Transcript for the 24 Min with News Hole version of Coal and Climate – We Shall Remain
WE SHALL REMAIN – SCRIPT – DRAFT
ERIC MACK
HOST: You may never have seen it or actually touched it yourself, but for years it's made countless parts of modern life possible. Every time you flip a light switch, make a cup of coffee or open the fridge, chances are it's coal that's being used to generate the energy that powers our lives.
In this half-hour we'll visit three communities – a Montana town where coal has been both a blessing and a curse, an Indian reservation looking to coal for salvation, even as some say it's already poisoned their way of life, and a town on the plains of North Dakota that's still hesitant to open its doors to coal development after years of the industry's knocking. Along the way, we'll hear about the future of coal and coal power, including a concept you may have heard about – something called 'carbon sequestration'; But who really pays the price? And who's liable when things go wrong? We'll look for those answers and more on this High Plains News special – 'We Shall Remain – Life with and after coal.'
This is a spot in rural south-east Montana where a coal company built a small community in the 1920s. It's still home today to a huge coal-fired power-plant - a mine-mouth operation where a coal mine sits at the mouth of the plant. The town is even named for the fuel. :15 / 1:37
BH “It’s a beautiful day here today in Colstrip, Montana.”
DM: “It is a real coal town, yes.” (SFX: Dinner bell rings.) :06 / 1:43
We’re at the Senior Center, for lunch.:03 / 1:46
(AMBI-CONVO: “Heavenly father we thank you for this food…” / fades under.) :02 / 1:48
“…talking to Betty Lou Hancock and Diana McCullough (DEE-ah-nah Mic-CULL-ah). :05 / 1:53
DM: “My husband worked at the mine for 28 years before he retired and it's been good.... A lot of people when they see the smoke comin' from the smoke stacks, they think it's pollution, but a lot of it's just condensation... We have problems with some of the coal ash too because we live right across the street. My windowsills are just black. Out there at the mine they're supposed to have it so that it's dust-free, but sometimes you still get a lot of it because they can't evidently control all of it....” —
JW: “It's just something that we're all used to, we live with . Everyone in this community is either directly or indirectly connected to coal mining or coal-fired energy plants and we take a lot of pride in that.” :45 / 2:38
Colstrip Mayor John Williams. :02 / 2:40
JW: “We look at ourselves as a coal-based economy, and there's tremendous benefits as a result. Good-paying jobs, low taxes and a tremendous quality of lifestyle. I don;t think that our environment is much different than anywhere in eastern Montana…” —
DH: “ The unit 3 and 4 structures are actually the tallest structures in the state on Montana, in excess of 30 stories tall.” :24 / 3:04
David Hoffman directs External Affairs for PPL Montana, the company that runs the four gigantic generators. :07 / 3:11
DW: “This is a big operation, this is about 2200 megawatt net production. The second if not the largest coal-fired plant west of the Mississippi, one of the largest in the nation. Coal burns like any fossil fuel, and when a fossil fuel burns, there are emissions. We deal with those through our permitting system, dictated by state and federal governments those regulators examining it on a regular basis…” —
JR: “I believe the Colstrip power plant burns on the order of a full boxcar of coal every five minutes - it’s the largest fire in the West.”
