“Working people”
What is a “working people“? People who work? How much “working” must you do to be considered one of the “people”?
There is a “working people” association. Here, there are people, working. And, what some of them eat.
Is a working person someone who has to work to support themselves and a family, and save what they can for when they no longer are able, or need, to work? What if they don’t really have to work, but still wish to work?
Does money define who is a “working person”? After you have enough, (by someones definition,) are you no longer a “working person”, even if you do, in fact, work?
The definition of “employee” is “:one employed by another usually for wages or salary and in a position below the executive level.” Yet many people work, and are not employed by another, so it is not just employees who are working people. A business owner could be a working person.
The folks working for the automakers are working people. Yet they indisputabley work for a private corporation, and that corporation must make a profit for those working people to continue working there and drawing a wage. Whether that wage is $74 an hour, or $38 an hour, is virtually meaningless, if the company cannot afford to pay it.
Gregg had a post on this recently, the comments of which sparked this post. Mark T accused Gregg of having “contempt for working people”, apparently because they have differing views on the auto bailout. Yet there appears to be a strange paradox in Mr. T’s comments. He certainly seems to support the union, and the workers “right” to the amount of wages and benefits they receive. Yet, at the same time, he states that “if you pay your help more than they produce, you’ll soon go broke. By definition, all employees must produce more than they are paid, otehrwise there is no profit to be had.”
So the workers apparently should be paid high wages and full benefits, yet if they are, the company will go out of business, and they won’t have jobs at all?
First, I disagree with his statement that all employees must produce more than they are paid. Generally, in every business there are positions that have no direct, quantifiable impact on the actual profit of a business. Basically, their participation is to allow others in the company to have more productive time, but the actual benefits are difficult to measure.
Second, and this is the one I have the biggest issue with, isin’t it rather demeaning to consider that employees are there simply to create wealth for their employer? I have been an employee for most of my working life, and I am sorry, but I do not go to work to create wealth for my employer. I go to work every day to benefit myself, and I would guess that is true for most every person who goes to work every day.
I do not believe anyone else, including my employer, has any obligation to pay for my medical care.
I do not believe that anyone else, including my employer, has any obligation to pay for my retirement.
I do not believe that anyone else has any obligation to pay me for days I do not work.
If the business I work for has the ability, out of the profit it generates, to pass the wealth so to speak, and choses to give me those benefits, I appreciate it, and will work hard to justify the investment they are putting in me. But if they came to me and said they would love to give me those extra’s but to do so would drive the business into bankruptcy, I would probably prefer to keep the job that at least pays my house payment, and electric bill.
Many thoughts…
Highwood zoning upheld. While I am mostly against the coal plant, I support this decision. I believe the County Commissioners had a very difficult decision to make, and either way they went, for or against this zoning, there would have been litigation.
I was reading over at the Tribune forums this morning. Well, one thing lead to another, and I ended up here. Compare that site to this one. I could go through and tear apart all the statements on the SME site, but we already know it’s all a crock of something anyway. Instead, note the information freely given on the Basin Electric site. News, that is current, a project tracker, which shows the long term actions that will support this coop for years to come. Video of board meetings. Financial statements, right there for you to download. Compare this information to what the City of Great Falls and SME are willing to share.
Moving on. I see the City has the 2006 Water Master Plan on line. Whoohoo, can you feel the excitement?
Here are some highlights.
“The current maximum daily water demands are 33,486,000 gpd which are projected to increase to 48,313,000 gpd by the end of the planning period. Much of this increase in demand is anticipated from the Agribusiness Park development. Long term historical demands have remained relatively steady over the last ten years.”
“In order to fund the entire $75.9 million in CIP needs the current user rates would require an annual increase of 8.5% each year from 2007 to 2011 and an annual increase of 2.5% from 2012 to 2016 (see Table 11-9). This equates to a 70.1% increase in rates by the year 2016.”This projection does not take into account purchasing any new rights.
