‘Local & State Government’ Articles
Written by Travis Kavulla on 03 September 2010
Jane Weber’s a great lady, and I’d vote for her in an election based on personality and talent alone. I actually know nothing about her politics at all.
In any case, the appointment of her to be a Cascade County Commissioner yesterday quickly dissolved into chaos yesterday.
The law about filling a vacancy is perfectly clear, MCA 7-4-2106(2):
Whenever a vacancy occurs in the board of county commissioners … the remaining county commissioners shall fill the vacancy…
To me, this language indicates fairly clearly that a vacancy cannot be filled until the seat actually becomes vacant. It is vacant today, at 5:01 p.m. And that, at the earliest, should be the time to fill a vacancy. I’m not sure how Bill Salina and Peggy Beltrone considered that, against the obvious meaning of the language, a vote should be held this week and that Commissioner Beltrone was a “remaining commissioner” who is eligible to vote. If such a thing was allowed, why would the law use the adjective “remaining”? It’s only purpose is to convey that the resigned commissioner is not among those privileged to vote to fill a vacancy.
Then again, I suppose this seeming disobedience of statute, against the advice of the outgoing commissioner’s own legal counsel, isn’t actually worse than timing your resignation so that the party machine can choose the appointment, as opposed to letting the voters do so. If Beltrone had resigned 15 days ago, there would have been an election for this vacancy. Wouldn’t that have been nice and democratic?
This whole process — nomination by party central committee and the bizarro commission vote — sounds almost a throwback to some other, worse era.
Posted in Cascade County Government, New | 13 Comments »
Written by Gregg Smith on 27 August 2010
Adam and Eve are coming to town.
No, not this Adam and Eve:
This one. You know, the “anal sex toys” and “kinky bondage” people. Not only are they coming to town, they’re opening up right on Central Avenue in good old downtown Great Falls.
I must preface this whole piece by pointing out that I am not opposed to Adam & Eve, the store, and I don’t really care where they open. If they own the land, or the rights to occupy the land, and their business is legal, they should be able to ply their trade anywhere they damned well please.
In fact, those of you who know me, know that I oppose any but the most broad and general zoning or land use restrictions for otherwise legal enterprises. I oppose the very notion of zoning. To me, complex “land use codes” are nothing more than one group of people deciding to use political power to impose their will on another group of people. These types of situations invariably result in bureaucrat, administrator-types developing and maintaining their own power base in a community by picking winners and losers based on their personal, subjective desires. The opening of the Adam and Eve store downtown provides a perfect example.
Let’s start with the definitions contained in the City of Great Falls Land Use Code:
“Adult book store/adult video store” means a commercial establishment which, as one of its principal business purposes, offers for sale or rental for any form of consideration any one or more of the following:
1. books, magazines, periodicals, or other printed matter, or photographs, films, motion pictures, video cassettes or video reproductions which are characterized by an emphasis on the depiction or descriptions of specified sexual activities or specified anatomical areas;
2. instruments, devices, or paraphernalia which are designed for use in connection with specified sexual activities.
Does the Adam & Eve store fit the bill? You tell me:
I would submit that, any portion of one’s product line that is significant enough to advertise publicly can reasonably considered a “principal business purpose.” The Land Use Code, though, does not define a “principal business purpose,” it defines a principal land use. According to the Code, that is: “the dominant land use of a parcel of land.”
Here’s our first problem. The pointy-headed types who drafted the Code goofed. A “principal land use” is defined in the singular, yet the definition of an adult video store clearly contemplates more than one principal business purpose. Hmmm. I guess that leaves us with an interpretation question. We therefore must conclude that a “principal land use,” which the Code defines singularly, is something different from a “principal business purpose,” of which a business can have more than one. As noted above, though, a “principal busines purpose,” is apparently not defined by the Code. (An interesting aside: The Code was adopted in 2003, apparently having been lifted verbatim from a different city’s code. A simple bit of legal research would have pointed out that at least one Court had already found the problematic ambiguity in the code. Nice drafting guys…)
I guess we’ll need to do some interpretation, won’t we? Let’s turn to the introductory language: “The establishment of sexually-oriented businesses in business districts which are immediately adjacent to and which serve residential neighborhoods has a deleterious effect on both the business and residential segments of the neighborhood, causing or contributing to blight and a downgrading of property values.” Oh my gosh, we wouldn’t want that to happen! Based on the foregoing fear of blight and downgrading, the City Commission legislated that these businesses can only operate in I-1 or I-2 districts, Light or Heavy Industrial.
You can review the Zoning Map to see that the downtown area is most definitely not Light Industrial or Heavy Industrial. Nevertheless, the Adam & Eve store is allowed to sell the Katie Morgan Cyberskin Ass on Central Avenue. (But it’s not a “sexually oriented business.”)