:32 / 3:43
In 2008 PPL paid fifty-two residents twenty-five million-dollars to settle a lawsuit over a leaking ash pond. Their lawyer was Jory Ruggerio (JORR-ee ru-ZHERR-oh) of Western Justice Associates. :12 / 3:55
“A number of folks in the town of Colstrip had concerns about groundwater contamination. While we're fortunate to have pretty clean coal in Montana, the process of burning coal releases toxins and hazardous substances that are in that coal, especially when you're in a rural area like Eastern Montana where there aren't many people looking, and the state's watchdogs are pro-industry, it's easy for them in many cases to choose the least protective technology and prioritize profits over prevention of pollution…” :32 / 4:27
The plant uses wet scrubbers to clean gases from the burning coal. That produces waste water, a lot of it. :06 / 4:33
JR: “About 7,500 gallons of water through that scrubber system every minute. And that makes this dirty slurry of wastewater that has to be stored somewhere – and two of the four generating units at the power plant send waste to the reservoirs that are roughly 100 acres each and those reservoirs lie just uphill from a residential community. You actually see the berm across this drainage that the power company built just behind these folks homes. ”
WJ: “This is our property boundary between us and the dam where the sludge disposal pond. They apparently have contamination running clear down to the creek down there.” :42 / 5:15
Wayne Johnson worked in the mine for twenty-five years. He lives just north of Colstrip, and was one of the litigants in the lawsuit. :06 / 5:21
“When they built the pond back here, they had a problem with the liner and we didn't really realize it I guess until the moose lodge over here had contamination in their well and the power company came out and drilled them a new well and never got any information from the power company on what the problem was. So I don't think they are a real good neighbor, no…” —
“The water sample came back from the state as non-potable water. It was high in Boron and that's what keyed the Moose Lodge that something was probably wrong. It was attributed to the fact that the ponds were leaking that stuff into the aquifers and thereby contaminating the well.” :44 / 6:05
Pat Nees (NEESE) worked twenty-nine years at the power plant. He was governor of the Moose Lodge, which took part in the lawsuit. Like most Colstrip residents, he still believes coal is a good way to produce electricity. :10 / 6:15
PN: “Nuclear power is the cheapest and cleanest power you can get. But where are we gonna store the spent fuel cells. That's basically what we're looking at with burning fossil fuel. What are you gonna do with the ash? And I really believe that through the use of good lined ponds, good management and good water retrieval and return systems that a coal-fired power plant can live right next to a working cattle ranch…” —
WM: “Both of my grandparents had ranches on this creek. My parents were raised here and I was raised here. If you look at anyplace in the state in the West, in the world. When you have an industry based on the extraction of natural resources – one day, it's gonna be over. And it's gonna happen to Colstrip, and so what you have to do if you're a long term resident of the area like a few of us, what you have to do is think what’s gonna be left, what's gonna be here when it’s all gone?” :51 / 7:06
Wally McCrae and his family have seen several cycles of boom and bust in Colstrip, from their ranch on Rosebud Creek, south of town. :07 / 7:13
WM: “In the 60s there was a study done by a cooperative effort between the federal government and large energycorporations. They realized that there was going to be an energy crunch down the road. They looked around and said coal's the answer. And it's going to take a tremendous amount of water, a lot of land – and so they came up with the North Central power study. It selected Northeastern Wyoming and Southeastern Montana as the solution to that energy crunch that they knew was coming, and they rationalized it. They said we have national parks, we have national forests, we have national historical sites, and in order to accomplish what we think is necesarry – we have to declare Northeastern Wyoming and Southeastern Montana a national sacrifice area. That's where I live, you know? We don't count. We. Don't. Count.” —
:47 / 8:00
AMBI-OUT: (Coal plant groans.)\:05/8:05
While Colstrip struggles to find a balanced way to make a living off coal without sacrificing too much of their quality of life, the industry has been knocking on the door of another small town in neighboring North Dakota for years. But many people in the area are wondering why there isn't more of a focus on another source of energy that's far more abundant. :18 / 8:23
We're now a few miles outside the small town of South Heart. This part of the northern plains has an almost unlimited supply of wind, and here it's drowning out the sounds of construction - but the facility being built here doesn't have anything to do with turbines or wind power. :14 / 8:39
