Letters to the Editor; The math doesn't add up in Governor Bullock's energy plan

Isn’t it amazing that the Keystone XL pipeline has been being “studied” by federal agencies for over six years, yet the EPA is giving Americans only 180 days to look at the impacts of their overhaul of our entire national energy system?

Sometimes Washington, DC works in mysterious ways.

And sometimes the mystery happens in Montana as well.  In record time, the Montana Department of Environmental Quality has cranked out not one, but five plans for how Montana could comply with the EPA’s proposed greenhouse gas regulations.

In a little over three months, DEQ was able to digest the rule’s hundreds of pages and figure out how to completely configure Montana’s energy system five different ways!

This from a state agency notorious for lengthy review periods.  In Montana it takes two full months to review a simple subdivision application.  For bigger projects, like a pipeline, the review period is 18 months.

You’d expect the bigger the project, the longer the review period.  In this case, DEQ somehow completed their analysis of our statewide energy system in about the same amount of time it can takes them to review an application for a gravel pit.

Mysterious indeed.

The review process for any given project inevitably also includes a lengthy public comment period.  And again, the bigger the project, the more public comment that is typically allocated.  In this case, DEQ is allowing exactly three days of public comment with just 10 days notice.  Why are they in such a hurry?

We have a review process for a reason.  The adage, “look before you leap,” is repeated as a mantra by activists any time industry proposes a resource project.  Maybe with this EPA rule—the granddaddy of all environmental regulations—we should be doing a little more looking and a little less leaping.

How Montana addresses President Obama’s greenhouse gas regs will prove to be the most significant issue of Governor Bullock’s administration.  If the rules are allowed to go into effect, Montanans will face dramatically higher prices for electricity, and job growth in our important energy sector could grind to a halt.

Montana has more at stake than any other state with these rules due to the importance of coal, oil, and gas to our statewide economy.  

Montanans can’t quibble much with planning ahead and being prepared for a scenario where the rules are imposed upon us.  But before embracing President Obama’s rules, shouldn’t we first have a discussion about whether they’re a good idea or not?

That’s what’s happening in other states.  Governors—both Republican and Democratic—are leading the discussion on the pros and cons of the EPA’s rules and calling on the White House to back down.  Inexplicably, Governor Bullock has sidestepped that discussion and been one of the first governors in the country to embrace the President’s plan.

The way DEQ’s analysis of the EPA rule came out has many of us scratching our heads, both for the quickness with which it was put together and in the short amount of time that Montanans will be allowed to comment on it.

This is the most significant issue facing our state today.  It’s important we get it right.  So far, Governor Bullock’s leadership on this issue has been roundly disappointing.  He should be the lead critic in telling the EPA what’s wrong with this rule, not the President’s lead man in Montana implementing a plan that will have such negative effects on our state.

Rep. Mike Miller represents House District 84 and is a member of the Montana House Natural Resources Committee.   He lives in Helmville.