| On one hand, we need to produce "clean" energy. Montana is uniquely situated to provide American consumers with clean wind energy. There's a lot of wind in the state. To do so, we'd need more high-power lines that run out of the state to the markets that consume energy. Like California.
On the other hand, the power lines would have to cut across the state, and there's a strong possibility Montanans would have to compete with Californians for the energy produced in Montana. That would probably mean higher rates for Montanans.
Brad Molnar - the highest ranking Republican state office holder! - has vowed to kill a Northwestern Energy project to build such a power line. Now, my first impulse is to disagree with Molnar, simply because he's not exactly your most rational public servant. (Seriously. Just check out an interview with Molnar on Montana Headlines.) If Molnar's against something, it's probably pretty good, right? But..sitting here in ol' mom's basement munching CoCo Puffs, I'm inclined to...*gasp*...agree with Molnar. Maybe.
Here's the thing. We hear all the time about making the United States "energy independent." Which essentially means making the country's energy consumption equal the country's energy production. So...why not make Montana energy independent? Can we build the wind farms and ensure service to Montana ratepayers first? (Incidentally, I think there's more that could be done here making the state energy independent. Lease state lands for wind farms...and pursue a bold state lending plan, say, to make Montanans' homes energy efficient. Crank up those building codes! Etc & co.)
Or maybe I'm just a fool. Maybe Northwestern Energy high-power lines are what we need. Harness the free market, right? Use the tools that are there. NWE builds the lines to charge higher rates for power...which means they have incentive to produce more power, which would eventually lower prices. Right? Right?
Who am I kidding... |