“The average daily residential per capita usage is approximately 123 gpcd.” This is much lower than what was used to figure water usage in documents relating to historic water rights and new purchases.”The City of Great Falls should aggressively defend its water rights when basins 41Q and 41 QJ are before the Montana Water Court during the Temporary Preliminary Decree phase of the adjudication process. The best defense is to amend claims ahead of the adjudication process to remove potential issue remarks. Clarification of places of use and points of diversion, along with justifiable flow rates and volumes is the easiest and most cost-effective way to prepare for this defense. The flow rate and volume claimed for water right W-123410 appears to be the most susceptible to objection. It is important that the City identify all areas served on July 1, 1973 to justify this flow rate and volume. If objections to this claim result from issue remarks, the flow rate and volume will likely need to be adjusted downward if justification for flow and beneficial use cannot be supplied.” (emphasis added)
Yeah, I’ve been over that. Not doing it again.
I learned a new word. “flocculators”.
“Revenue from rates should be sufficient to meet annual operating expenses, capital projects, payments on existing and proposed debt service, and annual operating reserves.”
But not new purchases. I am sure you noted above, our water rates are likely going up. “This equates to a 70.1% increase in rates by the year 2016.”
That is just for projected improvements and expansion to the current system. If one were to figure in the costs associated with integrating a new point of diversion and intake into the current water distribution and treatment system, I am pretty confident it will be much higher than $10 million and change now being touted as the cost of new water rights. There is far more cost to the City than just buying the rights, and those costs will be passed on to the water users.
However, that will also convert into benefits to the City and the region, and I am fully aware that acess to water is something our City could very well use to it’s advantage in years to come. My fear, of course, is this is simply a last ditch gambit by the City to do an end around play and aquire rights they can sell to SME, since the water reservation is causing so many dang problems.
Time will tell.
I have written a fair bit about water rights
and knowing that the DNRC is currently in the process of scanning a great deal of water rights information into its online database, I checked back there recently to see if there was anything new going on.
They now have the original City application for our water reservation, which was secured by the City two decades ago in anticipation of the Adjudication process, and the projected need for water in the future. On the whole, it is very dry reading.
In a nutshell, the City applied for the reservation, and supplied supporting information relevant to future growth, future use, population projections and such. (They were a little optimistic concerning population projections.)
Now, many people have been saying that the City should have kept its claim for historic use, disregarding the fact that there was no legitimate basis for that amount of consumptive use. Despite my personal conspiracy thereory regarding why we were in such a rush to drop the access amount, I really don’t see the big issue, because I believe that the excess would have been taken during the adjudication process, and we could very well have ended up with less than we are now claiming. I think sticking with a claim we can support, and which has not been objected to, is the best gamble.
During my perusal of the water reservation documents, I noted a bit of history on page 34. (It is actually more like page 46 in the actual file, but it is page 34 in the docs supporting the application, so I am going with that.)
“Although water rights exceed plant capacity, it is prudent for the city to reserve future water needs. The basis for this recommendation is the possibility that the adjudication process will reduce the right to that which the city has beneficially used in the past. The Water Courts recently denied the City of Troy a claim to water in excess of its historic needs, even though diversion capacity was larger than needed but less than the claim (Case 760-79, DNRC. 1988). As stated in the ruling, “Appropriators of water cannot maintain a valid claim to an amount of water in excess of the beneficial use to which it is applied, and when the appropriator or his successor ceases to use the water for such beneficial purpose, the right ceases.” (emphasis added)
This is a document submitted by the City, to secure this water reservation, which uses the possible projected loss of our excess claims as a basis for securing the water reservation. This was filed with DNRC and dated 1988.
Now, in 2008, We have adjusted those claimed historic rights. We are anticipating selling water to SME from this water reservation. We are selling IMC water from this reservation, and may need to supply them more in the future, for which there are existing contracts.