How?
Let’s thank our Planning Director, Michael Haynes, who solved the problem. “The request they made was for a lingerie store with novelties, and that’s what our zoning determination was based on. We would have to look at adult movies, etcetera, to see if that fits in with what’s permitted downtown.” Oh. We would “have to look” at it? When would that be? Would that be when they advertise DVDs and adult toys in their window? Or would it be…say…never?
Further, while Mr. Haynes is not directly quoted, the KRTV piece cited above implies that the City has adopted this test: “If the majority of sales came from adult movies and sexual novelties, zoning restrictions would apply.” If, in fact, the City has adopted such a test, that is simply absurd.
Think about it. We know from the City’s own definition that an adult bookstore can have more than one “principal business purpose,” becuase it uses the plural “purposes.” If we are going to consider, though, a majority of sales, that would mean a business could have only one principal purpose since two different items cannot both be a majority of sales; there’s only one majority. Thus, the test apparently applied by the City violates the City’s own Code. You tell me if this is interpretation or legislation.
Anyway, here we are. The City adopts a restrictive ordinance and then turns around and ignores its own ordinance to allow a business to open in clear violation of its own Code. I can already smell the blight wafting toward my office.
“But wait Smith!” you exclaim, “you said you’re against land use restrictions. This should be a good thing.”
Sure, I am against land use restrictions. On the other hand, they exist and are presently the law in our town. What I am really opposed to is what we have here. A poorly drafted law that is now interpreted in a discretionary fashion to pick a winner and a loser. Adam & Eve wins. Michael Haynes has decided that this company, for whatever reason, and no matter how much he tries to rationalize his decision by resort to seemingly objective criteria, gets to win.
What about the next guy (or gal), though? What if Michael Haynes doesn’t like the next business to come along?
Well, then he can resort to seemingly objective criteria and decide that the next one loses. But no one person, Michael Haynes or otherwise, is supposed to pick the mercantile winners in our capitalist society. We, the consumers and citizens, are supposed to pick the winners. When did we, as the citizens of this community, agree that the City can hire one person who can tell us how to use our land?
We abolished the monarchy over 200 years ago.
Or did we?
Posted in Great Falls City Government, Local & State Government, New, Policy | 14 Comments »
Written by Gregg Smith on 19 August 2010
SME Settlement Agreement can be found here.
Posted in Coal Plant, Local & State Government, New, Open Government | 3 Comments »
Written by Travis Kavulla on 19 August 2010
Strange news: A settlement is reached between landowners/MEIC and SME even after the court of final jurisdiction has ruled on the matter.
This means we’ll not be seeing landowners, I gather, oppose the special-use permit SME is applying for. In exchange, SME stipulates that: no coal-fired power plant will ever be built on the site, utility line agreements will be voluntarily negotiated, and lawyers fees (reportedly $140,000 in this case) will be picked up by SME, a.k.a. us and the rural co-ops. And there are probably some other things I am missing.
I’d say SME’s chances to get that special-use permit just tripled or quadrupled. I’ll have more comments on this later, but for now, I’m off to Winnett.
Posted in Energy & Natural Resources, Great Falls City Government, New | 20 Comments »
Written by Travis Kavulla on 17 August 2010
…and people who say that there will be a deficit are “damn liars,” says the Guv.
So I guess that makes the legislative fiscal division and pretty much every sane person following Montana politics into liars. Et tu quoque, Brian?
B.S. does give a strong endorsement of Montana as an “energy state,” a possibility I delight in, but which has got some panties in a twist.
H/t to Aaron Flint.
Posted in Montana, New | 1 Comment »
Written by Gregg Smith on 07 August 2010
Yesterday I referred to the possibility of what I called a “division between [public] employees and the taxpayers who pay them.” Then I stumbled across this in the NYT:
There’s a class war coming to the world of government pensions.
The haves are retirees who were once state or municipal workers. Their seemingly guaranteed and ever-escalating monthly pension benefits are breaking budgets nationwide.
The have-nots are taxpayers who don’t have generous pensions. Their 401(k)s or individual retirement accounts have taken a real beating in recent years and are not guaranteed. And soon, many of those people will be paying higher taxes or getting fewer state services as their states put more money aside to cover those pension checks.
At stake is at least $1 trillion. That’s trillion, with a “t,” as in titanic and terrifying.
