae can grow almost anywhere, even in deserts. And some species grow so fast that they double in size three or four times a day. According to Fred Krupp, author of the excellent Earth: The Sequel, it would take only 47 million acres of algae to produce fuel for half of America's cars, compared with 1.5 billion acres of soy beans. I never knew pondlife was so exciting.

Algae also eat carbon dioxide at a similarly prolific rate. That makes them multitasking miracle-workers: both a fuel and a way to clean up power-plant emissions. Not surprisingly, several companies are now trying to move from relatively small algae beds to industrial scale.

Green Star Products, Inc. algae facility in Montana is one of the world’s largest demonstration facilities and has served as a scientific and engineering milestone towards the commercial production of algae for energy and food.

The algae industry is in such an embryonic state that very few people even understand the real algae production problems, much less claim solutions for the production of algae.

The company's latest report delineates the real problems and engineering solutions provided by the demo project without revealing the patent pending intellectual property provided by the program.

A new algae production industry offers the potential to simultaneously solve three major world problems: energy crisis, global warming and food production crisis.

Here are a few factors that make algae competitive with other agricultural products:

• Algae produce 100 times more oil per acre than traditional food oilseed crops such as soy, etc. (Note: Algae produces 4,000 gallons of oil per acre per year versus 50 gallons per acre for soy.)
• Algae eat CO2, the major Global Warming Gas, and produce oxygen.
• Algae require only sunshine and non-drinkable (salt or brackish) water.
• Algae do not compete with food crops for either agricultural land or fresh water.
• Algae can reproduce themselves and their oil every 6 hours, while it takes Mother Nature millions of years to produce crude oil in the ground.
• Algae oil byproduct is a highly nutritious protein-rich food (30-50%), which will someday help feed the world
• Algae can produce high protein food at the rate of over 50 times (5,000%) faster than traditional food crops such as corn, soybeans and wheat.

Environment Permit Regulations

MONTANA, Jun 04 2008 (Neo Natura) - With gas prices breaking records, the national average at about $4 a gallon, energy and energy development is on the tip of everyone’s tongues. From politicians advocating ethanol to windfarms to more national drilling, it seems that any ideas to reduce America’s dependence on foreign oil are being heard as election season heats up.

Around the Bakken Formation, discussions of new oil refineries being built both in Montana and North Dakota have been heard.

A document released by the North Dakota Pipeline Authority on April 22 states the Three Affiliated Tribes of Fort Berthold Indian Reservation are considering building a 15,000 barrel a day refinery. In Williston, a group is considering building a refinery adjacent to the ethanol facility; the document states, “The North Dakota Industrial Commission, through Oil and Gas Research Council, has provided funding to study the viability of the project.”

On the Montana side of the Bakken, these discussions are much less advanced. No grant has been gained to study the viability of a refinery in the area, and talks of building an oil refinery are only talks amongst local persons and politicians. The question of why North Dakota has moved along at a quicker pace of developing their oil has been raised, however, the question must extend to all energy development. In addition to the possible refineries in North Dakota, currently American Lignite Energy is exploring building a coal-to-liquids plant. Great Northern Power Development, L.P. [GNPD] and Allied Syngas are working toward building a coal gasification plant in South Heart, N.D., with an expected starting construction date around the end of 2009.

GNPD owns the largest collection of coal reserves in Northern America beside the U.S. federal government. The company had to decide between two project sites, which one they would move forward with first - the one in South Heart or the one in Circle.

“The question of which site to develop first came up,” GNPD consultant Bill Pascoe said. The company decided to first focus on the site in North Dakota for various reasons - better pipeline infrastructure, better power line, gas pipeline on site, to name a few.

“If all the factors were the same, though, we would have still chosen North Dakota,” Pascoe said. “The reason for this is that business and regulations are more hospitable in North Dakota and this has primarily to do with the permitting process.”

To build almost anything affecting land, a permit is required. The larger the facility with the more effects it will have on a place, the more rigorous and lengthy the process can be. Even so, for most states, this process is regulated by the laws of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. In this regard, the process in both Montana and North Dakota would be quite similar. To build a power or energy developing plant, the two main permits a company would have to go through would be water and air quality permits.

