Archive: October 2025

The Real Cost of Gas

21 October 2025
Dennis Pyburn
No comments

By Evelyn Pyburn

Every day one hears people complain about the rising cost of gasoline and vilifying the oil industry, with charges of gouging consumers.

The comments often conjure up memories for me, of sitting in the car at the gas station in Manhattan, Montana, where a big sign typically stated that the price of gas was 25 cents. Since I hated the “down time” of buying gas– bearing in mind it was a lot longer than most folks would think since Dad enjoyed long chats with Mr. Stoner, the gas station owner  – I had lots of time to stare at all the signs Mr. Stoner posted.

I also remember clearly, the howling and lamenting that one heard when gasoline hit 30 cents a gallon. Just as loud as complaints today.

So I have wondered how much gasoline has really increased in price since then, when inflation is factored in. The reality is – not much.

So let’s go back to 1960 —  the price of gasoline was 31 cents per gallon. Web sites claim that is the equivalent to about $3.30 today. The average price of gasoline is currently about $3.16, according to AAA as of October 2, 2025. In some places in Billings it is $3.06, so in reality it is a something of a bargain.

Gasoline is even more of a bargain than the price would suggest. Over those past 65 years a lot of new technologies have been brought to the market to generate much greater value. For example back in 1960 a gallon of gasoline took you only about ten miles, today’s cars get some 24 miles per gallon (depending greatly on the vehicle).

Of course there is lots of data out there comparing that to hybrid vehicles, but most of those calculations do not reveal the true cost of the electricity to run a vehicle, which is generally the trick that the Green Group does all the time in attempting to prove their case. They seem to believe that if energy generation is subsidized, it’s free. But it’s not free to taxpayers and it is not economically viable in a competitive market without a subsidy, which means it is not a sound or sustainable solution. Maybe someday it could be, but it never will be as long as it is subsidized.

Of course there is nothing unique about inflation’s impact on gasoline – inflation is seen in most commodities.  In the 60s cheeseburgers were 27 cents and fries were 17 cents – and maybe less. I recall being able to buy lunch, including a Coke, at the downtown café for 30 cents.

A ribeye steak could be had for $1.59. And almost any candy bar – now marked up to sometimes $3 and $4 – could be had for 10 or 15 cents. There was even this thing called “penny candy.”

Deodorant was 69 cents; a new refrigerator was $300, the cost of college per year was between $500 – $1,140; and a house was $12,000.

So where did all the value of the difference in those prices go? For the most part the government collected on inflation.

If you want to complain about prices you should complain about inflation because that is where the average citizen gets ripped off.  Inflation is when the US government – totally unchallenged – increases the money supply – which quite literally means they print more paper dollars – garnering a huge windfall in being able to spend those new dollars before their lower value works through the system. This is why inflation is often referred to as a hidden tax. Most people do not understand what causes inflation because the politicians use the term interchangeably when they just mean that prices are higher. They have no intention in revealing its true nature.

Prices rise not because costs have increased but because the US government has deflated the value of your hard earned dollars, and quietly pocketed the difference.

If not so tragic it would be funny when a government official gives a definition of inflation as being increased prices, especially if it’s the head of the Federal Reserve.

To be honest, inflating the money supply is outright theft. So we do have a reason to complain, but our complaints should not be directed at businesses or industry, which have in large part been able to keep things affordable due to improved technology despite the constant increase in the money supply.

Starter Homes Disappearing, Regs Cost $93,870 on New Home

21 October 2025
Press Room
No comments

Construction of affordable ‘starter homes’ has decreased 75% since the 1970s.

Rising costs aren’t the only thing stopping first-time homebuyers from buying real estate—only 9% of recent new construction is for starter homes. The majority of new housing construction focuses on higher-end buyers due to the increased cost of land, labor, and resources. The rate at which starter homes are built has been on a steady decline since 1980, when they comprised 40 percent of new construction.

