Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Renewable Energy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Montana committee hears broad support and pointed opposition for renewable-energy resolution
Summary
House committee heard testimony for House Joint Resolution 16 that urges Montana to embrace renewable energy for jobs and revenue; proponents (tribes, labor, industry, conservation groups) highlighted local projects and workforce gains while an opponent raised concerns about costs, health risks and sourcing for job estimates.
Representative George Niklakakos introduced House Joint Resolution 16, telling the House Energy, Technology, and Federal Relations Committee that Montana ‘‘is second in the nation for potential wind generation’’ and that local projects have already produced measurable property tax revenue. ‘‘In Cascade County...we've accrued about $2,600,000 in wind property tax revenue to date,’’ he said, citing county figures and arguing the state should ‘‘lean in’’ on renewables to capture economic opportunity.
The hearing produced a mix of endorsements from tribal leaders, unions, renewable developers and conservation groups and skeptical testimony from an on-line opponent. Patrick Yawake, speaking for Blackfeet, Fort Belknap and the Chippewa Cree of Rocky Boy, described tribal solar and wind demonstrations and workforce training, noting a DOE-funded project that generated roughly 63,053 kilowatt-hours from March 2022–March 2023 and saved a tribal college about $5,500 a year. Labor and trades speakers emphasized job creation: Jay Reardon of the Montana State Building and Construction Trades Council said energy construction work supports members who earn ‘‘on an average of wages and benefits of $50 an hour.’’
Proponents repeatedly cited analyses of levelized cost of energy to argue renewables are among the most affordable new-build sources. Nick Fitzmaurice of the Montana Environmental Information Center walked the committee through Lazard’s LCOE comparisons and stressed that some widely cited rankings (WalletHub) measure aggregate energy costs rather than electricity specifically, a distinction he said helps explain apparent discrepancies in cost claims.
Opposition testimony focused on data sources and potential downsides. Lisa Bennett (online) challenged several assertions in the resolution and said Montana’s electricity costs are not among the highest in the country; she also raised environmental and health concerns tied to turbines and solar (including decommissioning liabilities, alleged turbine ‘‘shedding,’’ PFAS/PFOS references and low-frequency noise) and asked the committee for independent, neutral sourcing for job and cost figures.
Committee members pressed for citations and clarifications on subsidy levels, where renewable generation is consumed versus exported, and whether the resolution should explicitly mention transmission and distribution. The sponsor agreed to gather source references for the committee and indicated willingness to add transmission language if members wanted to amend the resolve statement.
The hearing concluded with the sponsor urging a ‘‘due pass’’ and the committee recessed for a short break. No final committee action on HJ 16 was recorded in this transcript; the item was heard and left with staff/committee follow-up on sourcing and potential amendments.