MH: "We're looking at the 2 buildings that are going to be GTL Energy...a coal beneficiation plant. The plan is that they will be taking coal and drawing all the water out of and…um, making it so that it can be burned better for them." :15 / 8:54
Mary Hodell is chairperson of Neighbors United of South Heart - a group of some 50 community members opposed to plans by Australian company GTL Energy to build a coal facility 3 miles outside of town. :12 / 9:06
GK: "I live, uh, southwest of South Heart...about 2 miles from the proposed plant, or this plant right here. About 2 miles straight south of here. :09 / 9:15
Rancher Gordy Krantz is also part of Hodell's group: :03 / 9:18
“GK: I guess for me and my family, I guess I...I feel there's other forms of energy and...besides burning coal...uh, wind energy, which is a valuable source in North Dakota." :13 / 9:31
Actually that's a bit of an understatement for an energy source that's earned North Dakota the moniker "the Saudi Arabia of wind". So, why bother pursuing coal at a time of concern over global warming and likely legislation that will put stringent controls on the coal industry? In the nearby city of Dickinson, Mark Trechock (tree-shock) heads the Dakota Resource Council. The landowner and conservation group has coordinated opposition to the GTL facility for local residents, and he asks those same questions. :26 / 9:57
MT: "I mean, we have the best quality wind resource in the world. We have some of the poorest coal in the world. But the state has...state leaders are much more enthusiastic, it appears, about big coal projects than they are about wind. But when you look and see what's happened in the state, we've now got 600...700 megawatts of wind in the ground. We've got 10 times that in the pipeline. You know, people who want to develop wind energy are crawling all over the state because we have the best resource in the world. Unfortunately, the state seems to be more interested in trying to dig up and burn the last coal deposits remaining in the state." :42 / 10:39
The state says they're just trying to develop all the state's resources in a responsible way, but Trechock says industry has been looking to cash in on the coal deposits near South Heart anyway they can for years. :05 / 10:44
MT: "First, there was a plain-old, coal-fired power plant to produce electricity. Second, it was going to be a coal to natural gas facility. Of course, in the meantime, natural gas prices went into the tank. Now the latest thing is that they're trying to get federal money - and I think that the success of the project would depend on that federal money, to turn coal into gas and use the gas to produce hydrogen." :27 / 11:11
Trechock says concerns that the federal government would object to environmental impacts from a coal-fired power plant on nearby Theodore Roosevelt National Park squashed that project. He adds that the subsequent plans for a natural gas facility and the current coal beneficiation plant are all based on the same goal. :17 / 11:28
MT: "Mining the coal is what this is all about. They don't really care what they do with the coal, just so they have some use for it. Because they wanna mine that coal, because they've got the rights to it. They were given to them years and years ago by the federal government to the railroads when they came through here." :14 / 11:42
As for GTL and the local politicians supporting the coal project, no one - that's NO ONE - was willing to talk. :06 / 11:48
montage of answering machine mssgs "...uh, just want to let you know that I will not be commenting .... / ....them an you need to talk to his Bob French".... > layer (fade with French's tel # ) :10 / 11:58
Even GTL "spokesman" Bob French refused to comment on any aspect of his company’s project at South Heart. :06 / 12:04
sounds of park ranger: "Welcome to Theodore Roosevelt National Park" :05 / 12:09
Thirteen miles from the coal plant, South Heart resident Neil Tangen spends his summer months offering horseback trail rides to visitors from around the world. He's concerned about GTL's impact on the community of South Heart and on the national park. :13 / 12:21
"As far as the GTL thing, if this goes and then it expands into a gasification plant...well, the first thing that people are gonna be seeing coming from the east is this...plume...and the air quality over a national park. Yeah, you know there's major concern of air quality, you know, what could come down the road." 31 / 12:52
sounds of wind :04 / 12:56 (TIME CODE ADJUST END HERE)
What Tangen would prefer to see coming down the road is a future filled with a renewable energy source - like wind. :08 / 13:24
We're at the Navajo Nation Fair in Window Rock, Arizona – one of the biggest celebrations on an Indian reservation roughly the size of West Virginia. Thousands of people descend on this tiny, remote town for events including a powwow, rodeos, concerts, and all the rides and booths you'd expect to see at any fair.