Jonathan Scott, Scott Brothers Global, stated that in another 20 years, “no young person will be able to afford to purchase a home. Period.”

Even after adjusting for inflation, US homebuyers are spending more than double to buy a home than they were in 1965, when the median home price was $20,200, according to U.S. Census data. In 2024 dollars, that works out to roughly $202,215, which is less than half of the $420,800 that a home costs today, per U.S. Census data.

The reason: According to the National Association of Homebuilders (as well as many other research studies), “On a dollar basis, applied to the current average price ($394,300) of a new home, regulation accounts for $93,870 of the final house price. Of this, $41,330 is attributable to regulation during development, $52,540 due to regulation during construction. In dollar terms, the NAHB studies show the cost of regulation continuing to rise between 2016 and 2021, although not as much as it did between 2011 and 2016.

Here’s how much the median home value in the U.S. has changed between 1965 and 2024:

* 1965: $20,200

* 1975: $38,100

* 1985: $82,800

* 1995: $130,000

* 2005: $232,500

* 2015: $289,200

* 2024: $420,800

Here are those values again, adjusted for inflation, in 2024 dollars:

* 1965: $202,215

* 1975: $228,404

* 1985: $245,129

* 1995: $270,147

* 2005: $380,793

* 2015: $386,494

* 2024: $420,800

In 1965, the median annual household income was $6,900, per U.S Census data. With homes selling for a median price of $20,200, a median earner would spend just under three times their income on a home.

In 2024, the median annual household income is estimated to be $78,171, according to data consulting firm Motio Research. That means that a typical homebuyer is spending 5.3 times their income on a home at today’s median price.

Even affording a down payment for a home can be a challenge for potential buyers with limited savings, especially those who are younger or saddled with student loan debt — or both.

Increasingly, only the wealthiest Americans can afford to own a home. To afford a median-priced home with a 20% payment in 2024, a buyer needs to earn a median income of $100,000 or more in all but 14 states, according to a recent Bankrate analysis.

In 2024, 74% of homebuyers took out a mortgage, according to data from “1440.com”. Debt owed on mortgages made up about 70% of US consumer debt as of 2025. In the 1980s, 30-year fixed mortgage rates peaked just under 17%. During the COVID-19 pandemic, they were much lower, hovering around 3%.

According to Reason Magazine, rents have surged faster than general inflation in recent years. “Nearly half of renter households now spend over 30% of their income on rent (and a quarter spend over 50%), a level of cost-burden that was once rare.” The author, Christos Makridis, explains that “A growing body of evidence links restrictive land-use regulations to higher housing costs and diminished supply.”

Zoning laws dictating lot sizes, height limits, lengthy permitting process and many, many other rules prevent new housing construction. minimum lot size requirements, height limits, lengthy permitting processes, and other rules can all slow down or outright prevent new housing construction in high-demand areas, thereby leading to higher house prices and growth in rental rates.

Reason Magazine points out that housing shortages is essentially a demand vs. supply issue. When more people compete for fixed housing stock, prices rise.

Some communities – such as Houston and Minneapolis — have backed off from restrictive zoning laws with “promising” results. “Increasing housing supply through deregulation has helped temper prices in several cases, without the negative fallout some feared.”

The Reason article notes that simply supplying subsidies to buyers usually pushes housing prices even higher – “enriching landlords and sellers more than the low-income families they aim to assist.”

Loss of China Soybean Imports, Creates Mixed Impacts for Montana

21 October 2025
Press Room
No comments

While the soybean market is being impacted by a China boycott of importing soybeans from the US, Montana producers face something of a mixed bag when it comes to impacts.

While China’s boycotting of US soybeans (a volatile dilemma since COVID) has reduced a significant export market, increasing demand for soybeans to produce biofuels has bolstered domestic demand.

While many US growers reported bumper crops this year, farmers are facing little to no exports to China, one of their largest customers. China is refusing to purchase soybeans from the US, partly in retaliation to President Trump’s tariffs. US exports are projected to be the lowest in 11 years, according to the USDA.

