Connect with us

Montana

Montana population trends: New neighbors from Arizona

Published

on

Montana population trends: New neighbors from Arizona


In 2021, there were 30,060 new residents in Montana that had resided in a different state the previous year, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. About 4,278 of those people came from Arizona, followed by 3,740 from Washington.

Hopefully those new Montanans brought sunshine and salmon, respectively.

Only about 2,049 came from California, and 1,627 came from Texas. More than a thousand people each came from North Dakota, Nevada, Tennessee, Florida, Idaho and Nevada. Colorado and Wyoming each sent roughly 800 of presumably their best and brightest to live here.

If you are a person who lived in New Jersey, Louisiana, Delaware, Arkansas, Connecticut or Puerto Rico in 2020 and then came to live in Montana in 2021, the federal government doesn’t believe you exist. That’s because there were officially zero people recorded as moving here from those places during that time period, but there is a margin of error and the numbers are just estimates.

Advertisement

People are also reading…

The Census also allows people to see which counties people are moving from and to across the United States.

Advertisement

In terms of people moving to Missoula County from 2016 to 2020, more new residents — 1,029 — came from Flathead County than any other place. That was followed by hundreds of people from Cascade, Yellowstone, Gallatin and Ravalli counties, along with 424 people from King County in Washington, home to Seattle.






Advertisement

Inbound migration to Missoula County from 2016-2020.




Missoula County’s population is estimated to be 121,041 as of July 1, 2022, which is a 2.6% increase since April of 2020. The population inside city limits is estimated to be 76,955, a 3.8% boost since 2020.

Montana’s population is estimated to be 1,122,867 as of July 1, 2022. That’s a 3.6% change compared to April of 2020. The U.S. population overall grew by .6% in that time.

Advertisement

Montana was one of the places in the country that saw positive net migration from 2021 to 2022, but it didn’t see as many new residents as places like Florida, Arizona, Texas and large chunks of the southern United States. Urban areas like cities in California, New York, Chicago and Seattle saw lots of people leave as well.

A recent report from the U.S. Census Bureau found that, while there was a big pattern of people leaving dense, big-population areas for relatively unpopulated rural places during the pandemic, that trend has lost steam.

“The COVID-19 pandemic changed the U.S. population in many ways, including births, deaths and international migration,” said Census researchers Luke Rogers, Marc Perry and Lindsay Spell. “One of (the pandemic’s) more intriguing impacts was on domestic migration patterns. Some longstanding trends accelerated, such as outmigration from large urban areas in the Northeast, while other trends reversed, resulting in some small rural counties gaining rather than losing population.”

In 2019, the year before the pandemic, smaller counties with fewer than 30,000 people were steadily losing people. 

In Montana, for example, 23 mostly rural counties lost population between 2000 and 2015.

Advertisement

“During the pandemic’s peak, between 2020 and 2021, this flipped, and these least-populous counties gained people through domestic migration,” the report’s authors wrote. “At the other end of the spectrum, the largest counties with populations of 1 million or more were losing people through domestic migration before the pandemic. But the pandemic exacerbated this outmigration substantially.”

In 2022, the weird trend slowed down, with smaller counties experiencing fewer new residents and the outflow of people from large counties slowing down as well.

“Many rural areas that gained domestic migrants during the pandemic saw those gains slow or reverse completely,” the authors wrote.

In the West’s Mountain Division (Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, Wyoming) a net gain of domestic migrants slowed slightly in 2022.

David Erickson is the business reporter for the Missoulian. 

Advertisement
You must be logged in to react.
Click any reaction to login.
Advertisement



Source link

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Montana

A small plane crashes in Montana, killing the pilot and a passenger

Published

on

A small plane crashes in Montana, killing the pilot and a passenger


BILLINGS, Mont. (AP) — A single-engine airplane crashed in southeastern Montana, killing the pilot and the passenger, the Federal Aviation Administration reported.

The Piper PA-18 crashed near Tillitt Field Airport east of the town of Forsyth at about 4:30 p.m. Tuesday, the FAA said. The National Transportation Safety Board will investigate the cause of the crash.

Rosebud County Sheriff Allen Fulton said they have identified the victims but weren’t releasing their names yet. The crash did not start a fire, he said.

Advertisement



Source link

Continue Reading

Montana

Alan Olson: Biden EV mandates not practical for Montana

Published

on

Alan Olson: Biden EV mandates not practical for Montana


Life in Montana takes energy.

