Montana and coal

{{#badges: CoalSwarm}}

Introduction

Montana coal mines produced 41.8 million tons of coal in 2006 (3.6% of the U.S. total), making Montana the 6th-biggest coal-producing state in the country. About a quarter of Montana's coal production (10 million tons) is consumed at the four units of the Colstrip Station, which is the second largest coal-fired power plant west of the Mississippi River. Montana employed 942 coal miners in 2006, 75% of whom were unionized. With an estimated 74.9 billion tons of recoverable coal reserves in 2006, Montana has the largest recoverable coal reserves of any state in the U.S., approximately 119.1 billion tons in reserves - indeed, Montana has 7.5% of the entire world's recoverable coal reserves.

Montana had 7 coal-fired generating stations in 2005, with 2,536 MW of capacity, representing 47.3% of the state's total electric generating capacity; Montana ranks 35th out of the 50 states in terms of coal-fired generating capacity. In 2006, Montana's coal-fired power plants produced 18.2 million tons of CO₂, 18,000 tons of sulfur dioxide, and 36,000 tons of nitrogen oxide; coal-fired power plants were responsible for 55.6% of the state's total CO₂ emissions. In 2005, Montana emitted 34.9 tons of CO₂ per person, about 75% higher than the U.S. average.

Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer, dubbed by CBS News' 60 Minutes as the "Coal Cowboy", is a leading proponent of coal to liquid technology. Gov. Schweitzer, a Democrat, has proposed a $15 billion synfuel project in southeast Montana. "The project would require strip-mining to produce the fuel for the coal-fired power plants that would generate electricity for the coal-to-liquids refinery that, in turn, would provide the diesel for the massive stripmining project. It’s endless cycle that one environmental group terms 'Gov. Schweitzer’s Perpetual Pollution Machine.'

Lack of expansion in coal usage

Although Montana's coal reserves actually exceed those of neighboring Wyoming, far more coal is mined in Wyoming, and the discrepancy is expected to continue, according to a 2007 study by the Energy Watch Group. The study noted that while coal production in Wyoming has expanded greatly since the mid-1980s it has grown only modestly in Montana during the same period. The study concluded:

...production of Montana will probably decline or at best grow only slightly – over the last 20 years it has more or less remained around 40 kt/yr. This would be in line with the small reserves at producing mines. But why are the huge estimated recoverable reserves in non producing areas not used? Possible reasons are as follows. Open pit coal mining in Montana is already causing severe environmental burdens. The subbituminous coal is of poor quality because of its high sodium content. Mining causes severe contamination of soils and groundwater. Only 2% of the exististing mines have been reclaimed as yet. Therefore the approval of new mines is politically very controversial (no new surface mines have been approved in the last 20 years) and is in direct conflict with farming interests (the Montana economy relies heavily on cattle farming) and environmental goals. In the decade between 1978-1988 more than 40 new surface mines were approved. But since then no further permit for a surface mine has been given. The last permits for new underground mines were given in 2003, 1994 and 1979. However, underground mines are considerably smaller than surface mines (EIA 1998-2006), (Montana 1998).

There is also the problem of finding customers for a significant increase in coal production. Either the coal would have to be transported over long distances to the urban centers in the east of the US (and also existing power stations would have to be adapted to the poor coal quality) or electricity would have to be generated locally and then transported to the locations of demand. In both cases huge and expensive new infrastructures (either railways or local power stations in combination with long distance power lines) would have to be built. It is not obvious how this is going to happen any time soon. Another reason for the small contribution of Montana might be the low productivity compared with Wyoming.

Montana energy and climate survey

A survey conducted by the Opinon Research Corporation for TheClean.org and the Civil Society Institute found that Montanans favor renewable energy and energy efficiency over fossil fuels and nuclear power. The survey found that:

• Almost 70 percent of Montana residents support a moratorium on new coal-fired power plants. When broken down by political party, the freeze on new coal plants is favored by 83 percent of Democrats, 59 percent of Republicans, and 53 percent of Independents.
• 56 percent of Montana residents prefer energy soures such as solar and wind, increased energy efficiency, and highly fuel-efficient vehicles as a means to achieving independence to foreign energy, as opposed to only 35 percent who favor oil from offshore drilling, more coal power plants, and nuclear power.
• Only 10 percent of Montana residents favor allowing coal-to-liquids technology. 39 percent oppose subsidies for CTL under any circumstances, and 48% would allow subsidies only with strict environmental controls.