While the decline is substantial, it is not as low as it was in 2020 or 2023 – and the situation may not be as bad as some reports indicate, according to Farm Journal.

The impact depends on supply. A dry August in the eastern part of the country “may impact some yields,” reducing supply. If soybean yields are reduced by 1–1.5 bushels per acre, the market will “remain tight” if current export projections are met.

Montana soybean producers generate about $60 million annually in production, supporting about 180 growers. Only about $1.4 million in soybeans grown in Montana are exported, the rest is utilized for livestock feed. The national soybean sector has a total impact on America’s economy of around $124 billion – the equivalent of close to 0.6 percent of the U.S. GDP, and over 8 percent of the GDP for certain states (based on 2021 stats).

China is importing much of their soybeans from Brazil, where China has made investments into soybeans, and from Argentina. Other reports note that since the beginning of the China trade war, China has been helping to build infrastructure in not only Brazil but Mexico, Africa, and Argentina to compete with the US markets.

The Trump administration is considering a bailout for soybean farmers in the US, according to the Wall Street Journal.

The administration is also striving to find alternative markets for US soybeans.

According to the Wall Street Journal, President Trump is meeting with the Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins to determine where money for a farmer bailout should come from. He is anticipating a bailout of $10 billion to $14 billion and is considering using tariff revenue to fund the aid.

China accounted for more than half of the $24.5 billion of American soybean exports last year.

The next two largest buyers of American soybeans are the European Union and Mexico, which purchase about $5 billion in combined annual sales.

Countries such as Vietnam, Egypt and Bangladesh have increased their purchases of U.S. soybeans.

About 30 years ago, US farmers geared up their soybean production to meet increasing demand from China, according to the Wall Street Journal. Soybean acreage in the U.S. grew nearly 40% from 1995 to 2024.

Farm Bankruptcies Increase, Keeping Some Farmers Afloat

21 October 2025
Press Room
No comments

By Joe Mahon Director,

Regional Outreach, Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis

The past few years have been challenging for farmers in the Ninth District. Growing pressure is borne out in the Minneapolis Fed’s Ag Credit surveys, which show slumping incomes and worsening financial conditions over the last two years.

“Farmers … are suffering this year,” commented a North Dakota farm lender on a recent survey. “If prolonged into 2026, we could see some fail.” As that banker suggested, a consequence of leaner times is a rise in the number of farm bankruptcies. Though they have ticked up, farm bankruptcies remain low by historical standards, but there are reasons to expect a continued increase.

It’s perhaps surprising that bankruptcies haven’t increased more. For one thing, a Chapter 12 filing does not necessarily mean a farm is going out of business. In fact, it’s intended to allow farms to continue operating, possibly at a smaller scale after a partial liquidation and restructuring. But filing can help farms avoid liquidating completely when business gets lean.

The number of farm operations filing for bankruptcy under Chapter 12—the section of the Bankruptcy Code specifically for farms—increased in the first two quarters of this year, according to statistics from U.S. Courts. However, this increase comes off of a very low floor, and the overall level is still very low. Only nine farms filed for bankruptcy in the second quarter, in the Ninth District of the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, which includes Montana.

These have been some lean years. The agriculture sector saw a boom from about 2010 to 2014. But since then, farm incomes have been relatively weak for the better part of a decade, with the exception of a short surge around the pandemic. The U.S. Department of Agriculture forecast that farm incomes will increase this year, though approximately three-quarters of that growth is attributable to a projected increase in government payments.

The weakness in incomes is largely driven by weak prices for crops. Following the same pattern as farm incomes, prices for core row crops produced in the Ninth District—corn, soybeans, and wheat—have receded significantly from their recent peak.

In something of a relief to farmers, prices have been idling slightly above their previous trough. For example, a corn price of $4 per bushel is roughly considered break-even over production expenses (though that threshold varies from region to region); as of July, U.S. farmers on average were receiving $4.29.

