COLSTRIP  — Gov. Steve Bullock asserts Montana can meet the Obama administration’s climate goals without losing jobs or shutting coal plants. But the view from the coal-centered town of Colstrip proved far more pessimistic Tuesday, as Bullock’s claim underwent its first public test.

A crowded meeting hosted by state regulators at Colstrip High School revealed deep concerns that meeting emission reduction targets would spell economic trouble for the community.

The 2,300-person town is home to one of the largest coal-fired power plants in the West, the Colstrip Steam Electric Station. It produces electricity for a large swath of the Pacific Northwest, employs 360 workers and churns out more of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide than any other source in Montana.

Bullock, a Democrat like Obama, says emissions cuts can be achieved using more renewable energy, promoting efficiency and developing technologies to capture carbon dioxide, which is produced by burning coal.

Colstrip Mayor Rose Hanser said the Bullock administration’s claim that coal power and emissions cuts can go together paints “a pretty picture” — while in reality threatening to undo the town’s economic base.

Any emphasis on renewables would mean less room for coal in the electric power market, said plant representatives and local officials. At the same time, requiring coal plants to be more efficient would drive up the cost to produce electricity at Colstrip, they said.

“The public is being burnt on both ends. I do not see this as a healthy business choice for Montana,” Hanser said.

Hanser and others also noted that Bullock’s proposed options for meeting federal emissions targets don’t consider the potential for cuts in other states. That could impact power plants elsewhere that rely on fuel from Montana’s mines — adding yet another threat to the state’s energy industry, they said.

Despite those worries, plant workers and representatives of Colstrip operator PPL Montana said they appreciated the chance to begin working with the state several years before it must finalize its emissions reductions plan.

During Tuesday’s discussion, only one person advocated that more aggressive steps be taken to address Colstrip’s greenhouse gas pollution.

Wade Sikorski, whose family has a farm south of Baker near the North Dakota border, blamed climate change for more frequent hail storms in recent years, including one in July that caused an estimated $600,000 in damage to his crops. Sikorski, 58, said if the Colstrip plant can’t cut emissions, it should be shut down.

Bullock two weeks ago laid out a broad framework under which the state could meet the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency proposal for Montana to cut emissions 21 percent by 2030.

When that framework was being developed, the governor insisted that every alternative assume Colstrip will keep running, Department of Environmental Quality Director Tracy Stone-Manning said.

The process of refining those alternatives kicked off with Tuesday’s meeting in Colstrip for a reason, Stone-Manning said.

“Colstrip and the power you produce here is incredibly important for the state and the Western United States,” she said. “We are not the EPA. We haven’t created a plan yet because we need to hear from you first.”

State officials acknowledged the costs for some of the different scenarios presented by Bullock are unknown. That includes the expense of installing still-unproven carbon capture technologies, said Garrett Martin, a DEQ energy analyst.

But state officials said the costs of other options are better known, including more renewable wind energy and improved energy efficiency at home. Those would yield long-term benefits projected to total hundreds of millions of dollars by 2030, according to the DEQ.

The pending EPA climate rules are slated to be adopted in June 2016. Montana officials would then have a 2017 deadline to finalize their proposal on how to comply with the rule. They would have an additional year if Montana partnered with others on a multi-state plan.