A landmark Montana Supreme Court decision last year struck down laws passed by Republicans that would have changed Montana’s bedrock environmental policy. This year, GOP lawmakers are looking at that policy again and have introduced a suite of bills to undo the court’s ruling. MTPR’s Ellis Juhlin has been following the legislation and sat down with Austin Amestoy to break it down.

Austin Amestoy: This all has to do, of course, with continued fallout from the Held v. Montana decision. And that ruling last year required the state to weigh the climate impacts of projects undergoing environmental review. And that environmental review process is contained in the Montana Environmental Policy Act. A lot of layers here. We’ve talked about the Environmental Policy Act before, but please refresh us on that policy.

Ellis Juhlin: Yes, this is all one giant environmental onion, and to keep things streamlined, I’m not going to use more than one acronym, but there is an important one, and it’s MEPA for that policy act. And MEPA established a process by which the state can anticipate and prevent the consequences of a proposed environmental action. That can be anything that could have consequences for the environment, so, creating a whole new coal mine, expanding a landfill and everything in between. It’s also a really big part of the public’s right to know. MEPA’s often referred to as the “look before you leap,” policy. Once state agencies do those environmental impact analyses, they then publish that information and it’s available to the public to look through, offer feedback, ask questions, things like that.

Austin Amestoy: Okay, so that’s the Montana Environmental Policy Act in a nutshell. How is that policy entangled in state politics right now?

Ellis Juhlin: So this policy was at the core of the youth led climate case Held v. Montana. For a really quick refresher, in December, the Supreme Court affirmed the Held ruling, finding that our constitutional right to a clean and healthful environment includes a stable climate. But, the fight over MEPA started a long time before the case even was filed or went to trial. In the 2023 session, lawmakers brought legislation to remove the ability for state regulators to look at climate impacts or greenhouse gas emissions. As part of those MEPA analyses, the Held decision struck down that legislation, finding it to be unconstitutional. And that angered a lot of lawmakers.

Randyn Gregg [Senate Republicans Weekly podcast clip]: In that Held decision, it was kind of like we had — and I’m going to say something a little spicy — a bunch of little Greta Thunbergs, it seemed like.

Ellis Juhlin: That’s White Sulfur Springs Republican Representative Randyn Gregg speaking recently on the Senate Republicans Weekly podcast.

Austin Amestoy: So you mentioned earlier, Ellis, the GOP is again interested in looking at changes to MEPA. How are they going about that this session?

Ellis Juhlin: So it’s a little bit of Groundhog Day in the current session as Republicans are wanting to change MEPA again, and somewhat similarly to how they tried it last session. Right now, there are two bills that would really change MEPA in its current form. One is Senate Bill 221, that would change when greenhouse gas emissions are considered in a MEPA analysis. It directs the State Department of Environmental Quality to figure out when greenhouse gas emissions need to be part of an analysis or not. It also excludes certain fossil fuel projects from some environmental analysis.

To make that a little more tangible, going back to the coal mine example, under this bill, the MEPA analysis could only include the direct impacts of the mine. So, the disturbance on the surface for digging up the ground, for example, but it wouldn’t include the transportation of the coal from the mine to wherever it’s being burned, the trucks associated or the trains shipping that coal across the country, or water quality impacts associated with the mine. It also would exclude planet-warming emissions associated with the burning of that coal, which as we know, is a huge part of the carbon footprint of coal mining. The other is House Bill 285, which tries to change the intent of MEPA by removing language saying MEPA implements the constitutional right to a clean and healthful environment. It also changes language that says MEPA is intended to prevent harm.

There’s one more, that’s House Bill 291 responding to the Held decision, a little bit independent of MEPA, but still regarding air pollution. It would prevent Montana from being able to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, unless the federal government requires it. All of these bills have been introduced at the time of recording, but they haven’t been voted on or passed out of committee.

Austin Amestoy: So Republicans have made these bills a priority. Who else is backing them?

Ellis Juhlin: We see a lot of support across all of these different bill hearings from industry groups, groups that have a vested interest in fossil fuels, such as NorthWestern Energy, the Montana Petroleum Association, Westmoreland Mining, just to name a few. And they say that these bills clarify MEPA in a way that is necessary, and won’t stand in the way of economic growth from natural resource extractive activities. I think it’s worth clarifying here that MEPA doesn’t prevent state agencies from permitting any of these activities. It just requires that they analyze all of the potential impacts associated with that process.

Austin Amestoy: Right, so MEPA doesn’t prevent any project from getting approved or permitted, it just lays out the process for assessing its environmental impacts.

Ellis Juhlin: Right. It’s the way that the public is able to know what could be the consequences of this proposed action. It doesn’t stop that action from happening.

Austin Amestoy: We haven’t talked about Democrats yet Ellis, how is the party on the other side of the aisle reacting to these bills?

Ellis Juhlin: So, Democrats have been supportive of the Held ruling and the expanded interpretation of the ‘clean and healthful’ clause to include a stable climate and hopefully address climate change, and we also see support from environmental groups and climate groups, as well as a lot of tribes across the state, and individuals. These hearings have drawn really large crowds, both in-person and online, with testimony going on for several hours and individual people saying they want to see climate change addressed. They want to see their lawmakers doing something about this issue. A lot of opponents say that blocking further regulation of planet warming air pollution is bad for the economy, for people’s health and fundamentally goes against our constitutional protections. Multiple doctors have spoken against the greenhouse gas emissions bill, and Eva Lighthiser, one of the plaintiffs in the Held case, spoke against it in committee.

Eva Lighthiser [committee testimony]: I think that it is wrong for the state to prohibit itself from regulating harmful greenhouse gases and air pollutants just because the federal government is not regulating its own emissions. This bill is like the state saying, I’m not cleaning my room because my parents haven’t cleaned the rest of the house yet.

Ellis Juhlin

Austin Amestoy: All right, Ellis. Not to ask you to bring out your crystal ball, but what’s the future look like for this legislation? What’s the big picture?

Ellis Juhlin: Yeah, so like I mentioned, we’re still in the early days. These bills have just been introduced over the past week and a half or so, and so they still have to be voted out of those committees, heard on the floor in both the House and the Senate where they could also subsequently be amended, and then finally make their way to the governor’s desk if they pass through those hoops first. A lot of opponents have said they think these bills fly in the face of the Held ruling, and will ultimately just end up back in court. There’s also concerns that these bills would make it even more difficult for people to know what’s going on with environmental impacts in the state, as well as to be able to address the growing threat of a changing climate.

Austin Amestoy: Well, we know you’ll keep us updated. Ellis, thanks for your reporting.

Ellis Juhlin: No problem. Thanks, Austin.