A key variable that has held up better than incomes is working capital, or cash on hand for farm operations. Having these cash reserves is crucial both for debt service and for avoiding additional debt needed to finance day-to-day farm operations. After cash reserves dipped in the last decade, farmers built up a bigger cushion during the last few years (see Figure 3).

According to the USDA’s latest estimates, these cash holdings were forecast to increase nationwide (data aren’t available at the state level). But it’s likely much of this aggregate cash growth has been concentrated among producers in more lucrative markets, such as cattle. Comments from lenders on recent Ag Credit surveys suggested that working capital ratios for crop-only producers in the district were weaker.

More troubling is the level of farm debt over the last few years, which has continued to increase even as working capital remained stagnant. Joseph Peiffer, an attorney in Iowa who specializes in Chapter 12 and farm debt restructuring, said that underlying the increasing debt is a change in the structure from short-term borrowing (for things like operating loans) to longer-term borrowing.

“Things haven’t been good the last couple of years, so what they’re doing is that they’re borrowing money on the land,” Peiffer said. This amounts to trading short-term debt, such as operating loans, for longer-term debt. “All we do at that point is increase the amount of payments we’re going to have to make next year.”

As Peiffer said, this restructuring is possible because farm land values remain very strong and serve as a source of collateral for farmers to borrow against. And strong growth in land values over the last two decades could actually accelerate Chapter 12 filings going forward.

One unique feature of Chapter 12 is that it allows for the discharge of taxes owed by farming operations. This feature sets it apart from the rest of the Bankruptcy Code for individuals and businesses. The tax-relief aspect was codified in 2005 and grew out of the original intent of Chapter 12, after Chapter 11 had proved inadequate to keep farmers operating during the 1980s farm crisis. However, use of these tax provisions was limited due to unfavorable court rulings. That changed with federal legislation in 2017 that clarified the provisions, after which the number of filings climbed a bit.

For a struggling farm looking to rightsize their operations through partial liquidation, selling off acres can be prohibitive, especially if the farm has been operating for many years. If the land was purchased or inherited decades earlier, the tax value (tax basis) would likely be much lower than its current market value, leading to a very sizable return when sold. That profit, however, would be subject to capital gains tax, which would offset the liquidity boost from selling the land. By filing for Chapter 12 after liquidating land, machinery, and other assets, overstretched farmers could avoid paying those taxes and possibly stay in business.

There’s a stigma to overcome for farmers, Peiffer said, a strong cultural aversion to the idea of filing for bankruptcy. But for struggling farmers, he said, the tax relief could be an attractive option.

Copper-Silver Mine Gets Approval to Move Forward

21 October 2025
Press Room
No comments

With a stamp of approval from the US Forest Service, the Hecla Mining Company is able to move forward with plan for a world class copper-silver mine — the Libby Exploration Project (Libby Project) – near Libby, Montana, in Lincoln County.

The Libby Project represents an important step in unlocking the potential of high-grade copper and silver production in northwest Montana. As of December 31, 2024, the Libby Project currently has an Inferred Resource of 112.2 million tons grading 0.7% copper and 1.6 ounces per ton silver, for contained metal of over 1.5 billion pounds of copper and 183 million ounces of silver.

According to a report from the Junior Mining Network, “mineralization remains open down dip and to the north, offering potential for further resource expansion. The Rock Lake fault is thought to limit mineralization extension to the west, however, the dip of the fault was previously interpreted to be dipping east, whereas new interpretations indicate it may be dipping to the west which would offer the potential to extend mineralization in that direction as well.”

“We are pleased to see the U.S. Forest Service advance the Libby Project, and we are grateful the FAST-41 process helped move this important project forward efficiently,” said Rob Krcmarov, President and CEO of Hecla. “This approval represents years of collaboration among federal agencies, local and state officials and other stakeholders. The Libby Project exemplifies our commitment to responsibly developing critical minerals in the United States, delivering long-term economic benefits to our communities, and maintaining rigorous environmental stewardship.”