Posted in Economy, Local & State Government, New | 60 Comments »
Written by Gregg Smith on 06 August 2010
Aaron Flint reports from the UM Bureau of Business and Economic Research, Mid Year Update, in Billings:
Had the media have been there, they might have picked up on 2 key nuggets of information. First, a public employees strike similar to that back in 1990 may be in the making. Second, economists with UM’s BBER have lowered their economic growth forecasts for nearly every major city statewide. What does point two mean for you? Well, as one audience member pointed out, these growth numbers are even more skeptical of future economic growth in Montana than that predicted by State Legislative Fiscal Analyst Terry Johnson’s numbers. Johnson himself has been accused by Governor Brian Schweitzer (D-MT) of being too pessimistic about Montana’s economy. Nonetheless, Johnson’s numbers show Montana holding at least a $400 million deficit for the upcoming legislative session.
With the current pain in the private sector, a public employee strike would only serve to deepen the division between those employees and the taxpayers who pay them. I predict that in the next 5-10 years this division will be a significant point of contention in legislative budget talks, not just in Montana but nationwide.
Posted in Economy, Local & State Government, New | 30 Comments »
Written by Travis Kavulla on 02 August 2010
Busy meeting tonight at the ECP Board, with important votes that, together, are nothing short of a shot across the bow of the recklessly managed ECP and Southern Montana Electric Co-op.
First, I’m glad to see the city commissioners, acting as the ECP Board, revised their budget in line with sanity. Under the original budget, a 13.9% rate increase was to be asked of customers, who are on fixed-rate contracts and under no obligation to accept increased rates. I’m thankful to say the business plan of “pretty, pretty please accept a rate increase” has not been cemented in the city budget. The budget will instead reflect a 2% increase, which means ECP will be projected to lose money this fiscal year. The motion passed 4-1, Bronson opposed.
Next, Fred Burow moved, and Mary Jolley seconded, a motion to ask another energy supplier to assume the City’s power-supply contracts. Not exactly sure how that would square with the law and the City’s pre-existing obligations to Southern. Still, interesting motion, and it appeared to be supported by the City admin. The motion passed 5-0.
Finally, here’s a riddle: Tim Gregori, John Lawton, Coleen Balzarini, Randy Boysun, George Golie, Bill Ryan, Randy Gray, Lee Ebeling — what do they all have in common?
Answer: They will all no longer be receiving their electric power from Electric City Power. The ECP Board of Directors has just voted, 5-0 (is Bronson seeing the light?!), to cancel the pilot program, again with the seeming support of the City Attorney, who elaborated on several “justifications” that would justify the cancellation. This move frees up $100,000 which had been in a restricted fund and will take effect after a 60-day notice period.
Granted, this is only a small fraction of the power ECP sells, but in terms of symbolism, it’s chock full of it. The pilot program’s customer base is a who’s who of the kool-aid crowd who supported and conceived of ECP, not really based on any business plan other than frothing-at-the-mouth dogma, which is of course no business plan at all.
Mayor Winters’ final comment on where we’re heading: “Even though the water runs slow, it runs deep. And things are happening here.”
Posted in Great Falls City Government, New | 7 Comments »
Written by Travis Kavulla on 02 August 2010
Hokey smokes! 2010 is set to see more than 200 permits issued, up from only 20 last year.
That’s good news, but we still only have a handful of drilling rigs operating in Montana, compared to the 100+ in North Dakota.
I can tell you from my own frequent travels to the northeast that oil is causing a boom in Sidney, Culbertson, Plentywood and the smaller towns in between. Seems like there’s lots of new arrivals, finding a hotel room is difficult, and the restaurants and bars are bustling. Anyone skeptical about the future of Montana’s natural-resources economy need only go out east–or perhaps just take a gander at the state-gov’t budget–to see the vitality it continues to bring.
Moreover, it’s not just Montana’s part of the Bakken that is producing. Sources say that western rural Richland and Dawson counties, in places off the Bakken, have seen some of the most productive wells.
Posted in Economy, Energy & Natural Resources, Local & State Government, New | 32 Comments »
Written by Travis Kavulla on 24 July 2010
The Trib makes the reasonable point today that it is insane that Tim Gregori is still spending taxpayers’ and co-op members’ money on the HGS site. Good for them.
Unfortunately, they meander to that point only after several florid paragraphs about “embark[ing] upon the rocky road to energy independence” and how the city and co-ops “set out upon that road with good intentions and big plans…” Well, perhaps the editorialists are being sublimely understated.
Let’s be clear on a bit of history since, at this moment when certain City staffers are talking about renegotiating ECP contracts, we so often seem bound to repeat past mistakes: Electric City Power had a disaster of a business plan from the get-go. No utility or co-op in Montana would set fixed rates for their customers even while, on the other end, they’ve contracted for power delivered (as by Southern) on a shifting-cost basis. This obvious flaw with the ECP business plan has had its consequences: $4 million on paper by the end of this fiscal year, and with the huge unknown of the debt which, if Southern defaults on its Prudential loan, could pass down to the city and co-ops whose wholesale power contracts are listed as securities. I remain stunned that the city staff, two mayors and a gaggle of commissioners, several Great Falls businesses, the Tribune, would not have seen a flaw which, in fact, opened the City up to far greater risk than it would have faced had it stayed with the utility.