Now, the City is anticipating the need for additional water for the future. For this future need, they anticipate spending about $10 million, with another $200,000 just to get it done. Lets think about this. The amount of water the City is looking at is around the same amount as the water reservation, of which a portion is dedicated to IMC, and a portion is dedicated to SME, if they can figure out how to get it.
By my calculations, if we sell the coal plant 3,200 gpm, 24 hours a day, for 30 years, we will make a total of $8,073,216 off the sale of the water. If the plant uses water for 40 years, that total will go to $10,764,288.
It seems relatively simple to me to look at this, and say, if SME loses the water, we get it back, and satisfy the need for water for future use. If SME uses the water, that revenue should cover purchase of new rights, over time, and there really is no need for the City to charge or tax its residents for purchase of new water.
It seems the recent City government has spent an awful lot of money and effort working on the same things their predecessors apparently had a pretty good grasp on 20 years ago.
As an aside, I had a conversation with someone, I don’t remember who, regarding pumps that have been installed for water diversion for the water treatment plant. This water resevation application has a “Historical Summary of Water System Improvements”, through 1980, and a table of “Low Service Pumps and Drives” throug 1971. These two documents are relevant to the historic use of the City of Great Falls.
106
There has been recent discussion regarding SME’s access to the water they need for the plant. The Army Corps of Engineers is the lead federal agency in charge of completing the Section 106 consultation, which is must be completed prior to construction of the water intake needed for HGS.
In todays Tribune, Allan Steinle, Montana program manager for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, said that the discussions of the impact on the historical landmark are continuing.
“We’re working with SME right now on that Section 106 review,” Steinle said in a telephone interview. “It’s hard to say when that will wrap up.” Preservationists must be consulted in order for the process to be completed, Steinle added.
This appears to indicate things are progressing, and the job will be completed before the plant needs the water. Well and good, right?
When questioned by Mary Jolly, “”You need to satisfy and complete this 106 process (before work on the water intake can proceed),” Balzarini said. She noted there are alternative solutions for a water intake in case talks between SME and preservationists reach an impasse but did not know where that would be.” (Tribune story)
Yes, as usual, there are alternatives, but we don’t know/are not allowed to know any details.
When the first couple letters regarding this, (history here) surfaced, I wondered if the 106 applied to only the intake and transmission line, or the entire project. It certainly appeared that the intake and line were the focus of the Corps attention.
This is a recent letter from the National Trust for Historic Preservation, directed to the Corps of Engineers. Reading this letter can only lead to more questions, so proceed cautiously.
“In a letter from the Army Corps to SME dated April 28, 2008, the Corps authorized the use of Nationwide Permit 12 for this project, but expressly prohibited work on the water intake and power line until Section 106 consultation with RUS was completed. However, in a subsequent letter to SME dated July 11, 2008, the Corps stated that the historic preservation permit condition cannot be met, due to RUS decision to cease participation in the project. The July 11 letter also stated that the Corps would conduct an internal review to decide how to proceed. Yet, four months later, the Army Corps has failed to issue any further correspondence regarding how the Corps proposes to comply with Section 106.” (emphasis added)
Remember, to complete the 106, the Corps must consult the “preservationists”. These are the preservationists.
They continue “The Army Corps has not initiated or completed Section 106 consultation, and yet the applicant has begun construction work on the project, including ground disturbance directly within the National Historic Landmark, which the Army Corps was previously notified about.”
Here, I do believe they are talking about the actual site, not the water intake. And they are.
“While the applicant is engaging in anticipatory demolition, the Army Corps is directly at fault for conveying tacit approval of the applicants actions. Even the Corps July 11, 2008 letter, which prohibits work on the water intake and transmission line, fails to prohibit all work on the project, and clearly suggests by implication that other work on the project may proceed including bulldozing within a known National Historic Landmark.”
“Appendix C specifically requires the Corps to consider the effects of undertakings on any known historic properties that may occur outside the permit area. 33 C.F.R. Part 325, Appendix C, § 5.f.(emphasis added).”