U.S. Senator Steve Daines commended the decision, stating, “The Libby Exploration Project will provide good-paying Montana mining jobs without harming our beautiful lands and will help unlock the high value of world class copper and silver. President Trump’s administration has proven yet again that they are committed to protecting Made-In-Montana energy and supporting Montana miners.”

Senator Daines has been a strong advocate for the project, having sent a letter to the U.S. Forest Service in February 2025 urging approval and speaking about its importance at a Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee hearing. The Libby Project’s exploration phase offers Hecla the opportunity to gather essential geological, hydrological, and environmental data necessary to evaluate the full potential of the deposit. The Company intends to continue to work closely with federal and state agencies and local communities as the project advances.

Consistent with Hecla’s position as the United States and Canada’s largest silver producer, the Company is open to partnering with a strategic partner who could participate in the exploration phase and beyond, while maintaining the Company’s economic exposure to the significant silver resources associated with the project. The Company remains focused on optimizing capital allocation and maximizing shareholder value.

Founded in 1891, Hecla Mining Company is the largest silver producer in the United States and Canada. In addition to operating mines in Alaska, Idaho, and Quebec, Canada, the Company is developing a mine in the Yukon, Canada, and owns a number of exploration and pre-development projects in world-class silver and gold mining districts throughout North America.

Coal Lease Sales Cancelled

21 October 2025
Press Room
No comments

Auctions for coal leases that President Trump has made available are being postponed because the first one brought in only one very low bid. It seems that even though President Trump has reversed the past attacks on the industry, the industry is not very reassured about its future.

Wyofile.com reported that The Navajo Transitional Energy Company was the only bidder on federal coal at the Spring Creek mine and their bid was $186,000 for 167 million tons of federal coal – a fraction of a penny per ton. The last major sale in the area was in 2012 which was for $793 million for 721 million tons or about $1.10 per ton.

The industry is saying it is the consequences of the lingering impact from Obama and Biden’s decades long war on coal which aggressively sought to end all domestic coal production and erode confidence in the U.S. coal industry.

Also having an impact is cheap natural gas and the subsidized wind and solar energy.

Federal officials indefinitely postponed a Wyoming coal lease sale apparently in response to what many observers consider the lowball bid.

Navajo Transitional Energy Company’s bid stunned coal market watchers.

Navajo Transitional was also in the queue to bid on the 441 million-ton West Antelope III federal coal lease associated with its Antelope coal mine spanning Campbell and Converse counties in Wyoming. 

Bureau of Land Management and Interior Department officials are still reviewing the Spring Creek bid, and those close to the process expect that another date will be set for the West Antelope III coal lease sale.

“While we would have liked to see stronger participation, this sale reflects the lingering impact from Obama and Biden’s decades long war on coal which aggressively sought to end all domestic coal production and erode confidence in the U.S. coal industry,” the Interior wrote in an email responding to a WyoFile inquiry. “Fortunately, President [Donald] Trump and his administration are rebuilding trust between industry and government as part of our broader effort to restore American Energy Dominance.”

Others note that the coal industry itself sees the writing on the wall. If a fraction-of-a-penny bid is any indication, some critics say, the thermal coal industry — which relies on U.S. coal-burning power plants — isn’t yet confident that Trump’s policies will turn around years of market decline.

“It tells you that there’s no competition for that coal in the ground, and it’s not worth very much money,” Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis Energy Data Analyst Seth Feaster told WyoFile on Wednesday. “It points to the fundamental, structural decline the coal industry is facing — for thermal coal — and that story hasn’t been reversed, despite all the things that they’re talking about.”

The postponement in Wyoming and lackluster offer in Montana come just days after the Trump administration touted sweeping regulatory rollbacks and $625 million in federal spending to revitalize “clean, beautiful coal.” 