Begay thinks he's found a way to do all that. By partnering the Navajo Nation with some major energy players in the hopes of building a new, 1500-megawatt coal-burning power plant on the eastern edge of the reservation near the Navajo coal mine. The proposed plant is called Desert Rock, and it's an idea that's been years in the making, and it's got the approval of a wide majority of the Navajo council, as well as Navajo President Joe Shirley :24 / 15:27 That's Dailan Long – he lives in the tiny community of Burnham on the New Mexico side of the reservation, right near the Navajo mine and the proposed site for Desert Rock. He's one of the public faces of Dine Care – a Navajo citizens group opposed to the project. As you might have already guessed, he's not buying the idea that a coal plant can solve the Navajo nation's problems with poverty and unemployment. :23 / 16:18 The benefits he's talking about is the actual electricity produced by Desert Rock that would most likely go to power places like Phoenix or Las Vegas. Ironically, electricity only reached Burnham in the last twenty years, and thousands of homes across the Navajo reservation still have no power, despite the fact that there's already three large coal plants on or near Navajo land – Desert Rock would be number 4. :24 / 16:58 People on this side of the reservation are also worried about the impact Desert Rock could have on water resources and the environment as a whole. Back in 2006, some local elders and supporters went so far as to camp out for weeks at the site in protest. Dailan Long's grandmother, Lucy Willie, was one of the leaders of the resistance. She says living next to the coal mine and coal ash waste that sometimes goes airborne in a strong wind is hard enough without another plant in the area. :27 / 17:41 Desert Rock's opponents got a big boost when the Supreme Court essentially ruled that carbon dioxide could be regulated as a pollutant and again when a new Environmental Protection Agency under the Obama administration said it wanted to reconsider one of Desert Rock's permits. But the story of Desert Rock and the Navajo Nation's coal doesn't end there. :19 / 18:17 That's Desert Rock's Nathan Plagens sharing the details of a federal grant application that would make the new coal plant one of the first operations to use Carbon Capture and Sequestration, a new technology that basically takes the CO2 put out by a power plant and sticks it underground so it doesn't contribute to global warming. And like you heard Plagens say, it can also be used to help bring oil up to the surface at the same time. :23 / 19:04 Mike Eisenfeld heads the San Juan Citizens Alliance, a group that's been working with Dailan Long's group to fight Desert Rock. He says Nathan Plagens called him recently to gauge his reaction to the new and improved plan for the plant: :13 / 19:17 While Eisenfeld points out that the new technology has yet to be proven on a large scale, Plagens insists they've got a solid project located in a region that has many opportunities for storing carbon. The future of projects like Desert Rock and much-hyped technologies including Carbon Sequestration is discussed several times a year at regional carbon sequestration conferences like this one in Bozeman, Montana. The partnership is involved in some pretty high profile research and testing on carbon sequestration. :05 / 20:13 But that's a pretty big question – because carbon sequestration could be really expensive. :05 / 20:36 Ann Hedges is one of the few people here that's not a big fan of carbon sequestration – she's with the Montana Environmental Information Center, and she says there's lots of other ways she'd like to see the federal government spend all the money that it's starting to pour into sequestration. She's talking about things like wind and solar power and retrofitting homes to make them more energy efficient. She sees carbon sequestration as one big, expensive diversion from actually working to cut back on our carbon footprint, which scientists tell us we need to do in a big way to slow down climate change. But that's not how Tom Lubnau sees things. He's a Wyoming State Representative – his district is the epicenter of coal production in the state that produces the most coal. :26 / 21:23 And preserving those jobs means preserving the need for coal, and with the potential for new laws that could essentially put a price tag on carbon dioxide from coal plants, Lubnau thinks carbon sequestration could be the inevitable solution. So a few years ago, he went to work on some bills in Cheyenne... :17 / 21:58 Over the past few years, Lubnau has been instrumental in getting bills passed that basically answer those questions. Ownership and liability for sequestered carbon belongs to the company or industry that injects it in the ground – at least in Wyoming, and those costs would most likely get passed on to consumers. That's a very deliberate move. :20 / 22:48 He says no matter how it works out, consumers will somehow pay for the cost of sequestration, whether it's passed on through increased costs to industry or fees charged to industry by the government. But how evenly those costs are spread out between the actual energy users and say, American taxpayers as a whole, remains to be seen. But Anne Hedges says that uncertainty is a big deal - :22 / 23:29 And Hedges says liability should really be among the least of the concerns if we were to ever move towards sequestration on a really large scale across the country. At this conference, there's been hours of data and analysis and studies all showing how carbon sequestration could work... :16 / 24:14 Lee Spangler says working to address those kinds of concerns is what this conference is all about :05 / 24:43 For his part Tom Lubnau and other Wyoming lawmakers have put together a working group that have set out to actually put a price tag on everything that could possibly go wrong with carbon sequestration, so the legislature can put together a bonding system that industry would have to go through before any carbon goes in the ground. :17 / 25:15 We Shall Remain has been a special production of High Plains News, supported by the Western Organization of Resource Councils in Billings, Montana. The program was produced by Eric Mack, Jim Kent and Barrett Golding. Production assistance from KVNF in Paonia, Colorado. Executive Producer is Kevin Dowling. To listen again, see photos or more information, visit HighPlainsNews.org. I'm your host, Eric Mack. Thanks for listening...