If that isn’t clear enough, this letter, written Nov. 20, even addresses Colleen B.’s more recent comment about “alternative solutions for a water intake”. (The letter was also apparently sent to Tim Gregori.)
“Apparently, the applicant claims that it does not need a Corps permit because the project could be accomplished using water from other sources, but that getting the permit is the most economical way to proceed. The theoretical possibility that the applicant could redesign the project in a way to avoid Army Corps jurisdiction provides no basis for narrowing the scope of review, unless the applicant actually does redesign the project. This argument lacks any merit whatsoever, and has no bearing on the facts at hand. The Corps must consider the impacts of the actual project as planned by the applicant, and must comply with all requirements of Section 106.”
“As of the date of this affidavit, SME has all necessary permits and approvals to commence HGS site preparation construction activities.” Tim G. swore to that in his affidavit, and also stated that over a year had been wasted on needless delays of one kind or another.
Maybe he should have used some of that wasted time to work on getting a Section 106 consultation moving.
“I didn’t expect that,”
November 19, 2008 Tribune “For several years, Great Falls officials touted the city’s electric rates as cheaper than those offered by NorthWestern Energy, the state’s dominant electric utility.” Yep, they did.
March 3, 2008 ECPI Board Meeting.
“Mr. Rezentes said he was surprised that Ms. Balzarini was not providing monthly financial statements to the Board. Mr. Rezentes opined that from 2004-2008, ECP lost approximately $1.3 million dollars. In its forecast in 2006, Mr. Rezentes said ECP was expecting to lose money and sell power at a loss.”
He came up with -$1.3 million out of the incomplete numbers he managed to get from the City.
“Ms. Balzarini responded that in fiscal year 2004 there was a $130,000 net gain, and a $2,776 net gain in 2005. Ms. Balzarini asked Mr. Rezentes if he was asking for operating losses or fund balances. Mr. Rezentes said he was looking for the money that ECP lost. Ms. Balzarini answered that the fund had a negative balance of $489,000 at the end of 2007.”
Gregg has an observation, which I will swipe without hesitation. (I hate math.) “First, just in terms of base revenue and expense, the City has since inception lost $2,490,554.81 on its purchase of power from SME for resale.”
It appears that ECP is not making any money.
At the same March Board meeting, “Mr. Liebert asked what the provisions were that would allow an entity to terminate the obligations it had to SME. Mr. Ryan stated that ECP will continue to buy power from SME regardless if the plant is built or not. SME buys power on the market at better rates than NorthWestern Energy.”
Mr. Ryan appeared to be very confident that the rates are better than NW Energy.
“Mr. Dolman said it seemed to him that the City Commission would have to approve all of this. Dawn Willey responded that the Commission has approved all necessary agreements.”
Tribune, today, “Tuesday night, some city officials said they were surprised when Coleen Balzarini, the city’s fiscal officer, reported figures that showed NorthWestern’s electric charges would have been lower than SME’s charges to the city of Great Falls from October 2004 to July 2008.”
Perhaps it was simply not necessary for the Commission to know this information, while they reviewed those agreements.
I will also note that at that Board meeting in March, “A discussion took place regarding questioning the integrity of governments versus the personal integrity of these Board members.”
At the October 13, 2008, ECPI Board meeting, Stuart Lewin brought up that “He doesn’t believe the public was getting all the information, and does not believe the tax payers are getting the benefit of cheap power. Mr. Lewin commented that SME is costing the City millions of dollars and urged the Board to unwind itself from SME to stop losing money.”
“Chairman Golie interrupted Mr. Lewin stating that he consistently attacks the integrity of the Board members.”
“Mr. Pancich commented that misinformation like Mr. Lewin’s comments gets printed in the newspaper. An audit is currently being performed and he puts his faith in the auditors.”
So let’s talk about this for a second. The board members think what Lewin said is “misinformation” and an attack on “the integrity of Board members.” Yet, we now know, he was actually pretty much correct, wasn’t he?.