Navajo Transitional tried to set expectations regarding Powder River Basin coal’s market value back in September, urging the U.S. Bureau of Land Management to set its minimum bid requirement for the West Antelope III coal lease much lower than comparable leases in the past. Neighboring Powder River Basin coal operator, CORE Natural Resources, echoed that sentiment and told BLM officials, “the fair-market value of coal in the Powder River Basin will remain soft for the next number of years.”

Gov. Mark Gordon has said recently that Trump’s efforts to revive the coal industry will take some time to bear fruit. He has also underscored the administration’s notion that expanding the coal industry is necessary to meet increasing electricity demand, mostly driven by artificial intelligence and other computational facilities.

The Wyoming Mining Association declined to comment on Navajo Transitional’s Spring Creek coal lease bid, but acknowledged the industry still must reckon with 15 years of drastic market and policy shifts.

Carson to Speak Nov. 6

21 October 2025
Press Room
No comments

Dr. Ben Carson will be the keynote speaker at the Mountain States Policy Center’s Montana Liberty Dinner in Billings, Thursday, November 6, 6:00 – 8:30 pm at the DoubleTree Hilton, Billings, 27 N 27th Street. Dr. Carson is a Presidential Medal of Freedom recipient, was Director of Pediatric Neurosurgery at the Johns Hopkins Children’s Center for 30 years, former Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, and founder of American Cornerstone Institute. Mountain States Policy Center is a think tank, based in Idaho, also serving Washington, Montana and Wyoming to empower individuals to succeed through non-partisan, quality research that promotes free enterprise, individual liberty and limited government.

Billings Building Permits – October 15, 2025

21 October 2025
Press Room
No comments

Commercial

Sysco Food Services Of Montana|Summit Fire & Security LLC, 1509 Monad Rd, Com Fire Systems, $1,478,415

Billings Wing Company LLC Buffalo Wild Wings, 411 24th St W, Com Remodel, $650,000

Chase Moore, 50 Moore Ln, Com New Warehouse/Storage, $606,730

Erin Kirschenmann |KE Construction LLC, 3352 Gabel Rd, Com Footing/Foundation, $325,000

Gold Nugget Corp|Priority Commercial Roofing, 2150 Grand Ave, Com Fence/Roof/Siding, $50,000

Nathan Matelich |Sprague Construction Roofing Division, 1707 4th Ave N, Com Fence/Roof/Siding $44,454

Jaqui Morin |Titus Construction, 317 16th St W, Com Remodel, $35,000

Elaine B Moncur Revocable Livi|D. Sterling Construction 2596 Enterprise Ave, Com Remodel – Change In Use, $10,000

Michelle Ubry |Caliente Construction Inc, 3011 2nd Ave N, Com Remodel, $2,500,000

Gusick Partnership|Great Dane Construction, 760 S 20th St W, Doc Holidays Interior Finishes, Com Remodel, $250,000

Billings Clinic|Swanke Construction, 801 N 29th St, Com Remodel, $200,000

Chavez Nestor Nava|Kingdom Builders Of Montana, 4140 State Ave, Com Remodel, $150,000

Joe Dringle & Dorothy Dringle|Bauer Construction, 900 S 24th St W, Com Remodel, $120,000

Mountain States Leasing Billin|Montana State Leasing Billings, 5001 Southgate Dr, Com Fence/Roof/Siding, $50,000

Mt Conf Assn Of 7th Day Advent|HWT Construction LLC, 3200 Broadwater Ave, Com Fence/Roof/Siding, $36,000

Wl Zimmerman LLC|Thompson Const. Co. Inc, 3635 Harvest Time Ln, Com New Pool/Spa, $30,000

4025 1st Avenue ABCC LLC|Sprague Construction Roofing Division, 4025 1st Ave S, Com Fence/Roof/Siding, $24,232

Cornerstone Community Church|Lynnrich Inc., 4525 Grand Ave, Com Fence/Roof/Siding, $9,978