Large-scale carbon sequestration project

In November 2008, the Department of Energy awarded $66.9 million to the Big Sky Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership to develop the Department’s seventh large-scale carbon sequestration project. The project will conduct a large-volume test in the Nugget Sandstone formation in Wyoming in an effort to establish the possibility of "safely, permanently and economically" using a geologic formation to store over 2 million tons of carbon dioxide. The DOE is currently estimating the project's cost at over $130 million.

Big Sky plans to drill a CO₂ injection well and inject up to one million tons per year of carbon dioxide at a depth of 11,000 feet. The DOE states that similar geologic formations in the region offer the opportunity to store more than 100 years of CO₂ emissions from sources in the area. The CO₂ for the project will come from Cimarex Energy’s proposed helium and natural gas processing plant at Riley Ridge.

Highwood Generating Station controversy

Helena and Missoula participation

In August, 2007, the city council of Helena quickly voted not to purchase power from Highwood, citing emissions concerns and other factors. Also in August, Missoula mayor John Engen won city council approval for that city to participate in the project. But three weeks later, Engen reversed his position after receiving hundreds of e-mails and phone calls from constituents opposed to the project. "Coal is a double-edged sword," Engen told the Washington Post. "I sort of felt both edges."

Air permit

In January 2008, Citizens for Clean Energy and the Montana Environmental Information Center appealed the air permit for the Highwood Generating Station with the Montana Board of Environmental Review (BER), raising health concerns and calling for further study of particulate matter emissions. In a 6-1 ruling in April 2008, the BER ordered more research on emissions of particulates less than 2.5 microns in diameter, known as PM2.5. The ruling made the Board the first regulatory body in the nation to order separate measurement and emissions controls for PM2.5. Despite this ruling, Southern Montana announced that they were moving ahead with construction of the plant. Although the plant's boiler cannot be built, the company can work on other parts of the plant.

In October 2008, Montana Environmental Information Center, Citizens for Clean Energy and the Sierra Club asked the EPA to order work halted at the plant because the air permit had still not been finalized. The groups said they would file a lawsuit if the EPA does not act within 60 days.

Plant cancelled

On January 30, 2009, developers of the Highwood plant voted to halt work on the coal plant. Citing regulatory uncertainty and environmental lawsuits, the developers have instead opted to pursue a 120MW plant that will be powered by natural gas with wind turbines for additional power.

Malmstrom Air Force Base CTL plant cancelled

In September 2007, the U.S. Air Force announced that it was considering building a large coal-to-liquids plant at Malmstrom Air Force Base. Gov. Schweitzer publicly announced his support for the project. The plant would have consumed an estimated 20,000 tons of coal and 10 million gallons of water each day, and would have produced 20,000-30,000 barrels of fuel each day, 50-100 megawatts of electricity for sale, and 15,000 tons of carbon dioxide to be stored at an undetermined location.

On January 29, 2009, Air Force officials announced that they had rejected construction proposals and would no longer be pursuing development of the large synthetic fuel plant.

Coal's history in Montana

Montana's coal mining industry began on a small scale in 1880, and was well-established by 1900. In 1918, annual coal production peaked 5 million tons, a relatively minor total compared with states such as Pennsylvania and West Virginia. In the early 20th century, coal mining in Montana was almost entirely underground; one mine alone, the Colstrip Mine, produced about one-third of Montana's coal in the 1930's. Coal mining declined in subsequent decades, but remained relatively stable until the 1950's, when Montana coal mining dropped to a very low level due to the decline of coal-fired locomotives. (While coal mining in Montana in the early 20th century was relatively disaster-free compared with Appalachian mines, a 1943 explosion at the Smith Mine in Washoe, MT, killed 74 coal miners.)

In 1970, the Clean Air Act was passed. Mandating sulfur dioxide emissions reductions, this legislation suddenly made lower-sulfur Wyoming and Montana coal considerably more attractive to coal power companies. The result was an explosion of surface coal mining in Montana: annual coal production rose from about 1 million tons in the late 1960's to 29.9 million tons in 1980. From the 1980s onward, production grew more slowly, reaching 37.6 million tons in 1990 and 41.8 million tons in 2006. As Montana's coal today is overwhelmingly surface-mined, productivity is high: 22.0 tons per worker-hour, more than three times higher than the U.S. average of 6.3 tons per worker-hour.

