Montana, Whats Happening With Saving Energy?
Montana – State of Affairs and Energy Conservation:
Low Income Weatherization Program. In Montana it’s WAP. (Weatherization Assistance Program)
“The Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP) enables low-income families to permanently reduce their energy bills by making their homes more energy efficient. Funds are used to improve the energy performance of dwellings of needy families using the most advanced technologies and testing protocols available in the housing industry. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) provides funding to states, U.S. overseas territories, and Indian tribal governments, which manage the day-to-day details of the program.”
“During the past 33 years, WAP has provided weatherization services to more than 6.4 million low-income households. Families receiving weatherization services see their annual energy bills reduced by an average of about $350″
If you think you might qualify for low income weatherization, contact your county WAP office and check it out, it’s completely free. For further nformation contact: Kane Quenemoen Program Manager (406) 447-4260 , kquenemoen@mt.gov
Where does Montana get it’s power and where does it need to clean up a bit.
“Libby Dam is a dam on the Kootenai River in the U.S. state of Montana. Dedicated on August 24, 1975,The Kootenai River is the third largest tributary to the Columbia river, contributing almost 20% of the total water in the lower Columbia.Libby, Mont. — The State of Montana Department of Environmental Quality issued a temporary waiver of the states water quality standard for total dissolved gas on the Kootenai River this week in coordination with Federal agencies and in consultation with the Kootenai Tribe of Idaho, to allow the Corps to potentially spill extra water for a week this spring at Libby Dam. In the waiver Montana included conditions on the spill operation because of concerns related to water quality and the protection of other fish below Libby Dam.”
It’s interesting that Montana has called hydroelectic dams renewable energy. I think the salmon and the environment may have a narrower definition of the phrase.
“The Milltown Dam was an earth-fill gravity-type hydroelectric dam on the Clark Fork river in Missoula County, in the western part of the U.S. state of Montana.Built in 1908 by copper mining tycoon William A. Clark, it was meant to supply hydroelectricity to his sawmills.The federal Environmental Protection Agency expects Milltown Dam to be dismantled in the winter of 2006-2007.”
“Then comes the disposal of 6,600,000 cubic yards of toxic waste mud from 160 years of mining and smelting in Butte and Anaconda, 120 miles up the Clark Fork River. About one third, or 2,200,000 cubic yards will be hauled by rail 100 miles up to the Opportunity settling ponds near the old smelter at Anaconda. In 1979, Atlantic Richfield Co. (ARCO-BP) purchased the assets and liabilities of the Anaconda Mining Co. (ACM) and gained ownership of the toxic mud behind the dam. ARCO will pay $80,000,000, Northwestern Energy Corp. (NWE), who owns the dam, will pay $11,400,000 and the state will pay $7,600,000 from a $225,000,000 settlement that ARCO and Montana State reached in 1998 for damage to natural resources.”
There are no nuclear power plants in Montana. The state is rich in fossil fuel resources and renewable energy potential. Montana’s state economy is energy intensive and per capita energy consumption is relatively high. By 2030, the Mountain Grid will require 12.531 quadrillion British thermal units of electricity per year, a 41% increase from 2006.
Coal is the main man in Montana.
“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 by 1980. From the 1980s onward, production grew more slowly, reaching 37.6 million tons in 1990 and 41.8 million tons in 2006.[11] 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.[12]”
“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.”
“…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.”