Dirt Land LLC, 402 N 15th St, Com Fence/Roof/Siding,  $6,000

Stevens Don Paul Trste &|Everon LLC, 1815 Main St, Com Fire Systems, $4,000

Apostolic Assembly of The Faith|New Construction Ramirez Inc, 223 S 34th St, Com Addition, $3,000

Residential

CDH LLC |CDH LLC, 778 52nd St W, Res New Single Family, $417,094

Infinity Homes |Infinity Home LLC, 5086 Ridge Top Way, Res New Single Family, $400,000

Infinity Home LLC|Infinity Home LLC, 2235 Greenbriar Rd, Res New Single Family, $350,000

Mccall Development Inc|Mccall Development, 6166 Norma Jean Ln,  Res New Single Family, $267,866

Weimer Daniel R|Groundworks Operations LLC, 3350 La Paz Dr, Res Remodel Single/Duplex/Garage, $150,000

Northey William T &|Deer Creek Construction LLC, Morningside Ln N, Res New Accessory Structure, $140,000

Smith Mark S & Teri A|Groundworks Operations LLC, 3960 Woodcreek Dr, Res Remodel Single/Duplex/Garage, $77,000

Carol Hauge |Eves Construction Interior, 111 Terry Ave, Res Remodel Single/Duplex/Garage, $50,000

Jones Kari M &|Yellow Ball Roofing & Solar LLC, 2237 W Hollow Brook Dr, Res Remodel Single/Duplex/Garage, $43,150

Young Jolene S & Clinton B, 1704 Wicks Ln, Res Remodel Single/Duplex/Garage, $30,275

Stauffer Caleb & Hannah Stauffers, 706 Avenue F, Res New Single Family, $28,320

Banana Ball Coming

21 October 2025
Press Room
No comments

Banana Ball is headed to Dehler Park for a three-game series August 20-22, 2026. The game will feature the Savannah Bananas’ two favorite opponents, the Firefighters and the Party Animals, as they face off in three nights of baseball with a twist. Billings will be their only stop in Montana!

The husband-and-wife team of Jesse and Emily Cole co-founded Banana Ball, ten years ago with the mantra “Fans First. Entertain Always.” Their mission is to deliver a brand of baseball that prioritizes fun over the game’s outcome.

Fans can expect nonstop action, music, and fun as Banana Ball takes the best parts of America’s pastime and turns up the energy. With a two-hour time limit, no bunting, and foul balls caught by fans counting as outs, the game moves fast and keeps everyone in on the action. Add in player dances, fan challenges, and a party atmosphere that never quits, and you’ve got an experience unlike anything else in sports.

Banana Ball has unique rules that deliver a twist on traditional baseball. The team consists of baseball players/ entertainers. Tryouts are held all around the country and are invitation-only.

“I can’t wait to bring all the fun and excitement of Banana Ball, to the Magic City next summer” said Mustangs owner Dave Heller. “Twerking umpires, acrobatic trick plays, batters on stilts, choreographed dances – Banana Ball offers a unique brand of entertainment that kids of all ages find to be super fun. We’re so excited to be the sole Montana city hosting their high-octane and entertainment-packed laugh-a-minute baseball games over three fun-filled nights next August. It will be among the most fun events of 2026.”

“Billings has been asking for Banana Ball, and we are excited to announce that it has become a reality. This will be the must-see event for the summer of 2026.” added General Manager Matt Allen.

Support from Visit Billings, the Tourism Business Improvement District, and the Billings Mustangs makes this series possible.

Again, MEIC Files Suit Against Laurel Generation Station

21 October 2025
Evelyn Pyburn
No comments

Once again the Montana Environmental Information Center (MEIC) is suing the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) regarding their permitting of the NorthWestern Energy’s Yellowstone County Generation Station, located near Laurel. The case was filed by MEIC and the Western Environmental Law Center in Yellowstone County District Court on September 29.