Back in the October meeting, Lewin and Board member Ryan had this discussion. First, “Mr. Lewin polled the Board regarding who was getting power, personally or through an employer, at special rates that the City is paying for.” In regards to the pilot program, “Mr. Ryan said it is pursuant to a contract and it is not at a subsidized rate, but is less than NorthWestern. Mr. Lewin said, as he understands it, ECP is buying power for more than Mr. Ryan is paying for it.”
“Mr. Lewin asked Mr. Ryan how much he personally profited. Mr. Ryan said he has not profited at all. He is buying power and paying full market value for that power. Mr. Ryan explained that everyone should be given the opportunity to buy this power.”
Nice. Wonderful. Can you feel the love?
However, not everyone has the opportunity to buy this power. One should consider that Mr. Lewin probably ment, how much has Mr. Ryan saved by being a pilot program member, as profiting from his participation could possibly be a conflict of interest…Wait, isn’t Golie also a pilot program member? Hmm, who else. Balzarini. Gregori. Patton. Cappis. Ebeling, and his business, but I think I will leave him out of it, he is new. May be hope for him.
Anyhow, “Mr. Ryan said he has not profited at all.” (I bolded that so you would notice it. This post is getting long.)
But wouldn’t you think Mr. Ryan saved money? If he didn’t, why go through ECP? What does he mean, full market value? And are we not allowed to know if purchasing power from ECP will save money? What is the purpose of the pilot program, then, if Mr. Ryan is not saving any money?
Is there a pretty good chance Mr. Ryan, and all the rest, are saving money on power? Does that help me, or you, or any of the other folks in this town, who go to work every day, pay taxes, pay NW Energy, and ask what is going on, while ECP, utility of the City of Great Falls, loses money? Our money?
But today, I am not questioning the integrity of anyone at the City or ECP. (much) I am not questioning their intelligence, and committment to the citizens. (much) Because that would be rude. And perhaps nasty.
You can obviously see what I quoted from the Tribune and City websites in this post, and what is my sarcasm writing.
You can form your own opinions. I suggest you take them with you down the Rabbit Hole, or through the Looking Glass. Whatever it takes. Don’t forget the rose colored glasses and Koolaid.
oh.
“One risk to the city is it remains unclear…”
“Let’s get this process under way,” Beecher said.
As you can see from the story preceeding that remark, that type of thought process works well for our City.
What is the rush?
Our City Commissioners have a very important issue before them tonight.
What will they do.
We do not need water RIGHT NOW. We have enough to last until 2025, by the accounts of City Staff.
We have other options that have never really been explored. Water storage, irrigation wells, etc.
We do not know if we will get our water reservation back from SME. If they cannot build the plant, they do not get that water.
Buying new water may cost more in a year or two, but by that time we will know so much more - like if we even need it.
We might even have more money for it. In a year or so, we will either have the water reservation back, or we will be rolling in so much damn prosperity from the construction of the coal plant, and the promise of new taxes, and a better local economy, folks may not even notice the $10,000,000+ price tag on some new water.
The citizens will have had an opportunity by then to see if the City did the right thing by ammending the Gibson rights, I hope.
The City should not rush blindly into this, commit more time and money and make a difficult issue worse. By waiting, they can possibly avoid the appearance of having to rush into this, and may be able to recover from some of the damage they have done themselves in the last couple years.
Besides that, I don’t want the City to have anything else SME wants. If SME cannot get the water reservation, but the City just bought rights to about the same amount, why not just help each other out one more time?
But that would never happen.
An Observation.
I have been reading Electric City Weblog for well over two years now, and while the content is certainly colored by it’s authors views, I have always found it an interesting place to read and discuss the issues presented. Gregg has always promoted the discussion, and allowed differing perspectives, sometimes to the extreme, as any of us who are familiar with some of his past commenters well know.