It’s what one energy lawyer in Montana recently described to me as a “competence gap” between our municipal electric company and others in the business. Quite simply, it’s hard to run an energy company.
Readers are aware that I’m not head-over-heels for the regulatory state. That said, a lot of the decisions that put ECP and Southern in jeopardy–fixed rates, disobedience of the filed-rate doctrine, unassigned base-load generation from the original coal plant–would certainly have been disallowed by the PSC if NorthWestern tried to pull such a thing.
And that’s not even touching on issues like subsidizing big businesses’ electricity through water credits to make it seem like the customer was getting a good deal, even while the taxpayer would be (and now is) being made to eat it on the back end of things.
Certain people need to realize they got caught up in a “monorail” moment when hope and speculation overcame reason and facts. Quite honestly, every Great Falls citizen who was mad about how NorthWestern handled itself in the early 2000s, should be twice as furious at how ECP has been run.
Posted in Great Falls City Government, New | 23 Comments »
Written by Gregg Smith on 22 July 2010
Craig Moore asked me below if there was a ‘back story’ to my prickliness on some of the comments. There is. I’m tired.
I’m tired of blogging. Someone could raise the completely fair point that, as little as I actually write any more, it would be hard to imagine that I could be tired of it. I am though. It’s a cyclical thing and right now I’m in a trough.
I’m tired of bad news. My dad died in May. My mom is in the transitional care unit. I’m going to a funeral today for a man that I considered a pretty good friend, who died while I was enjoying a nice day with his son, and whose son was informed of his father’s passing in my presence. A very close friend and associate is recovering from a serious illness, and hers is a daily struggle.
I’m tired of worrying about money. Several years ago I lived on a reasonably comfortable margin. Now that margin is reduced in part by the fact that others felt it necessary to impose themselves on the way I operate my businesses. It’s reduced further by general business conditions, and have already taken a look at what the coming end of the Bush tax cuts and wider net of the Alternative Minimum Tax will do. Let’s just say it isn’t going to help. In order to pay my bills I have to be more productive and work longer hours.
I’m tired of this weird idiopathic cough I have. I didn’t think much of it when I had several coughing fits in the middle of a jury trial a few weeks ago, and my client was sweet enough to bring me cough drops. Then, when I was playing a videotaped deposition from back in February in that trial, and I heard myself have another coughing fit then, I went back to the doctors again. I cough all night, which keeps me awake, which means…I’m tired.
I’m tired of the City’s stupid farce known as ECP. This thing is bleeding money at the rate of thousands of dollars a day, and has cost taxpayers millions. Yet the City Commission takes their time as though we’re making money on the thing. Rate increases? We’re working on that. Evaluate extrication? See us in the fall. Just remember that every morning when you wake up, the City has lost a couple thousand more dollars. And tomorrow. And the day after that. And…
I’m tired of SME. It’s truly disgusting to think about the amount of public money that has been sunk into this enterprise, while so much of its business has been conducted in secret. The secrecy is aggravated by the fact that people who work for the City, people you pay, were ‘in on it.’ Wouldn’t you just love, just once, to ask some of these City officials just what statute or rule allowed them to act as puppet masters, slinking into closed SME meetings, plotting the expenditure of millions of our dollars, all the while refusing to tell you the truth… or anything at all? Oh, and guess what? Some of them still work for you.
Which brings me to Craig’s question. I’m tired of some of you. I’m tired of anonymous smart asses coming to our home, so to speak, and flipping me sh*t.
I’m tired of MarkT insulting us all the time.
I’m tired of people who are so sure that their point of view equates them to the angels that they have no compunction about smearing those they disagree with on a particular point. What, are we becoming the Tribune Forums?
Seriously, we had a local public official, County Commissioner, Joe Briggs, show up here to engage us on a very controversial topic in which he was directly involved. He spent a great deal of time explaining his point of view.
Well, first we get a commenter suggesting that the zoning issue should have been put on the ballot. When asked for legal authority for that proposition, we received a vague and inapplicable reference to a different local vote, and then a suggestion about a public vote in Berkely, California. Oh, that’s helpful. They voted on medical marijuana in California, so let’s slam the County Commission for not letting us vote on a zone change. Gosh, they have a coal plant in San Juan. Guess that means we should have one here, huh?
Another commenter suggests that the Commission should have disregarded what its lawyers told it, and considered SME’s financial viability in considering the zone change. Another one calls Commissioner Briggs “shady” based on supposition and assumption. This one is “pretty sure” of something, but he or she cannot be bothered to actually do some research to support the accusation that s/he so quickly leveled.