Previous suits against the DEQ resulted in a re-do by the DEQ of their research in issuing a permit to the Generation Station, which still resulted in DEQ approving the permit. That was followed by another suit by MEIC again challenging the permit and demanding another re-do, claiming that they “…failed to consider greenhouse gas emissions and the lighting impacts of the facility” in its review. In that case, last January, the Supreme Court reversed a District Court’s decision to vacate the air quality permit, which was a win for NorthWestern Energy, which opened the Generation Station a year ago.

The new MEIC case might be viewed as a challenge to a new Montana state law – House Bill 971 — which bars the state from considering climate impacts in its analysis of large projects such as coal mines and power plants. 

The new MEIC case claims that DEQ failed to properly consider and disclose the climate impacts and greenhouse gas emissions associated with Yellowstone County Generating Station

The State Legislature passed House Bill 971 in response to the Supreme Court decision in Held v. Montana, in which the justices favored 16 youths who argued that Montana’s approach to regulating fossil fuel plants jeopardized their rights to a “clean and healthful environment”, which they claimed is guaranteed in the Montana Constitution.

Judge Michael Moses wanted to set aside the Montana Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) permit for the Generation Station, saying that DEQ failed to adequately assess the power plant’s impact on “global warming” – an almost impossible and prohibitively costly undertaking. Because of that reality, the Montana State Legislature responded with HB 971 which declared that entities such as power plants do not have to meet such a high bar, in order to become permitted. The Legislature called the Judge’s requirement impossible and potentially far-reaching for future Montana projects.

MEIC and other environmental groups have kept NorthWestern Energy tied up for a decade in legal challenges and court cases, over the Yellowstone County Generation Station, which the utility proposed to build in order to generate enough power to serve the state during periods of high consumption when demand exceeds supply.

Most recently, MEIC has focused on complaints of excessive lighting and sound, having failed in blocking the plant’s construction on issues regarding zoning.

First they sued over whether the City of Laurel or Yellowstone County had authority over zoning. The Court declared that the County had authority since it is outside Laurel city limits. Then the environmental groups challenged the appropriateness of the facility, as an industrial development, located as it is next to the CHS Refinery and the City’s Public Works Department Wastewater Treatment Plant.

MEIC claimed that the Generation Station is in violation of county zoning laws, being located in an area, part of which was zoned industrial and another zoned agriculture.

NorthWestern Energy points to extreme measurers they have taken to minimize noise and lighting impacts. Decibels emitted from the plant are less than those of a restaurant, commented one company officials in guiding media through the plant. The lighting is minimal coming from street lights that are in use only to the degree necessary for safety and are directed downward.

NorthWestern Energy officials point to the necessity of the Yellowstone County Generation Station to augment power supply when “the wind doesn’t blow and the sun doesn’t shine,” which means the alternative energy upon which they otherwise depend is not available – which happens quite often during the worst winter months. The company has on several occasions been forced to purchase power on the open market …which is very unreliable because it often happens when additional energy is also being sought by other utilities in the region.

Over the past few years NorthWestern Energy has had to spend about $5 million each year purchasing energy from the market to meet peak use demands.

The $310 million generating station is comprised of 18 reciprocating internal combustion engines that are capable of generating a total of 175 megawatts, which helps close the gap of the generation needs for NorthWestern’s customers in Montana.

NorthWestern Energy President and CEO Brian Bird has stated that the production of the Yellowstone County Generating Plant will cut in half the additional power that NorthWestern needs, but they won’t have all they need until the utility acquires ownership of Colstrip Units 3 & 4 at the beginning of next year.

Josh Follman, the generating station’s project manager, declared during an interview that the plant is “very good, very clean.” It is “One of the cleanest facilities because of its emissions profile.” According to Follman, the company does not have to monitor for emissions because their emissions are “far below the levels set to initiate controls. The plant is equipped with emission monitors that continuously take readings, and are programmed to “kick itself off” should emissions reach unacceptable levels. Because of its low emissions, NorthWestern is only required to submit reports to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), annually.