HELENA, Mont. - A bill that would require utility companies to pay for closing the Colstrip power plant could come at the cost of future investment in renewable energy, according to critics of the state legislation.

Senate Bill 338 would make Puget Sound Energy and Talen Energy, owners of the two oldest units at the plant, pay for decommissioning and costs to the communities affected. But Anne Hedges, deputy director of the Montana Environmental Information Center, said the utilities see this as punitive, which could hinder renewable-energy development in Montana for West Coast markets.

"Every other utility on the West Coast is going to be hesitant about doing business in Montana when we put up a barrier," she said, "when we say, 'When your business is no longer economic, we're going to charge you tens of millions of dollars to leave the state.' That sends the wrong message."

Supporters of the bill have said it holds the plant owners accountable and provides funds to help retrain Colstrip workers who lose their jobs. It's now in the Senate Energy and Telecommunications Committee.

Hedges said opposing the bill puts her organization in a rare alliance with the Montana Chamber of Commerce and Montana Taxpayers Association. She said her group is convinced that Montana's future is in renewables, especially wind.

"Our wind blows in the winter, when West Coast states have the highest demand for electricity," she said. "Our wind profile fits their needs perfectly, far better than their own wind profiles. So, it's really natural for them to look to Montana to replace Colstrip to fit their peak energy demand."

Mike Scott, a senior organizer for the Sierra Club in Montana, said it supports a transition package for Colstrip, including helping displaced workers. However, he added, he believes this bill goes too far in punishing the utility companies without addressing cleanup. Talen Energy has said it's losing $30 million a year operating the plant, which could mean closing up shop before the agreed-upon 2022 retirement date. Scott said that complicates what is expected to be a very costly cleanup process.

"If they declare bankruptcy," he said, "the question we're asking is, 'Are we stuck with the bill?' Now, this legislation doesn't do anything to address that, which is another large concern of ours."

Scott said he thinks the Legislature should establish some bonding guarantee for cleanup costs at Colstrip.

The text of SB 338 is online at laws.leg.mt.gov.


get more stories like this via email

As state budget negotiations continue, groups fighting climate change are asking California lawmakers to cut subsidies for oil and gas companies rather than slash programs designed to slow global warming.

Gov. Gavin Newsom's current proposal would cut oil and gas tax breaks by $22 million this year and $17 million the following year.

Barry Vesser, COO for The Climate Center, a nonprofit advocacy group, would like to see all subsidies eliminated.

"Oil and gas companies are one of the drivers of climate change, so we should not be making their profit margins bigger by providing public subsidies, and making it harder for renewables to compete against them," Vesser argued.

Gov. Newsom has also proposed to cut funding for climate-friendly programs helping lower-income families buy an electric vehicle or switch from gas to electric appliances.

Kevin Slagle, vice president of strategic communications for the Western States Petroleum Association, said in a statement, "California's already tough business climate is pushing companies to the brink. Removing incentives will drive California straight into the arms of more expensive foreign oil, ramping up costs for everyday Californians who can least afford it."

Vesser countered the threat of higher gas prices is a red herring.

"There's a lot that goes into calculating how much the cost of gas is, and this is not even pennies on the dollar," Vesser contended.

The state Senate's early action proposal estimated the budget deficit will be between $38 billion and $53 billion. The governor is expected to release new details on his budget priorities in mid-May. The Legislature must pass a balanced budget by June 15.

The New York HEAT Act might not make the final budget.

The bill reduces the state's reliance on natural gas and cuts ratepayer costs by eliminating certain rules. It was in both legislative chambers' one-house budgets, but last-minute scrambling could remove it.

New York League of Conservation Voters Policy Director Patrick McClellan said, aside from people's preference for natural gas, other challenges have made the bill hard to pass.

"I think that there has also been some irresponsible fear-mongering against this bill from some people who oppose it," said McClellan, "basically telling people this means that their natural gas service is going to be taken away from them tomorrow, or it's going to happen without warning, and that's just not the case."

The bill would not mean gas companies could walk away from providing service to new customers, since its effects occur over a longer period.

Rural lawmakers have been skeptical about relying solely on electricity, since people could lose power in bad storms.

If the bill isn't part of the budget, McClellan said the Public Service Commission can do more to require gas utilities factor climate change into their long-term plans.

It will take more than one bill for New York State to reach its climate goals.

McClellan said developing thermal energy networks is one way to build on what the HEAT Act would do, and provide good ways to decarbonize on a larger scale instead of going house by house.

"You're able to get a larger number of buildings and people all at once," McClellan explained. "The other exciting thing about thermal energy networks is, because you are talking fundamentally about piping systems that are underground, it's an extremely similar skill set for people who already work in the fossil fuel industry."

The bill would also eliminate the Hundred Foot Rule. This requires utilities to connect new customers to a gas line for free based on their distance to an existing main gas line, typically 100 feet.

This rule allowed utilities to shift around $1 billion in costs onto about 170,000 ratepayers.

Virginia's General Assembly will consider budget amendments to reenter the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, known as RGGI.

Gov. Glenn Youngkin pulled the state out of RGGI at the end of 2023, and now experts said the holes in the budget left by RGGI funding going away are not being filled. Money from the program was used to fund climate mitigation work.

Jay Ford, Virginia policy manager for the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, said the state saw many benefits when it was part of RGGI.

"We were reducing fossil fuel emissions that were being created here in Virginia," Ford pointed out. "There were some clear reductions as a result of our participation. So, we're improving air quality and we are helping expedite that transition to a clean economy."

Virginia residents mostly favored staying in RGGI, but Youngkin has said the reason for pulling out was in his view, it was a "hidden tax" for ratepayers. Ford estimated homeowners paid around $2 a month from their electric bills for RGGI and argued the trade-offs were worth it.

Between 2021 and 2023, RGGI revenue generated around $828 million for Virginia. Ford thinks not rejoining the initiative could slow down Virginia's ability to reach the Clean Economy Act's climate goals, and warned other effects could be costly to communities.

"On the ground in communities around the state, if we don't get back into RGGI, there's a real potential that the work to prepare the Commonwealth, and prepare our communities for climate impacts, could grind to a halt," Ford contended.

Virginia used RGGI money to help towns and cities fund their climate resilience plans. The state used 25-million RGGI dollars to establish a Climate Resilience Fund. There have been 107 "billion-dollar disasters" since 1980 in Virginia, with long-term costs totaling between $20 billion and $50 billion.