Companies and individuals across the state have worked tirelessly over the years to ensure Montanans have the power to go about their lives in the way they want. It is part of what makes Montana the Last Best Place.

However, the Biden-Harris administration’s new EPA mandate threatens that freedom. Under the EPA’s final rule, two-thirds of vehicles sold by U.S. automakers need to be battery-powered or plug-in hybrid by 2032. Fundamentally — Montanans, and the rest of the United States, will eventually be forced to purchase an electric vehicle (EV) for their family car — no matter how expensive it is.

Advertisement

If Montana is to preserve a huge part of its residents’ way of life and prevent the stretching of some communities’ shallow pockets, we need all our policymakers in DC to step up to the plate and oppose this electric vehicle mandate.

People are also reading…

Advertisement

As Executive Director of the Montana Petroleum Association, I have seen firsthand how hard our member companies work to provide reliable energy sources to the people of Montana. If the EPA’s mandate takes root, our member companies’ workers will suffer, as oil and gas jobs become fewer and further between.

It will also drastically increase consumer costs as a result of the mandated shifts to expensive and inefficient EV’s, which at this point simply do not support the hauling and long-distance needs of members of the oil and gas industry, or everyday Montana consumers.

Our member companies are actively addressing sustainability and climate issues, recognizing the importance of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and operating with the aim of providing Montanans with critical resources while respecting the importance of our environment — but the bottom line is that Montanans — and Americans — still rely heavily on gas- and diesel-powered vehicles, and shouldn’t be expected to scrimp in other essential areas, like groceries, just to eventually be able to afford an EV.

Kelley Blue Book reports that according to data from Cox Automotive, “the average transaction price for electric cars was $53,469 in July 2023, vs. gas-powered vehicles at $48,334.” The exponentially higher cost of an EV in addition to Montana’s rising cost of living is not insignificant. Car insurance for EVs is also costlier than gas powered vehicles, “on average, insurance for an electric car is $44 per month more expensive.” How can the government implement policies that impact Americans’ job availability and then double down by providing essentially one, expensive option for a cornerstone of their daily lives?

In addition to the financial strain this forced electric transition will have on consumers, it also heightens serious, existing concerns for Montana’s electric grid. Electrification of Montana vehicles will cause an inevitable increase in demand on our state’s limited grid capacity.

Advertisement

I commend Sen. Steve Daines’ and Attorney General Knudsen’s efforts to oppose this mandate, but unfortunately, it may not be enough.

We need Sen. Tester and all of our office holders to stand against this mandate from Washington, D.C. because failing to do so puts Montana consumers, and our energy security, in jeopardy.

Alan Olson is the Executive Director of the Montana Petroleum Association

Advertisement



Source link

Continue Reading

Montana

Montana Supreme Court hears arguments on permit for Laurel power plant

Published

on

Montana Supreme Court hears arguments on permit for Laurel power plant


HELENA — Wednesday in Helena, advocates made their case on whether the state correctly granted NorthWestern Energy a permit for their planned power plant near Laurel.

The Montana Supreme Court met before a full audience Wednesday morning, to hear oral arguments in a case that centers on whether the Montana Department of Environmental Quality did sufficient environmental analysis when approving an air quality permit for the Yellowstone County Generation Station – a 175-megawatt natural-gas-fired plant.

Jonathon Ambarian

A full audience was in attendance May 15, 2024 as the Montana Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case that centers on NorthWestern Energy’s planned Yellowstone County Generating Station near Laurel.

Last year, a state district judge in Billings vacated the permit. It came after environmental groups challenged DEQ’s decision, saying the agency hadn’t taken the required “hard look” at issues like the plant’s greenhouse gas emissions and the impact of its lighting and noise on nearby residents.

Advertisement

During Wednesday’s arguments, DEQ and NorthWestern defended the permitting decision and called on the Supreme Court to reverse the district court ruling.

Shannon Heim, NorthWestern’s general counsel and vice president of federal government affairs, said greenhouse gases aren’t regulated the same way as other pollutants, so DEQ didn’t have authority to regulate them. Therefore, she argued the permit can’t be vacated simply because the department didn’t review their impacts.

“The DEQ could not, in the exercise of its lawful authority, deny the permit based on greenhouse gas emissions, because there are no legal standards for greenhouse gas emissions,” she said.