Although most coal mined in Montana is exported by train, about 11 million tons is consumed within the state for power generation; in 2005, 90% of Montana's coal-fired generating capacity was accounted for by the Colstrip mine-mouth plant, all four units of which have been built since 1975 (unusual in the U.S., where the median coal plant was built in 1964). Currently, two coal-fired power plants and one coal-to-liquids plant are on the drawing board for Montana.

Legislative issues

In March 2009, Sen. Jeff Essmann (R-Billings) introduced Senate Bill 499, which proposes to cut the 15 percent coal severance tax in half for coal mined for so-called "green" projects. The bill would reduce the severance tax to 7.5 percent for coal used in coal power plants or coal-gasification plants that use carbon capture and sequestration technologies. Sen. Essmann said the lower tax would make Montana competitive with states like Wyoming and would help attract new coal projects. Opponents say the bill would do nothing to increase coal production and revenue.

EPA releases list of 44 "high hazard" coal ash dumps

In response to demands from environmentalists as well as Senator Barbara Boxer (D-California), chair of the Senate Committee on the Environment and Public Works, the EPA made public a list of 44 "high hazard potential" coal waste dumps. The rating applies to sites at which a dam failure would most likely cause loss of human life, but does not include an assessment of the likelihood of such an event. Montana has one of the sites, which stores coal combustion waste from Colstrip Steam Plant and is owned by PPL. To see the full list of sites, see Coal waste.

Proposed coal plants

Operating

• Hardin Generating Station

Active

• Ambre Energy plant - Southeastern MT
• Many Stars Coal-to-Liquids - Big Horn County, MT

Cancelled, abandoned, or on hold

• Bechtel / Kennecot Project (location undetermined)
• Comanche Park Plant, Yellowstone City, MT
• Nelson Creek Project, Miles City, MT
• Roundup Coal-to-Liquids, Roundup, MT
• Roundup Power Project, Roundup, MT
• Thompson River Co-Gen, Yellowstone City, MT
• Highwood Generating Station, Great Falls, MT
• Malmstrom Air Force Base Coal-to-Liquids, Great Falls, MT

Coal lobbying groups

Based in the state capital of Helena, the Montana Coal Council is a non-profit industry association, comprised of the state's major coal operators, shippers, coal generated utilities, holders of coal reserves and other entities that do business with Montana's coal industry.

The executive director of the Montana Coal Council is former timber industry lobbyist, Arthur R. "Bud" Clinch.

Coal power companies

• Southern Montana Electric Cooperative
  • Headquarters in Billings, MT
  • Active proposals: Highwood Generating Station
• PPL
• Great Northern Power Development
• U.S. Air Force

Existing coal plants

Montana had 7 coal-fired generating stations in 2005, with 2,536 MW of capacity - representing 47.3% of the state's total electric generating capacity. Here is more info on the Colstrip power plant, the only coal power plant in Montana with capacity over 400 MW:

Plant Name	County	Owner	Year(s) Built	Capacity	2007 CO2 Emissions	2006 SO2 Emissions	SO2/MW Rank
Colstrip	Rosebud	PPL	1975, 1976, 1984, 1986	2272 MW	16,783,000 tons	14,298 tons	236

Thus, the Colstrip plant single-handedly represents 89.6% of Montana's coal energy generating capacity, 51.3% of the state's total CO₂ emissions, and 25.6% of its total SO₂ emissions.

Major coal mines

Mine Name	Location	Owner	2006 Production
Spring Creek Mine	Decker, MT	Rio Tinto	14,541,000 tons
Rosebud Mine	Colstrip, MT	Westmoreland Coal	12,732,000 tons
Decker Mine	Decker, MT	Kiewit Mining Group	7,044,000 tons
Absaloka Mine	Hardin, MT	Westmoreland Coal	6,807,000 tons

In 2006, these four mines produced 98.3% of Montana's coal.

Citizen groups

• Citizens for Clean Energy
• Montana Environmental Information Center
• Northern Plains Resource Council
• Climate Ground Zero

Resources

Related SourceWatch articles

• Existing U.S. Coal Plants
• US proposed coal plants (both active and cancelled)
• Coal plants cancelled in 2007
• Coal plants cancelled in 2008
• Powder River Basin
• Profiles of other states (or click on the map)

<us_map redirect="{state} and coal"></us_map>

External links

• "Montana Is Coal Country," Governor's Office of Economic Development, 2006