“The process is regulated by the state health department…and is long and cumbering to achieve the permits,” director of North Dakota’s Oil and Gas Board Ron Ness said.

“Permit issuance is a long procedure that may take several years, depending on the complexity of proposed management process, quality of the initial application and degree of public participation,” said Moriah Peck, environmental engineering specialist with the Montana Department of Environmental Quality.

A few of the permits set by the National Environmental Protection Agency required for building a large power/energy facility or oil refinery are New Source Review - Prevention of Significant Deterioration, Ground Water Pollution Permit, Title V Operating Permit and more.

However, Montana’s process is rigorous because of the need to prove it complies with all the standards and regulations set out by the EPA.

“There are two things that make getting a permit tougher in Montana: Montana Environmental Protection Act [MEPA] and the constitution which states that everyone is entitled to a clean and healthful environment,” Rep. Walt McNutt, R-Sidney, said.

MEPA requires either an Environmental Assessment [EA] or Environmental Impact Statement [EIS] whenever there is any state action, such as any type of construction requiring issuance of permits from the state.

“If it is determined that the facility will have a significant impact, then an EIS will be needed,” Montana Legislative Environmental Analyst Todd Everts said. “It is a fairly extensive review process.” This MEPA required environmental review is said by Everts and others to go hand-in-hand with the permitting process. Once the draft for the environmental review is completed, then the public is invited to review the draft and give input.

Steve Wade, an attorney for Roundup Power Plant developers Bull Mountain Development, had first-hand experience with some of the delays and complications that can stop or stall energy development projects.

“We were able to go through the permitting process and get a permit,” Wade said. “When we got our permit, we were subjected to an administrative appeal…also the MEPA analysis was challenged in district court.” Wade explained that in the circumstance involving Roundup, the appeals tied the company up in long and tedious litigation.

The company made it through the appeal, but that was appealed. The company also received a favorable judgement in district court, so the environmentalist groups opposing the plant, including Montana Environmental Information Center appealed to the Montana Supreme Court.

“The litigation ties up the move forward under the permit because the outcome of the appeals is uncertain,” Wade said.

“The process ended up taking a couple of years,” Wade said. “After that long of time the project was moot because the time the permit had given the company to commence the project had passed.”

The company had been given 18 months by the permit to commence the project.

“The time given on the permit is too short,” Wade says. “It does not give any time for litigation.”

A similar scenario is happening with the proposed Highwood Generating Station near Great Falls. The Highwood Generating Station would be a coal-fired power plant. In late April, the Montana Board of Environmental Review, a board set up by MEPA, was the first regulatory U.S. body to call for measurement and emissions controls for a tiny-particle pollution PM 2.5.

This decision came after the air quality permit was a result of an appeal made by MEIC, Citizens for Clean Energy and the Sierra Club. In the case of the Highwood Generating Plant, the appeal reached the U.S. Supreme Court. The environmentalist organization argued their case on a 2007 Supreme Court ruling that affirmed, “harms associated with climate change are serious and well recognized,” Massachusetts v. EPA. This ruling makes it possible for the threat of greenhouse gas emissions to be taken as a serious threat to health and the environment, and thus, proper grounds for opposition.

The Highwood Generating Plant has until Nov. 30 of this year to begin construction under the permits issued by Montana’s DEQ. It was announced Saturday that they will begin construction on all parts of the plant except the boiler.

“MEPA alone is not the problem,” Jeff Schaeff, an engineer with Bison Engineering, said. “It often becomes litigation in courts…The judge and court can turn back the EIS, the time and effort and difficulty getting through the litigation.”

Schaeff explained that the MEPA allows organizations who oppose the building of the facility more time and more opportunities to appeal and stall the process through litigation than in other state.

“They [the opposing organizations] know very well how to work with the laws and take advantage of them,” Schaeff said. “Conceptually it’s a good idea, but the process gets exploited by the opposition.”

Brian Schweitzer ran into a permit problem trying to help a CTL plant startup. A Montana Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) hearings examiner ruled that the state had improperly extended the company’s air quality permit after the original permit had expired. Because of the permit slipup the investors backed out since it would of taken more than 18 months to start construction. The CTL plant planned to have all of it's CO2 emmissions sequestered into underground caverns and unused oil fields around Montana.