Get a grip, folks.
You don’t want the Highwood Generating Station to be built.
I get it. We all get it. But let’s keep our eye on the ball. Maybe before making accusations, you might want to actually read the goddamned law you’re spouting about?
How many people claim that SME’s moving dirt around is illegal? Maybe you would like to look at the County Planning Department’s revocation letter? Maybe you wish to consider that no conformance permit is required for “leveling terrain, …landscaping, …and impervious surface coverage?”
No, it’s much easier to claim that “I do find it a bit shady to say earth moving is ok,” or “NO activity should be permitted,” or that it “[s]ounds to me as though that means a valid permit is need [sic].”
This isn’t the Tribune Forums. I’m tired of baseless, yes, baseless personal attacks based on unthinking bullsh*t spewed from one’s backside. Put up or shut up.
Nah, it’s much easier to sit and call people names based on what “sounds to me” or what “I’m pretty sure” about.
I’ll tell you what. I’ll go off my rant. Assume that you want people to agree with you. Assume that you want to persuade them. If you’re turning me against you when I agree with you, what do you think you’re doing for your cause with the rest of the people who aren’t paying all that much attention?
Think about that.
So, to end on a positive note, I’m going to a funeral today. On the other hand, tomorrow’s Friday, it’s supposed to be a nice weekend, and I’m working on a more in depth piece about the Animal Foundation/Shelter issue. Maybe that will wake me up!
UPDATE: Based on the comments below, as well as some personal emails that I have received, I should clarify that the foregoing was not intended as some sort of whiny, ‘wah wah’ type post. I’m fine. Really. Life’s got ups and downs, and I’ve seen a lot of both.
I was hoping to a) explain why my posting is decreased and b) get some of the bitchier people to re-think their bitchiness a little bit. That’s all.
Have a great Thursday.
Posted in Cascade County Government, Coal Plant, Energy & Natural Resources, Environmentalism, Great Falls City Government, Law, Local & State Government, New, Open Government | 65 Comments »
Written by Travis Kavulla on 18 July 2010
I’ve been out on the hustings for a few days–first to the “far east” and then to the Blaine County Fair in Chinook–but that’s given me plenty of drive time to reflect on SME’s current position.
The bottom line of the High Court’s decision, if you’ve been in a cave the last couple days, is to revert SME’s 668 acres to its status quo ante zoning designation: A-2 Agricultural. That means no power plant unless SME finagles a special-use permit for the A-2 area from the Board of Adjustments, as county commissioner Joe Briggs notes in comments. (Gregori — let me tell you from personal experience — is a bit cagey these days and may well go tilting that windmill, which involves public hearings and the whole works but, just a hunch, I’d think it unlikely for a permit to be approved and, if it were, I’m sure another round of litigation would follow.)
For now, Gregori has announced that he will ask the Supremes to “reconsider” their 4-3 decision, presumably by arguing that the material investment to the HGS site on Salem Road makes reversion to a bona fide agricultural zoning designation impossible. This is going to be hard for even the silver tongues of Messrs Gregori & Doak, because despite obtaining financing (and there must be a provision in those documents meant for just this occasion) HGS really has not been started in a physicial manner. And, of course, the court has already ruled against SME, and I doubt a justice would swing a vote on the basis of the few concrete barriers, earthworks, and gas piping that’s on-site at HGS. Perhaps I’ll cruise out to Salem Road personally to get another look first-hand.
This ruling is a dramatic turn of events — at least for those people who thought HGS would ever be built. (And, you know, I was almost believing in the last couple months that it might be built, what with financing and all; I’ll have to give myself a few hard pinches next time.)
With huge debt outstanding as the result of a power plant that will not be built, SME will be saddling its customers for decades to come with rates that reflect this never-to-be-seen white elephant. This, of course, is what most co-ops in Montana feared would happen from the get-go of this somewhat far-fetched and risky project, which was — quite ironically — undertaken to provide added security to the electric-power market. Most co-ops wisely stayed put with larger suppliers like Basin Electric. But for certain “kool-aid drinkers” in the City of Great Falls and elsewhere (that term comes from a co-op manager elsewhere in Montana), it was full-speed ahead at any cost.
Now we are yet again in a seminal moment, the latest opportunity to exhibit leadership since it became clear the coal-fired HGS was doomed. At that point, reasonable individuals within the distribution co-ops and the City should have drawn a line and said, “Well, we gave it a try but it just didn’t work,” and folded up the fantasy. (A minority, like Yellowstone, did exactly this — and is best positioned for the exit door, which would leave the City and four other co-ops holding the bag.) But Gregori and the kool-aid crew went gallivanting off with hastily concocted plans for the most uneconomic power plant in the state–a facility anyone with a basic knowledge of electric-power generation will tell you simply does not make sense.