I have had only peripheral knowledge of Professor Rob Natelson. I was much a bit younger during the time he was more politically active, and while I was generally aware of the issue with the University, I was never really clear on more than the basic facts.
I have become more familiar with the Professors history in the last couple years, and now he is a contributor on ECW. I am quite intrigued by this development.
I did, of course, spend some time researching the man before I wrote this post. There is a plethora of information out there, and if one cares to, one can learn a great deal from what has been written, both by him, and about him. I find myself agreeing with many of his viewpoints, and not so much on a few. However, even when I disagree with what he writes, I have no problem seeing the other point of view, and I appreciate the thought that goes into the writing and defense of his statements.
I am a bit disapointed that apparently, the majority of those chosing to comment on Professor Natelsons posts are more inclined to take him to task for personal and political differences, instead of reading what he writes, and discussing the things he actually says.
I, for one, intend to take his presence on Greggs blog as a learning experience. I may not always agree with him, but I can certainly appreciate what he says and how he says it.
I have the opportunity to read and discuss events and issues with a law professor, a respected expert on Constitutional Law, who has presented himself with intelligence, courtesy and respect, even in the face of outright insult. I appreciate that.
More Water…
“In light of these and many more unsupported cost estimates, the entire cost analysis in the application is compromised.
(5) Environmental impact assessments for several alternatives are inadequate. In particular, all wet-ESP options were eliminated on an improper “environmental” basis, i.e. that water usage approvals, wastewater discharge permitting and solid waste licensing would “…at a minimum, require additional time and result in uncertainty and potential challenges to the project…”
This is not a sufficient reason for eliminating a very promising control technology.” That is from Exhibit 1, MEIC’s expert opinion on Permit Application 3423-01. The opinion was written by Ranajit (Ron) Sahu, Ph.D, QEP, CEM.
I did some research on Dr. Sahu, and he appears quite reputable, although, as expected, rather environment oriented. But I wouldn’t expect him to know why SME would reject out of hand any control technology that requires more water.
Not only can they not find more water, right now they really don’t have the water they thought they had. “To date, Section 106 consultation for the proposed HGS has not been completed.” (Dated October 28, 2008) The wet ESP options noted would all have kicked projected water use over what PPL will allow out of the City water reservation, so SME would need to find a way to purchase or find new water. (I say “find” because they apparently considered drilling new wells at the site.)
So in essence, this ammended permit application threw out any option that needed more water. And the DEQ allowed it. Why? I don’t know. However, as Dr. Sahu notes in his opinion, from the first amendment offered (just 4 days after the BER decision) to the final one now being approved (I assume) DEQ was worn down, and finally just said “good enough”.
But moving on. SME had to start construction. Not only was the air quality permit set to expire if they didn’t, they needed to show that they would lose money if they didn’t. So they entered into a 12 million dollar construction contract. To retain a place in the NW transmission queue, they had to show progress on the project. I believe they need to be up and running by December, 2011, or in a position where they can legitimately request an extension. 52 months is what is projected to build the plant. They had to protect that 150 million dollar place in the queue.
That 106 consultation? Hey, it is just the federal government. There have got to be ways around that.
System #16
Total estimated capital cost $57 million
Total annualized cost $16.9 million/yr
Annual PM2.5 emissions reduced 19,093 tons/yr
Annual PM2.5 emissions remaining 227 tons/yr
Average cost-effectiveness $888/ton
Incremental cost-effectiveness (relative to next most effective alternative) $84,899/ton*
Incremental cost-effectiveness vs. chosen BACT alternative NA
Pollution control cost per MW-hr $8.15/MW-hr
Pollution control cost as percentage of projected power price ($70 per MW-hr) 11.65%
I read the whole thing, and about the time my eyes were glazing over, and my brain was turning to mush, I noticed something. “Pollution control cost as percentage of projected power price ($70 per MW-hr)”
The projected power price is $70 a MW-hr? Wow. (remember to tack on the delivery charge of about $8.80.)