Dear Editor:
What my vote means to Colstrip:
Should a Canadian company be allowed to buy out the part-owners of Colstrip units 3 & 4? The Public Service Commission voted on that question on June 12, and my answer was “no.” Some friends have asked me whether my vote was “against Colstrip.” Nothing could be further from the truth.
Avista Corporation is part owner of Colstrip units 3 & 4. They are being bought out by Hydro One Limited, a Canadian utility company. The Montana Public Service Commission must approve the sale because Avista serves customers in Montana.
After examining the unique facts and testimony in this case, I determined that in this specific instance, the public interest was best served by preserving jobs in the community of Colstrip for as long as possible.
Avista and Hydro One made agreements in other states to accelerate Colstrip’s depreciation schedule by several years. But then they came to us and said that depreciation schedule wasn’t really meaningful, just an “accounting paperwork entry” that means nothing. They claim that this will have no effect on actually shortening Colstrip’s operating lifespan.
Well, if that depreciation was truly meaningless, then why did environmentalists fight so hard to get it in? I suspect accelerated depreciation could mean an accelerated end date for the good jobs at high wages that Colstrip provides.
Also, the province of Ontario is the largest shareholder in Hydro One, and the province has a policy of operating coal-free. I didn’t receive enough assurance that jobs in Colstrip wouldn’t be subject to the ideological whims of the Canadian government.
Because of those concerns, I voted against the sale. I believe, because of the unique facts of this case, the public interests of Montana are best served by preserving jobs in Colstrip and at the Hardin electric generating plant. I didn’t believe this sale was the best way to do that.
Sincerely,
Tony O’Donnell
Public Service Commissioner