We now face another decision moment. We can either continue to live in Bizarro World where–”monorail, monorail, monorail!”–Gregori will devise some switcheroo which, however unlikely and uneconomical, will be sold to the public as what’s going to happen whether you like it or not. Let’s be clear: any change in HGS’s location would take additional YEARS of permitting, even as the interest accumulates on SME’s (which is to say our) loan. And in light of the court’s ruling, right or wrong, it is surely time to acknowledge that construction on the intended site is just not going to happen.
Let’s just hope someone on SME’s board of directors other than Yellowstone’s man finally pipes up and says “This is nuts. This has got to end.” SME is no longer a credible power-plant developer, if it ever was one. So let’s stop our little dance with dishonesty, moving targets, and hemmoraghing budgets, and pursue the only course which makes any sense–which is to deem SME to be the wreck that it is, and extricate its members as best possible from the wreckage.
I can’t imagine survival-mode Tim Gregori would be up to offering that appraisal, now matter how much clearer that same truth becomes. That means it’ll be up to his employers, the SME Board of Directors, to finally call a halt to this scheme.
Posted in Energy & Natural Resources, Great Falls City Government, Local & State Government, New | 5 Comments »
Written by Gregg Smith on 16 July 2010
Sorry I didn’t get this up earlier, but I was dealing with a personal tragedy.
Posted in Cascade County Government, Coal Plant, Great Falls City Government, Law, Local & State Government, New | 47 Comments »
Written by Travis Kavulla on 11 July 2010
[cross-posted on the campaign weblog, www.kavulla.com]
God, Henry Waxman makes my blood boil.
The congressman who chairs the House Energy Committee, and whose district includes Hollywood, Waxman came out against the Keystone XL pipeline last week. If approved by the State Department, the pipeline will transport oil from Canada’s tar sands south, through several counties in eastern Montana, adding enormously to struggling local tax bases. Better yet, TransCanada has agreed to an “on-ramp” for oil produced in eastern Montana at Baker, the Fallon County seat and a place which could really use a lift.
Waxman called Keystone “a multi-billion dollar investment to expand our reliance on the dirtiest source of transportation fuel currently available.” He wants to slow development by requiring a new Environmental Impact Statement to show what damages would be caused by increased carbon-dioxide emissions when the oil from the tar-sands is refined and burned in the United States.
Waxman’s mojo is to artificially constrict supply–not to world markets, of course, but just to our markets–in the hope that consumers will be forced through higher prices into electric- or biofuels- or natural-gas-propelled vehicles (even though most electricity comes from coal; biofuels leave an enormous footprint on the earth; and natural gas is also a fossil fuel releasing carbon-dioxide).
What’s not to love?!
Waxman, like so many, is doing not a damned thing to reduce carbon emissions. Someone is going to get that oil, and burn that oil, maybe just not us. The carbon dioxide trapped in tar-sands oil will be added to the atmosphere regardless–I hope that’s in the EIS.
I wish I were more surprised by Waxman’s going around with this mask of indignation, throwing a wrench just now at a project which has been inching forward for years. Montanans should be absolutely furious at this little weasel’s routine insertion into seemingly every aspect of the energy sector–and always, it seems, in a negative way, opposing, opposing, opposing. The one thing Henry Waxman never does is clue us in on an economical alternative by which to generate electricity and fuel motorized transport.
Well, what’s worse? A reliance on a relatively cheap, energy-dense fuel source which, together with the internal combustion engine, has been the backbone of American ground transportation for over a century? Or a forced reliance on technologies which either have not even been invented or which are, in their current form, far less economical?
The thing that’s going to revolutionize the transportation industry is not the point where Government says: “You will buy this” or “you won’t buy that.” It will be the point where an alternative becomes a genuinely attractive–which is to say economical–option for consumers.
Posted in Energy & Natural Resources, Local & State Government, National Politics, New | 2 Comments »
Written by Travis Kavulla on 09 July 2010
So a few of us candidates for the long-suffering Cascade County Republican Party were having our weekly candidates meeting–rather unlike the Draculaesque castle which is the GOP HQ in The Simpsons, our office is in the strip mall just across from the old Zandy’s–and we received an unexpected visitor, who declared himself a Republican ready to volunteer for candidates however he might be able to.
Holy cow, thought I, this is strange. It’s not just everday a young man saunters into his local GOP office offering help–but, what the hay, maybe he’d been reading some Friedman and getting bothered. We live in a mad time where us young people are, I’d say, increasingly more conservative than the generation ahead of us.
Anyways, like the good people we candidates are, we offered this chap a seat and said we didn’t mind if he sat through our meeting. In reality, these meetings are pretty mundane and everything that’s said I’ve said a hundred times over in public, it often seems.
You’re probably sensing there’s a “but” somewhere around here–and there is.
I’d left the meeting early, but as it ended, this gentleman–who gave his name as Sean Bibus–rose, inexplicably snapped a photo, and said something like “well, see you later.” One of our candidates exited the meeting at the same time, and found himself behind Mr Bibus’s vehicle. They seemed to be heading to the same part of town (the candidate was headed to The Peak). Well, what do you know: Our self-proclaimed Republican volunteer pulls into the AFL-CIO Labor Temple. Uh, wtf. Candidate pulls in, asks our Mr Bibus if he works for the union. Mr Bibus denies this.
Well, glory be to Google, Mr Bibus wasn’t lying. He doesn’t work for the unions. He works for the Montana Democratic Party as the Regional Field Director for Great Falls. Seems Mr Bibus just arrived in our city a couple months ago as a hired gun from Minnesota. The local Republicans have no equivalent out-of-state goon, but in the spirit of charity, I say to Mr Bibus, “Welcome to Great Falls.”
Update: The Tribune has picked up this story. What’s funny is that when I first talked to the Trib about this, I was asked to respond to a strong Democratic denial of the incident. (The executive director of the Dems had given some over-the-top statement about Republicans fabricating stories and distracting from the issues.) Talk about back-pedaling quick.
Posted in Local & State Government, New | 16 Comments »
Written by Travis Kavulla on 30 June 2010
I’ve been listening to the Elena Kagan confirmation hearings off and on over the last few days. One of the persistent themes we’ve heard is about Kagan’s treatment of the military on Harvard’s campus. After hearing what I thought to be a few half-truths and sort-of fibs through the course of the hearings–the kind of lawyerly way of not lying, oh surely not, but not really explaining things fully either — I decided to dig up some archives from my college days, and came up with this — Here you go [cross-posted from NRO's Bench Memos]:
Kagan and Military Recruiters: Let’s Check the Record
June 30, 2010 1:20 PM
Yesterday, we heard Elena Kagan downplay her role in barring military recruiting from Harvard Law School. She pretends that her break from policy was modest, hardly worthy of note, and in any case was later reversed. She says she and university president Larry Summers were in virtual lock-step.
That certainly is not how it was perceived at the time. In a 2004 masthead editorial, the Harvard Crimson condemned Summers for not getting the university involved in litigating the Solomon Amendment, which allows the DoD to bar federal funding to universities who keep recruiters off campus. But the same editorial sings the praises of Elena Kagan, then dean of the law school, for her “swift action” in “barring the military from official recruiting” after a ruling of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.
Take it from a Crimson editor who was often a dissenting vote on these matters: It was crystal clear during this era that Kagan was the radical on the issue of the military on campus. It was Summers — and virtually Summers alone — who emerged as the pro-military voice of the campus and who guided Kagan and others back onto the reservation.
Other than this, Elena Kagan actually seems like a real talent, and has been alive and vibrant every single step of the confirmation hearings. I’m also quite impressed by the other side of her reputation at Harvard Law, which was that of a dean who welcomed conservative scholars to campus (which also explains why a large number of those prominent conservatives have written neat little letters to Leahy endorsing Kagan). Like all people, Kagan is complicated. Let me end with a prediction which — who knows — I may live to regret: Elena Kagan will not be so different from the justice she is replacing. So why be concerned? At least she’s a worthy opponent.
Posted in Local & State Government, New | 16 Comments »
Written by Travis Kavulla on 29 June 2010
I am just amazed at Jason Christ. The guy is prolific–he seems to appear at most important public meetings concerning marijuana, smokes marijuana publicly wherever he goes (the Civic Center first, and now on to the State Capitol grounds), and surely signs up more “patients” than anyone else in Montana. He featured in my NR piece on the matter last year, openly soliciting twenty-something passers-by to sign up for cards in the Holiday Inn. Probably–and this is just speculation–he signs up an equal number with all the other outfits combined. Now, watching this type of thing, I just have to wonder if this whole operation of his is, for him, some kind of game. If you can call a business with $1 million-plus in annual revenue, or so Jason Christ claims, a “game”…
Posted in Local & State Government, New | 15 Comments »
Written by Travis Kavulla on 24 June 2010
That is an argument to which we seem to return constantly. Below, in comments, Larry Rezentes argues “yes.” Mary Jolley has said things similar to this. Me? I’m not so sure.
Larry writes below: “Greg/Travis, whatever losses exist have occurred (and more to follow) on ECP’s books. There is no basis for any loss or obligation to the city resulting from any deal that SME struck unilaterally.”
I wouldn’t bank on that statement. A wholesale power supply contract works like a blank check in the energy world and the one between Southern and the City has been a piece of collateral in deals the City has never had any say over, except as a trustee sitting at the Southern table. (That’s why access to Southern meetings is so important.) The contract has been offered up as security for the HGS financing. It has been used as a basis to contract with PPL for power. So, too, I’d imagine, with NorthWestern Energy for whatever transmission deal Southern has rigged for us.
That’s the basis of the “stranded costs” argument: When a g&t co-op contracts with the intention of providing power to one of its distribution co-ops (or the City/ECP for that matter), it’s not just the g&t co-op on the hook. The bank or the energy firm is using the expectation of a long-term customer base in its judgment for lending, providing transmission, providing power, etc. — that customer base is what the wholesale power contract represents (and, see below, the City and Southern need to agree if that customer base is to be amended in any way).
The only question is whether ECP, if bankrupt, could shield the City from those costs because it is a separate corporation. This is not nearly such an open-and-shut argument as Larry seems to think. You see, our contract specifies that only assets and revenues held by the City for ECP’s operations are up for grabs. Well, okay. What about now that ECP’s director has treated other City funds as assets to be borrowed from when ECP is in rocky straits? Seems to me the City has muddied the waters between the City and ECP to the point where a good lawyer for a lender or for Southern would be able to point out that there was no real division between ECP and City assets.
Finally, the City contracted with Southern, not ECP. Look to page 8 of the wholesale power contract, where it requires the City — not ECP — to furnish a five-year projected forecast of customer loads (“Exhibit B”) which, if any change occurs, is required to gain Southern’s approval. Moreover, apart from the energy-distribution business, it is the City and not ECP to whom rights for — and obligations arising because of — HGS are reserved.
In other words, the view that ECP could go bankrupt without the city being on the hook is an argument that is hardly air-tight. Would that it were so easy! I can promise you this — if Southern were to go under tomorrow, and ECP were to do the same, bankers would be knocking on the City’s door. Is this to say Larry’s idea doesn’t have merit? Absolutely not. It’s just that, as a layman, I see some areas where this storyline of separation doesn’t jive — would that the City, since it just had to have a power company, also had a lawyer with a professional energy background on some kind of retainer. Seems like this question should have been answered years ago.
Posted in Local & State Government, New | 21 Comments »
Written by Travis Kavulla on 22 June 2010
Reading Dave Kelsey’s letter, which Gregg blogged about below, about Southern refusing to turn over documentation to one of their own trustees, I was left with the thought — “What now?”
As near as I can tell, the issue concerns Southern Montana’s transmission difficulties: one of myriad problems Tim Gregori’s outfit has faced as it gallivants around the state attempting to convince people that all his agreements which were contingent on a coal-fired plant should still be valid now that his targets have moved so dramatically (natural-gas fired plant for “peaking” power, etc.)
You can see NorthWestern Energy’s interconnection queue here — it shows the order in which various companies signed up for space on the transmission grid. Southern has signed up for two spaces — the coal-fired HGS (a 268 MW thermal generator) is #32 and the natural-gas fired plant is #94. Apparently it was Southern’s intention to use the coal-fired space for the natural-gas plant. But NWE pointedly notes in a recent feasibility study that these are “separate and distinct requests.” I sense a storm brewing, possibly before FERC.
Among other questions which Dave Kelsey has and which the City should have about this issue, I also have a few, including: What’s Southern paying for all this? And is it paying for more space than it needs by maintaining the first Large Generator Interconnection Agreement for a coal plant? If Southern is, in fact, that far down on the queue, will they be able to get transmission services in time for the natural-gas-fired HGS’s coming online?
This situation still needs a lot more clarity. Let’s hope someone will come up with some answer. To quote Kelsey’s letter: “Maybe Enron would still be in business if its Board had questioned the decisions of the geniuses who are now in prison, instead of rubber-stamping their decisions.” Would be nice if the City had a bullish trustee who followed Kelsey’s lead and was willing to ask the tough questions on some of these issues.
Posted in Coal Plant, Great Falls City Government, New | 13 Comments »
Written by Gregg Smith on 22 June 2010
According to this June 16, 2010, letter from Yellowstone Valley Electric Cooperative to SME, SME has apparently cut some sort of deal with Northwestern Energy and, as seems to be the usual case, does not want anyone to know just what deal was cut.
Since we don’t know what the contract says or doesn’t say, so there is no way to gauge the accuracy of the writer’s suggestion of upwards of $50,000,000.00 in liability.
Open point to our Mayor and Commissioners: How would you feel if the City found itself on the wrong end of a portion of $50 million in liability on a contract that was kept from you?
This is no way to run a railroad. While I understand the Mayor’s call for patience on resolution of this issue, the clock has been ticking for a while now. The Executive Director has bailed; why can’t we?
Posted in Coal Plant, Great Falls City Government, Local & State Government, New | 2 Comments »