Montana Supreme Court Laurel Plant

Jonathon Ambarian

Jenny Harbine, an attorney for Earthjustice, addressed the Montana Supreme Court May 15, 2024, during oral arguments in a case that centers on NorthWestern Energy’s planned Yellowstone County Generating Station near Laurel.

Jenny Harbine, an attorney for Earthjustice, represented the plaintiffs – Montana Environmental Information Center and the Sierra Club. She argued DEQ is required to look more broadly at the possible impacts of a project, and that the emissions from the Laurel plant had to be considered in the context of the potential effects of climate change in Montana.

Advertisement

“Plaintiffs here are not criticizing the analysis that DEQ did do,” she said. “Our point is that there’s analysis that DEQ omitted.”

Harbine said plaintiffs are also concerned that, because the district court put a stay on its decision and NorthWestern was able to resume construction, they could begin operations without having had the full review plaintiffs believe is necessary.

Both sides in this case noted that the issues raised here overlap with those in Held v. Montana, the prominent climate change lawsuit that is also now before the Montana Supreme Court. In Held, a state district judge ruled that a law preventing regulators from considering greenhouse gas emissions in environmental reviews was unconstitutional. The 2023 Montana Legislature passed that law in response to the judge’s decision that vacated the permit for the Laurel plant.

Montana Supreme Court Laurel Plant

Jonathon Ambarian

Jeremiah Langston, an attorney for Montana DEQ, addressed the Montana Supreme Court May 15, 2024, during oral arguments in a case that centers on NorthWestern Energy’s planned Yellowstone County Generating Station near Laurel.

Jeremiah Langston, an attorney for DEQ, said the department had been planning to update its review in light of that law when it was blocked. He encouraged the Supreme Court to make its decision in Held and this case at the same time or somehow tie them together.

Advertisement

“It would be immensely helpful to DEQ to know what laws apply to its MEPA analysis for a project,” he said.

Harbine said Held gave an example of the broad impacts of the state’s policies on climate reviews, and this case provided a specific example.

“I would just urge that whether the issue is resolved in this case or in Held – or in both, which we think is most appropriate – that it be done in a manner that prevents the constitutional infringement that would be caused when that plant begins operating and emitting greenhouse gas emissions before those emissions have been studied by DEQ,” she said.

The Supreme Court generally takes no immediate action after an oral argument, and that was again the case Wednesday.

Laurel Plant Capitol Rally

Jonathon Ambarian

Advertisement
Attendees hold signs protesting against NorthWestern Energy’s planned power plant near Laurel, during a May 15, 2024, rally organized by Northern Plains Resource Council.

After the hearing, the conservation group Northern Plains Resource Council held a rally at the State Capitol, saying the possible impacts of the Laurel plant’s emissions need to be taken into account.

Those in attendance chanted “Clean and healthful; it’s our right!” – referring to the Montana Constitution’s guarantee of a “clean and healthful environment.”

Mary Fitzpatrick, a Northern Plains member, said people in Laurel and downwind of the plant in Billings have concerns about the potential health effects. MTN asked her what she thought would have changed if DEQ had taken a closer look at the plant’s greenhouse gas emissions.

“It’s hard to say – you know, just listening to the arguments, I got the impression that, possibly, nothing – except that we would know,” she said. “You can’t manage or change what you don’t measure.”

John Hines, NorthWestern’s vice president of supply and Montana government affairs, said the company sees the capacity of the Yellowstone County Generating Station as critical to make sure they can keep serving customers when other resources aren’t available. He said solar and wind production tends to be more unreliable during extreme weather, and that the company will be forced to pay more to purchase power on the open market if it doesn’t have a on-demand generation facility like this.

Advertisement

“The bottom line is we have to have enough electrons and enough gas on our system to meet our customers’ needs when it’s critical weather – and, you know, we saw that in January when it was -45,” he said. “That’s our first obligation. And none of the groups who are throwing out alternative proposals have that responsibility.”

Hines said, if YCGS had been in operation during the January cold snap, it could have saved customers about $12 million over six days. He said renewables are a significant part of NorthWestern’s portfolio, and that it’s unfair for opponents to accuse the company of building the plant for profit because they could make more profit by building the same capacity in renewable projects.

Hines said YCGS could be fully operational within the next month and a half. He said NorthWestern has taken steps to address some of the concerns neighbors have raised about lighting and noise.

“We’ve been operating Yellowstone now in a test mode for quite some time, and local people have been asking us when are we going to start the engines,” he said. “So obviously the noise issue has been abated.”





Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending