Down to Earth: March 2025

DowntoEarth

NEWS FROM THE MONTANA ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION CENTER

Legislators Take Aim at Clean Energy

In This Issue

MEIC is a environmentalnonprofit advocate whose purpose is to protect Montana’s clean and healthful environment.

Board PrEsIdEnt: Jessie Wiles

Board MEMBErs: Gary Aitken

Jessie Big Knife

Grace Gibson-Snyder

Rob Farris-Olsen

Diana Hammer

Steve Martinez

Eva Molina

Jim Sayer

Roger Sullivan

Beth Taylor-Wilson

Neal Ullman

MEIC staff: Ben Catton

Laura Collins

Nick Fitzmaurice

Anne Hedges

Shannon James

Derf Johnson

Peyton Olson

Denise Roth Barber

Katy Spence

Julie Wintersteen

MaI lIng: P.O. Box 1184 Helena, MT 59624

From a Board Member

by Steve Martinez

I’m new to the board of MEIC. In October, I joined the board and staff at a retreat in Anaconda, and it could not have been better timing for me. Creating and being part of community has always been important to me, and what an amazing community this group of people at MEIC is! From Anne Hedges and Derf Johnson to Nick Fitzmaurice and Katy Spence: they are so smart and so committed. But what makes them amazing is their heart. Their love of our mother earth and this place we call Montana is palpable.

Now, as always (or more than ever), we need to feel connected to the earth, feel part of a positive and loving community, and be united in our efforts on behalf of our environment. As Thomas Payne said in 1776, “It is not in numbers but in unity that our great strength lies.” If you get Down to Earth, you are united in this community, you share this love of land and place, and you believe in the work MEIC is doing.

In February, I organized my first MEIC gathering: the Flathead Legislative Roadshow. We had a great turnout of 17 people, who enjoyed a great spread and mingling. Anne did a superb presentation of the session's most pressing bills, and everyone got to meet MEIC’s newest staffer, Denise (learn more about Denise on pg. 26). A few minutes into Anne’s talk, a conservative-looking gentleman sat down next to me, but after the talk, he was all smiles and very interested in MEIC’s work.

When you invite people to MEIC events or invite them to get on the “Action Alert” mailing list for the

legislative session, it makes people feel like they are part of something. You do not have to ask them for money. Sharing information about MEIC with your friends and family will be pleasantly surprising. It can make them feel empowered and want to get more involved. Community can help sustain us; our sense of doing something positive with “our people” is so important in life. But we are in “the long game” and to go the distance, you have to renew yourself and feed your heart. So please take as much time as you can to be in nature and connect with this place we love. Our time in nature heals us, can make us feel at home, feel whole and connected.

If you have questions about inviting others to join MEIC, please give me a call or an email. This is a great family to be part of, and the more it grows, the better it will be for this place we call home. Thank you for being a part of this family!

Steve Martinez and his wife have been MEIC members for 14 years. His first love was plants and botany, and he graduated from Colorado State University with a Biology degree and came to Montana to work for the Forest Service. In 1983, a back injury led Steve to acupuncture. Steve has spent the last 35 years as an acupuncturist, 33 of which have been in Kalispell. It is Steve’s conviction that the best way he can serve his past patients and their children is to work to take care of our environment and our climate.

MEIC board member Steve Martinez graciously hosted the Flathead Legislative Roadshow in February. Photo by Denise Roth Barber.

Montana Supreme Court Issues Victories for the Climate

“The world is experiencing a fast rise in temperature that is unprecedented in the geologic record, with the average global temperature increasing by 2.2°F in the last 120 years. Montana is heating faster than the global average and the rate of warming is increasing.”

Montana Supreme Court, Held v. State of Montana

In December, the Montana Supreme Court issued a decision in favor of 16 young Montanans who sued the state for amending the Montana Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) in a way that prohibits state agencies’ from considering climate change when it permits polluting industries. Two weeks later, the Supreme Court relied on that youth climate case when it ruled in favor of MEIC and Sierra Club in a case challenging the State’s approval of NorthWestern Energy’s Yellowstone County Generating Station. Both successes build on an existing body of law regarding the meaning of Montanans’ Constitutional right to a clean and healthful environment by incorporating the right to a stable climate into that fundamental right.

In Held v. State of Montana, the Supreme Court recognized that a warming planet is leading to extreme weather, which is increasing the severity and frequency of droughts, heat waves, forest fires, and flooding. It acknowledged that climate change is harming the economy, Montana’s natural resources, the health of Montana’s youth, and the lives, culture, and livelihoods of people across the state. The findings of the court came as no surprise to those who watched the trial, where the State failed to provide a single credible expert witness in its defense, leaving the court with nothing but the extensive expert testimony of the youth plaintiffs. A court can only resolve a case based upon the evidence provided by the parties. The State’s failure to present any evidence or justification for a state law that required agencies to ignore climate science left the Montana Supreme Court with no way to rule against the youth. There is no serious case to be made that human-caused climate change isn’t a serious threat to the well-being of the planet, and so the court’s

decision was fact-based and logical.

Shortly after the Held decision, the court issued a decision on MEIC's challenge to NorthWestern’s methane gas plant near Laurel. In a somewhat contorted decision, five judges ruled that the state Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) must conduct a MEPA analysis that considers the power plant’s climate pollution and impacts from annual emissions of three-quarters of a million tons of carbon dioxide. Unfortunately, three of those five judges said that the plant could continue to operate while DEQ conducted the climate analysis under MEPA. Two judges strongly disagreed with the plurality, dissenting that its decision would render the analysis meaningless and that the plant should not be allowed to operate while DEQ conducts an analysis of the plant’s climate impacts.

The fallout from these cases was immediate. The Legislature has introduced a host of bills to curtail any meaningful evaluation of climate change in a MEPA analysis (see article on pg. 10). It also introduced a bill to prevent the state from considering greenhouse gas emissions and the resulting impacts when it permits any facility under the Clean Air Act. These bills are intended to undermine the Supreme Court and the Montana Constitution. Whether their attempts are constitutional remains to be seen.

The youth plaintiffs following long days of hearings in Helena in June 2023.

Junque Files: A Victory for Transparency in the Legislative Process

by Derf Johnson

Montanans have one of the strongest — if not the strongest — right-to-know provisions in the country, which is enshrined in the Article II rights of our Constitution and deserving of the highest degree of protection. It guarantees that Montanans must have access to government records, with very limited exceptions. This right has proven essential time and time again in assuring that our government is accountable to the people, that business is done in the open and with an eye towards the public good, and that everyday Montanans are an integral part of the law- and policy-making processes.

Unfortunately, over the past several years, there has been a tidal shift in state government towards secrecy and the suppression of information. This shift recently reared its ugly head in the legislative process, when the legal arm of the Legislative Services division adopted a policy of denying public access to the files associated with bill drafts – information that had previously been accessible for the past 50 years. Thankfully, due to a rapid response from MEIC and our legal team, the files are once again available to public scrutiny and the light continues to shine into the Capitol dome – at least, for now.

The Legislative Services Division of the Montana Legislature is the agency charged with drafting legislation and associated amendments. Typically, a single person drafts legislation within a designated topic area. When legislators request a bill, it is then directed towards a specific bill drafter that will produce the draft and assist in moving it through the process. This process can be incredibly informative

to the public in understanding the basis for — and reasons that are driving — the introduction of specific legislation. The records generated in this process are known colloquially as the “junque file” and include a collection of revealing information, such as previous drafts, communications with legislators and lobbyists, legal information, and other documents (such as model legislation) that may assist the public in understanding the impetus for the proposal and those backing it.

During late summer 2024 and following a Montana District Court order on a somewhat related matter, Legislative Services adopted a new policy which declared that junque files were now privileged information under a “legislative privilege,” and that the public could not have access to the information unless the legislator(s) waived their privilege. This policy was in direct contradiction to a 1995 order resulting from a lawsuit in which MEIC sued Legislative Services for access to the junque files, and the judge ordered them available for public review.

Recognizing that the new policy is inconsistent with Montana’s Constitutional right to know, MEIC and our partners took Legislative Services to court in October 2024 for its denial of several junque file requests. In a rather accelerated process, the court ruled in our favor in late January, finding not only that the public must be given access, but that it must occur expeditiously. While the decision is still subject to appeal, at least the public can access this information during the 2025 Legislature. Without question, MEIC has our attorneys to thank, including Mikaela Koski, Molly Danahy, and Rylee Sommers-Flanagan with Upper 7 Law, and Rob Farris-Olsen and Kim Wilson with Morrison, Sherwood, Wilson, and Deola.

NorthWestern Energy’s Quest to Raise Rates (Again)

by Nick Fitzmaurice

Last summer, NorthWestern Energy requested permission from the Public Service Commission (PSC) to once again dramatically increase electricity rates for its customers. Included in this request are a 26% increase to base electricity rates, over $2.3 billion in lifetime costs for the Yellowstone County Generating Station (YCGS) methane gas plant, and a blank check for certain near-future investments into the dirty and unreliable Colstrip plant that could well exceed $2 billion. MEIC immediately intervened in that case, thanks to our legal partners at Earthjustice. Since that time, intervening parties, including MEIC, have questioned NorthWestern’s data and filed extensive expert testimony. This is all more or less part of standard rate case proceedings as the various parties gather and refute information by various deadlines. March 24 was the deadline for the filing of a settlement agreement, which frustratingly, is often how these rate cases are decided.

For instance, in NorthWestern’s last rate case, a settlement agreement between NorthWestern and a few of the intervenors slightly reduced NorthWestern’s requested overall revenue increase across rate classes, but it increased the amount amount borne by residential customers. This bumped up the monthly bill increase for the residential customer class from 25% to 28%. These are black-box agreements that rarely include environmental, residential, or small business interests. This time around, if an agreement is filed, there will at least be an opportunity for intervenors who weren’t included in the settlement to submit further questions on the record regarding the settlement. In the end, the PSC has the final say in whether to accept or deny fully or in part any settlement agreement, but they nearly always accept these agreements with little-tono changes.

The final milestone of the rate case before the PSC’s deliberations will be a public multi-day hearing beginning April 22 and continuing for up to two weeks. A final decision from the PSC is expected sometime this summer; however, NorthWestern’s last rate case didn’t receive a final order until six months after the public hearing, so anything is possible.

With the rate case hearing approaching quickly, MEIC will be hosting a webinar on April 8 at 12 pm mountain time, where a couple of our expert witnesses will give an overview of the costs and risks surrounding the Colstrip coal plant and YCGS gas plant, and the savings that could accrue to customers by moving toward clean energy. There will be time for questions.

An Interim Win!

On November 26, 2024, the Public Service Commission agreed with MEIC and voted to protect ratepayers by rejecting a $58 million attempted money grab for NorthWestern Energy which would have allowed unjustified rate recovery associated with the supposed “market benefits” of the YCGS methane gas plant: “The Commission finds that the proposed bridge rate does not reflect YCGS’s actual costs and would result in a significant over-charge to customers.” While this was a small win amid NorthWestern’s larger rate case, it is worth celebrating. As a result, beginning December 1, 2024, electric rates were projected to decrease by 7.24% (about $8 per month) until the PSC makes a final order in the rate case. On Jan. 3, 2025, the PSC reaffirmed this decision, voting to deny NorthWestern’s motion for reconsideration.

See MEIC’s website as well as December and October issues of Down to Earth for more information about NorthWestern’s rate case.

by Katy Spence

On March 12, Pres. Donald Trump’s new Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) administrator Lee Zeldin proposed a giant step backwards for public health and the environment by announcing the intention to rollback dozens of environmental protections in what is likely the most massive deregulation of public health and environmental protections in U.S. history.

While the administrator claimed to be “committed to protecting human health and the environment,” it’s clear the new EPA will be catering to the most polluting industries in the nation to the detriment of our most vulnerable populations: children, the elderly, those with chronic health conditions, and other at-risk people. The Guardian has estimated these rules would save the lives of 200,000 people in years to come.

These rollbacks include but are not limited to: reconsidering coal plant rules such as Mercury and Air Toxics Standard (MATS); restructuring the regional haze program intended to reduce air pollution in National Parks and other cherished landscapes; eliminating the endangerment findings underlying all regulations on greenhouse gases, (such as the recently released Biden administration greenhouse gas rules) which is one way the EPA was working on climatedamaging emission; terminating environmental justice

and diversity, equity, and inclusion programs at the EPA, which will harm Tribal Nations, Black people, working class people and countless others; and allowing states to take control of coal ash regulations (which has always been a pain point for the Colstrip plant).

To be blunt, this is an onslaught. But MEIC has fought hasty Trump Administration rollbacks on environmental protections before — quite successfully — and we’re ready to do it again. It’s likely this administration will be haphazard and sloppy in how it rolls back these regulations, which means they will ignore the science underlying the original rules and fail to demonstrate compelling scientific reasons for the rollbacks. Since science has proven beyond a doubt that airborne and waterborne pollutants from coal plants and other emissions sources are detrimental to human health, it will be a steep bar for the EPA to justify many of these changes. It’s a simple fact: deregulating means removing protections for children, pregnant women, the elderly, and others – all in order to protect corporate executives of some of the largest and richest industrial facilities in the nation.

Montanans overwhelmingly support protections for clean air, clean water, and a stable climate. It’s also likely that most Montanans support living without health impacts caused by preventable pollution. MEIC — and our attorneys and partners — will not let these rollbacks happen without a fight.

Smith River Mine: A Difficult Loss at the Montana Supreme Court

by Katy Spence

In early January, the Montana Supreme Court upheld the water-use permit granted by the Department of Natural Resources and Conservation to Sandfire Resources, which plans to pump and impound large volumes of groundwater at its proposed Black Butte Copper Mine, in Meagher County. This is an extremely difficult loss for MEIC, Earthworks, American Rivers, and Montana Trout Unlimited, who still contend that the permit did not address — or mitigate — up to 457

acre-feet of the groundwater that would have to be removed from the mine each year in order to facilitate mining operations.

Without this final hurdle, Sandfire Resources appears to be free to pursue mining at the Sheep Creek facility at the headwaters of the Smith, though no moves have been made as of this writing to submit the bond required for actual mining. Should the mine proceed, MEIC and our partners will watchdog any activity at the mine site and alert you of actions that can be taken.

Legislative Overview: It’s Kind of Gruesome

by Anne Hedges

This session is a doozy. The Senate began with a power struggle that continues to this day. National politics emboldened some legislators who have introduced bills and resolutions to ask Congress to give the President more power, to eliminate state environmental protections, and to give federal environmental programs to the state (counter to 50 years of law). Fortunately, some of the worst bills have failed but far too many remain.

Climate denial is alive and well, and it’s not uncommon to be gavelled down in committee for mentioning climate change. Unfortunately, this denial of science and the need to transition to clean energy has resulted in a full-scale attack on clean energy (see article on pg. 12) and the Montana Environmental Policy Act (see article on pg. 10).

Clean water is also under assault, from removing a requirement that coal mining companies prevent violations of water quality standards to abolishing any mechanism for the state to protect water bodies from algae-spawning nutrient pollution (see article on page 24). And don’t think that water rights will be unscathed either; developers are looking for ways around a district court decision that protected senior water rights holders and natural resources from subdivisions that exploit the exempt well loophole and drain limited underground aquifers (see article on pg. 21).

The national hype around a wacky plan to create a fictitious new type of purportedly clean and safe nuclear reactor has reached a fever pitch in the halls of the Capitol. A Colstrip legislator is determined to

replace the Colstrip plant with a nuclear power plant and make the area an international hub for uranium enrichment and a statewide hub for future nuclear waste disposal (see article on pg. 16). While many people are “nuclear curious” due to concerns about climate change, nuclear isn’t yet a climate solution because the advanced technology doesn’t exist while climate change does, as do the tools to solve the problem – tools that are cheaper, safer and less harmful to Indigenous communities and public health.

But it’s not all gloom and doom. MEIC’s staff have worked hard to kill or amend dozens of bad bills. While we can’t fix everything, we are well on our way to making this session far less harmful than it otherwise could be. In fact, there are some cases in which we are actually improving the law.

Finally, it is easier to fix or kill bills during the second half of the session, as legislators in the second house are usually more critical of bills from the other house. Responsible legislators often fix things that won’t work or may land them in court, and the inevitable fighting between the Senate and the House provides avenues to work with unusual allies.

While we now know most of the bills that will be considered in the second half of the session, we also know that legislators find ways to introduce bills past the normal deadlines. So MEIC’s team will be on the lookout for mischief and will let you know when it’s time for you to step in and step up with calls to your legislators. For your continued help and encouragement, we are profoundly grateful.

2025 Legislature: MEPA on the Chopping Block

by Derf Johnson

One of my professors at the University of Montana frequently used the quote, “The world is run by those who show up.” I don’t remember its attribution, but it’s stuck with me for all of these years due to its simplicity and accuracy. However, if I had to tack on an amendment to the quote, it would be: “The world is run by those who show up, provided the government institutions are required to listen and consider the information put in front of them.” Time and time again, it’s been proven to me that in order for the government to listen, it must be required to do so under the law, be it through open meetings laws or environmental permitting processes that require public engagement. The proposed changes to the Montana Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) at the 2025 Legislature are numerous, but they all could boil down to one central concept: the government should have to listen less to the people of Montana and disclose less of the harmful impacts from governmentapproved projects, and who cares if we will all suffer in the process.

The central concept of MEPA is that it serves as an information disclosure and engagement tool for the public on impacts to Montana’s air, land, and water. When the government is going to make a decision that will have a significant impact on the environment, it must evaluate the major environmental and social consequences associated with that action. That evaluation comes in the form of an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement, and

includes a notice and comment opportunity, as well as potential public hearings. This process is meant to not just inform and engage the public, but to lead to better, more durable environmental decision-making. Indeed, MEPA’s purpose in Montana law is stated, in part, to “declare a state policy that will encourage productive and enjoyable harmony between humans and their environment ….”

When the government fails to fully consider environmental impacts and disclose them to the public, it has failed to do its job. This is exactly what happened with the Held v. State of Montana and MEIC v. DEQ rulings that were issued by the Montana Supreme Court earlier this year (see article on pg. 4). In those cases, the government was found liable for its failure to analyze and disclose the impacts to our climate from the release of greenhouse gas emissions as part of the environmental review process and within the context of all Montanans’ fundamental right to a clean and healthful environment. In one sense, these cases are a groundbreaking legal precedent that established the right to a stable climate, but in another sense, they are simply commonsense rulings that recognize readily-identifiable emissions that have verifiable and scientifically proven impacts on our health and the environment, and so, of course, they should be considered and disclosed by MEPA.

Regardless, the constitutional legal principles are sound in the Supreme Court decisions – but the legislative backlash to these rulings has been swift and fierce. Now, three bills are snaking their way through

the legislative process that will have major consequences for Montana’s environment and our ability to participate in governmental decision-making. Two of these bills would directly amend MEPA (HB 285 and SB 221), and one would alter the way that Montanans regulate air pollutants, such as carbon pollution (HB 291).

HB 285 (Rep. Brandon Ler, R-Savage) would amend MEPA in two significant and problematic ways. First, it would strike language in MEPA that references Montana’s Constitutional right to a clean and healthful environment, ostensibly to remove MEPA’s constitutional implementation and heightened legal scrutiny. Second, it would remove sections that require MEPA to consider historical changes through time and the cumulative human impacts on the environment – a central utility of MEPA analyses. HB 285 passed the House, largely on a party-line vote and has been transmitted to the Senate and is awaiting a hearing in the Natural Resources Committee at the time of this writing.

SB 221 (Sen. Wylie Galt, R-Martinsdale) would further amend MEPA by truncating the analysis and review to only look exclusively at environmental impacts that occur within a permitted project’s “fence line.” For example, under this bill, DEQ would perhaps consider the carbon emissions associated with truck traffic and diesel generators at a coal mine but would not consider the much more profuse emissions from the coal that will be combusted down the line. This bill would dramatically limit the disclosure of environmental impacts and artificially deflate their significance. SB 221 passed the Senate on a 37-13 vote, has been transmitted to the House, and is awaiting a hearing in the Natural Resources Committee.

Finally, HB 291 (Rep. Greg Oblander, R-Billings)

would prohibit the state from adopting air quality standards that are more stringent than federal standards under Montana’s Clean Air Act. Typically, federal standards are considered a baseline or “basement,” and states are empowered to adopt more stringent standards when they can demonstrate their necessity. This bill would force the state to basically adopt whatever standard the federal government issues. If the federal government has not adopted a standard for a pollutant (i.e. carbon dioxide or methane), then the state is unable to regulate that pollutant, which means that under this bill, Montana would be powerless in the face of greenhouse gas pollution. HB 291 passed the House, largely on a party-line vote, has been transmitted to the Senate, and is now awaiting a hearing in the Natural Resources Committee.

The net effect of all of these bills, should they pass, will be a much weaker MEPA, an environment which is compromised, and a climate crisis that is much more difficult to address. However, there is one MEPA bill that isn't wholly terrible: HB 270 (Rep. Katie Zolnikov, R-Billings) is a cleanup bill that would remove the language in MEPA that the Montana Supreme Court found to be unconstitutional because it prevented the state from considering impacts to the climate in environmental analyses. The bill also clarifies the remedy provisions of MEPA. HB 270 has been transmitted and is awaiting a hearing in Senate Natural Resources.

In any case, the future isn’t carved in stone, and there is still time left in the legislative process. Your voice in opposition to these bills is absolutely critical. Should they pass, you can also bet that MEIC will be primed to defend our constitutional right to a clean and healthful environment.

Energy Bills in the 2025 Legislative Session

by Nick Fitzmaurice

This legislative session started with hundreds of energy-related bill draft requests. MEIC has kept a close watch and engaged exhaustively as many of these bills were introduced and moved through the legislative process. We’ve seen many bills stopped, while many more await further action in the second half. But nothing is ever fully dead until sine die.

Here’s a roundup of where the good and the bad energy bills lie as of legislative transmittal. (SJ and HJ bills discussed below are either joint resolutions or study bills, which don’t face transmittal deadlines until April 4 or April 28, respectively.)

Renewable Energy

There have been a number of bills introduced to inhibit renewable energy development. HB 389 (Rep. Brandon Ler, R-Savage), SB 283 (Sen. Bob Phalen, R-Lindsay), and SB 505 (Sen. Bob Phalen, R-Lindsay) would have prevented or severely limited wind energy development based on prohibitive property boundary setback requirements, restrictive height limitations, and outright prohibition of development through zoning respectively. All three bills were tabled in committee. SB 160 (Sen. Bob Phalen, R-Lindsay) would have prohibitively increased decommissioning bonding requirements

for wind and solar energy development. This bill was tabled, while certain beneficial and reasonable elements of decommissioning assurance were amended into HB 31 (Rep. Neil Duram, R-Eureka), a bill clarifying existing wind and solar bonding requirements. Many private citizens and industry representatives also testified to help preserve wind and solar energy.

A number of bills have sought to promote renewable energy development. Two beneficial renewable energy bills passed the first chamber with broad support. HB 760 (Rep. George Nikolakakos, R-Great Falls) establishes basic consumer protections for residential solar, prohibiting solar companies and sales agents from using any deceptive tactics and establishing customers’ right to cancel signed contracts within three business days. SB 188 (Sen. Chris Pope, D-Bozeman), the Montana Solar Shares Act, enables households and businesses to subscribe to shares in a community solar generation project and receive a monthly credit on power bills equal to their share of energy generated. This would open the benefits of solar to households and businesses who otherwise face barriers to investing in their own solar array.

HJ 16 (Rep. George Nikolakakos, R-Great Falls) laid out the economic argument for renewable energy in Montana and expressed legislative support for responsible development. This resolution was tabled in committee but could be resurrected. Also tabled were

Photo by Bradley Wyss.

HB 811 (Rep. Jamie Isaly, D-Bozeman) and HB 670 (Rep. Jill Cohenour, D-East Helena) which would have increased the net metering cap from 50 KW to 100 KW and would have required that year-end net metering credits be transferred to low-income energy assistance programs rather than forfeited to the utility.

Transmission

MEIC has also been working on a number of positive bills related to electric transmission development. HJ 15 (Rep. Greg Kmetz, R-Miles City) is a resolution describing the need for additional electric transmission capacity in Montana and the region to ensure affordable and reliable electricity service in the state. SJ 12 (Sen. Gregg Hunter, R-Glasgow) is a study resolution that would task an interim legislative committee to specifically explore the economic damages incurred by current congestion in Montana’s interstate transmission lines. Both of these resolutions passed third reading and are heading to the other chamber. SB 355 (Sen. Wylie Galt, R-Martinsdale) passed the Senate and would repeal Montana Dakota Utilities' right of first refusal for electric transmission infrastructure. Finally, SB 301 (Sen. Daniel Zolnikov, R-Billings) started out as a really bad bill from NorthWestern Energy that would introduce tremendous confusion into the transmission development process while leaving customers on the hook for any excessive and unnecessary utility investments into transmission. MEIC secured extensive amendments to address our concerns.

Utility Planning & Regulation

HB 55 (Rep. Gary Parry, R-Colstrip) came from a special legislative interim committee, but it included a long list of problems, largely related to public participation and transparency in NorthWestern Energy’s Integrated Resource Planning (IRP) process. MEIC worked with the sponsor to secure many amendments to this bill in the House, which addressed nearly every public participation and transparency concern. MEIC now seeks a final set of amendments in the Senate. MEIC also worked to secure essential amendments on HB 490 (Rep. Amy Regier, R-Kalispell), NorthWestern Energy’s wildfire liability

bill. While the original bill would have shielded the utility from almost all liability associated with igniting a wildfire, the bill that passed the House would require that NorthWestern develop and follow an approved wildfire mitigation plan.

A number of other bills were tabled before making it out of their first chamber. HB 326 (Rep. Gary Parry, R-Colstrip) would have lowered the severance tax on coal extraction while establishing a punitive 10% “energy severance tax” for all non-coal energy generation (wind and solar). HB 314 (Rep. Gary Parry, R-Colstrip) would have established a Montana Energy Authority to coordinate energy and transmission development throughout the state, a beneficial concept but also expensive and prone to influence by fossil fuel and nuclear industry interests. HB 363 (Rep. Larry Brewster, R-Billings) would have changed the Public Service Commission selection process, maintaining two elected commissioners based on Montana’s federal congressional districts, while changing the remaining three positions to Governor appointments and establishing basic professional experience requirements. A trio of accountability bills were unfortunately tabled: SB 294 (Sen. Andrea Olsen, D-Missoula) would have required utilities to develop plans for 100% renewable energy, SB 406 (Sen. Chris Pope, D-Bozeman) would have established annual energy conservation requirements for utilities, and SB 445 (Sen. Chris Pope, D-Bozeman) would have required increased utility transparency, including a requirement for utilities to maintain a public-facing dashboard showing real-time energy generation and costs for each generation asset in a utility’s portfolio.

Electric Vehicles & Public Transportation

MEIC has been working on a number of bills related to electric vehicles (EVs) and public transportation. HJ 8 (Rep. Becky Edwards, D-Bozeman) would establish an interim study to look at current fee and taxation structures for electric vehicles, examining how EV owners may be overpaying for road infrastructure compared to gas vehicle owners. The resolution passed

story continues on pg. 19

Is NorthWestern Hoodwinking Customers as it Lures Data Centers into the State?

by Anne Hedges and Ben Catton

NorthWestern Energy likes to overcharge customers for capital investments and upgrades to its infrastructure while it privatizes huge profits from ever-increasing rates. And now, it appears that NorthWestern is looking to cash in on the data center trend by discounting electricity costs to Big Tech while socializing the cost of adding them to the system, which will likely result in increased costs for residential and small business customers.

For the last five years, NorthWestern has been raising alarm bells about its desperate need for more electricity. It’s claimed that the Yellowstone County Generating Station (YGCS) was essential to keeping the lights on. Its fear-mongering was repeated by legislators, the Public Service Commission (PSC), and the Governor.

That desperate cry for more power generation evaporated overnight when NorthWestern announced in late January that it had so much excess power that it could provide a number of data centers with 400 megawatts of power in the next few years. NorthWestern made the unsubstantiated (and frankly, bonkers) claim that adding this much demand would lower residential customers’ utility bills. Keep in mind that NorthWestern’s current customers require 750 average megawatts per year. Adding 400 megawatts of demand to NorthWestern’s system in order to provide power to tech giants like Meta, Google, and Amazon to power their data centers seems like it needs a lot more scrutiny. At the very least, the public needs to be protected from NorthWestern’s inherent desire to shift costs to existing small customers.

The Scheme

A recent Harvard study described this new grift pushed by utilities across the country. “Extracting Profits from the Public: How Utility Ratepayers Are Paying for Big Tech’s Power” warns that utilities are able to hide the costs of these data centers when they go before utility commissions and are able to shift “Big Tech’s energy costs to the public.” The report provides insight into NorthWestern’s newest ploy to bring big data centers to the state in order to bolster its profits

Big Horn Data Hub is a cryptocurrency "mining" facility that relies on enormous emounts of electricity generated from coal-fired power at the adjacent Hardin Generating Station.

while charging customers for new infrastructure and generation these data centers demand, all while saying these data centers will mysteriously benefit small customers.

The truth is that monopoly utilities like NorthWestern Energy are incentivized to pursue growth for growth's sake, because they are guaranteed a rate of returned profit on new infrastructure investments (in NorthWestern’s case, it’s a return on equity of 9.64% to a proposed 10.8% for the YCGS). That means building new infrastructure to accommodate data centers is extremely attractive to utilities – and should be equally alarming to everyday ratepayers. Unfortunately, these projects don’t provide universal benefits; they generally serve billionaire tech companies. Nonetheless, in partnering with utilities, tech companies can shift costs onto captive customers who rely on consumer protections that may not be living up to these challenges.

Data center operators and big tech companies are shopping for cheap energy directly with utilities. According to the Harvard study, it is predicted that data centers may consume as much as 12% of all U.S. electricity by 2030 and could be responsible for quintupling the annual growth in electricity demand. With such a lucrative new market on the horizon, utilities are scoring below-market rates through special

Photo by Anne Hedges.

contracts between the data center and the utility with terms that are not publicly available, severely disadvantaging other ratepayers. Some utilities are even entering into deals to locate the data center behind the meter of the generating station and then arguing that they shouldn’t bear any costs of transmission even though they remain connected to the grid.

At the Legislature

To address this issue and get ahead of any shenanigans, MEIC worked on HB 263 (Rep. Katie Sullivan, D-Missoula) that would have required data centers in Montana to annually report their energy use and to predict their energy needs for the coming year. It would be helpful to know what data center demand is on the electric system. Despite no opponents and support from current and former PSC Commissioners, the House Energy, Technology, and Federal Relations committee tabled the bill.

Shortly after the hearing, the PSC unanimously voted to send a letter to NorthWestern asking it to justify its position that it can provide such a large amount of electricity to data centers and not impact existing customers and to answer why

NorthWestern wasn’t coming to the PSC for approval. NorthWestern’s response was reminiscent of the Wizard of Oz: “Ignore the man behind the curtain.” As expected, NorthWestern claimed the PSC has no role in its decision to serve these large and mysterious data centers. MEIC filed comments with the PSC critiquing NorthWestern’s analysis and pointing out the legal obligation for the PSC to review such large additions to the system.

On the other side of the coin, HB 424 (Rep. Katie Zolnikov, R-Billings) seeks to give a massive property tax cut to generation facilities operating on-site of any data center. While MEIC supports encouraging these data centers to build their own generation, we are in strong opposition to a provision that provides an 85% tax cut for the Hardin coal plant. As of this writing, the bill is awaiting a vote in the House.

The PSC is unclear about what happens next for data centers, but did refer in the press to a potential next step being a meeting between the PSC and NorthWestern’s legal teams. One thing is certain: the PSC must protect us from NorthWestern's insatiable quest to generate revenue to compensate for its sagging stock value. If the PSC won't, who can?

What is a "data center"?

Cryptocurrency and artificial intelligence (AI) are two technological trends that demand huge amounts of computing power. In the case of cryptocurrency, a handful of people draw large amounts of energy from the grid to enrich themselves by “mining” digital currency. AI also draws large amounts of power, but has a number of arguably more beneficial applications (though not worth the climate impacts, in MEIC ’s opinion). Regardless, both rely on data centers, facilities packed to the brim with computers that perform complex processes and consume huge amounts of electricity. There are few regulations or sideboards that require how the facilities are powered or even if they are required to report how much power they use. A single data center can use as much power as a moderately-sized Montana city. They also use enormous amounts of water for cooling and energy generation. A single data center can use five million gallons of water each day. NorthWestern projects that data center development in Montana could result in over 50% electric load growth in the next five years, straining an already overburdened and aging electric grid.

Will Montana Become a Destination for Nuclear Waste?

by Nick Fitzmaurice

Rep. Gary Parry (R-Colstrip) is trying to bring nuclear power to Colstrip, with two really bad nuclear bills that passed out of the House in the final rush to transmittal. Nuclear remains the most expensive electricity generation available, and while it has lower greenhouse gas emissions than fossil fuel energy, it comes with a laundry list of other major challenges and injustices. At best, small modular reactors are still at least 10 years away from commercial deployment, while the need for clean energy is pressing. Nuclear energy is dangerous from the time uranium is pulled from the earth and remains dangerous long after its waste must be buried back into it, while Indigenous communities have historically faced the worst of the impacts

of uranium and nuclear energy production. Contrary to what the nuclear industry and federal government’s multi-billion dollar PR campaign would lead you to believe, a carbon-free energy system can and will be achieved without nuclear energy.

HB 623 (Rep. Gary Parry, R-Colstrip) invites the siting of radioactive nuclear waste storage facilities in Montana and was passed by a large margin out of the House. There exists no national repository for radioactive nuclear waste, which can remain harmful to humans for up to tens of thousands of years. Since plans for a national waste depository within Nevada’s Yucca Mountain were abandoned due to its unsuitability in 2010, the U.S. remains no closer to a long-term storage solution than when the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA) was passed by Congress in 1982. Therefore, highly radioactive spent nuclear waste must be stored on-site at nuclear power plants in “short-term” storage casks, likely remaining there for hundreds, if not thousands of years. Contamination risks from increasingly prevalent natural disasters as well as unforeseeable geopolitical instabilities pose a tremendous threat to human and environmental health. Luckily, MEIC secured an amendment on the House floor to require that local counties and any

Tribal Nations within 50 miles of a proposed facility must pass a vote of approval before siting a facility in the area.

HB 696 (Rep. Gary Parry, R-Colstrip) invites the siting of hazardous uranium conversion and enrichment facilities in Montana, welcoming the world’s uranium to pass through our state using roadways and rail infrastructure and posing tremendous risks to public health and the environment if there were to ever be a transportation accident. Not only would this promote the development of a harmful uranium extraction industry in Montana, but it would also position Montana as a regional default for hazardous uranium processing as there currently only exists one uranium conversion facility and two uranium enrichment facilities in the U.S. Today, approximately 90% of uranium for use in U.S. nuclear power reactors is imported, so this bill would open the door for Montana to process and manage the hazardous waste streams for all the uranium fuel headed to final destinations outside of Montana. Unfortunately, a similar amendment to the one achieved for HB 623 failed to pass on the House floor by two votes. MEIC will be redoubling efforts on these bills in the Senate.

Image via HEAL Utah.

Legislature has Mixed Results in Approaching Permanent Plastic Waste

by Ben Catton

Human consumption can exceed nature’s ability to replenish resources and absorb waste, especially with single-use, nonbiodegradable materials. For decades, dependence on both plastics and “forever chemicals” like per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) has been backfiring. Montana has not escaped this predicament. Montana’s landfills (and public budgets) are overwhelmed by grocery bags and styrofoam containers; microplastics are pervasive in everything from trout streams to bloodstreams; and PFAS levels in water sources around the state are at unsafe levels and rising. PFAS exposure is highly correlated to cancer. However, the Montana Legislature proves yet again that it is divided in how to regulate these inescapable, dangerous substances.

Nearly all plastics — 99% — come from fossil fuels. PFAS are also petrochemical products. Each year, 5-10% of extracted fossil fuels go into plastic production. As cleaner energy technologies reduce fossil fuel demand for power, the fossil fuel industry is turning its focus to plastic manufacturing and market creation, making the transition to sustainable materials an uphill battle against huge corporations desperately trying to pivot.

Some Montana legislators are tackling these challenges. Although most of their bills failed this session, one remains in play.

Rep. Marilyn Marler (D-Missoula) introduced HB 477, which would disallow the use of styrofoam food containers in stages over the next six years. Lawmakers saw firsthand the entrepreneurial opportunities tied to this shift during the bill hearing and in the Capitol Rotunda exhibition on recycling and composting on March 4. Moving away from styrofoam is driving innovation in Montana’s compostable manufacturing, waste management, and agriculture sectors — creating jobs and boosting local economies. These innovators showed that the world has limits, yes, but that Montana holds possibilities, especially as a place for renewal and growth. HB 477 passed the House Natural Resources Committee with strong bipartisan support (12-2) and now heads to the full chamber for a vote. Because it has a fiscal note, its deadline for transmittal is later than for normal bills.

Rep. Ed Stafman (D-Bozeman) also introduced two bills concerning these pollutants. Despite strong hearings, both bills have unfortunately been tabled. The first, HB 160, would have repealed a 2021 law blocking local bans on single-use plastics. This “ban on bans” was driven by petroleum lobbyists to prevent communities from limiting plastic consumption. HB 290 would have prohibited “intentionally added” PFAS in firefighting foam and gear, menstrual products, and juvenile products. HB 290 targeted some of the higher-risk products impacting particularly vulnerable populations.

It’s clear there is some willingness to address these dangerous, preventable sources of pollution, but there is still work to be done.

Legislature v. Judiciary: Half-Time Report

by Derf Johnson

The Legislature — aggrieved and offended by what it characterizes as judicial overreach and “activist judges” — has instigated and waged a war on the judiciary during the 2025 Legislative Session. Of course, anyone looking in from the outside can objectively surmise that the Legislature is an architect of its own problem – if it would stop passing obviously unconstitutional bills, it wouldn’t be losing in court so badly. This session, numerous bad judiciary “reform” bills have been introduced (over 25 in total), many the product of the interim’s specially created Senate Select Committee on Judicial Oversight and Reform. We’ve reached the halfway point in the session, and unfortunately many of these bad ideas are still alive and continuing to move through the process.

By far, the most threatening legislation to an independent, impartial, and objective judiciary is legislation that would institute partisan elections into our judicial system. While two of these bills have failed to transmit are likely dead (HB 751 and HB 295), the remaining legislation – SB 42 (Sen. Daniel Emrich, R-Great Falls) – has passed the Senate and is now awaiting action in the House Judiciary Committee. This bill would require that candidates for the Montana district and Supreme Courts choose a party to be aligned with or run as an independent. This bill would inject an extreme amount of partisanship into our judicial system, which by its very nature should only apply the facts and the law, and not include partisan considerations. This bill is an extreme threat to the independent judiciary, the rule of law, and the ability for Montana citizens to pursue justice in our court system. The backers of the bill crow about transparency and argue that our judicial elections are already partisan, and this would just affirm that truth. But rather than introduce legislation that would distance our judiciary from partisan considerations, their solution would make it far, far worse.

A close second for problematic and highly partisan legislation is SB 385 (Sen. Tom McGillvray, R-Billings), which would create a “general claims court.” This bill is obviously designed for conservative members of the legislature to achieve desired partisan outcomes in the judiciary. The three judges would be appointed by the governor and confirmed by

the Senate, rather than sitting for election as every other judge in Montana must do. The court would exclusively handle a specific set of issues, including constitutional challenges, any challenges against actions of state government, appeals of contested cases from administrative bodies of any agency of state government, and legal actions surrounding the Libby asbestos victims. This bill is a transparent attempt for certain members of the Legislature to achieve their political outcomes in the courts, regardless of potentially controlling jurisprudence, the law, and facts. The bill initially passed the Senate, but because it has a significant cost to the state, it has been re-referred to the Senate Finance and Claims Committee for consideration on its impact to the state budget.

A spate of other bills aimed at the judiciary are also still snaking their way through the process.

• SB 49 (Sen. Barry Usher, R-Billings) would exempt lawyers who also serve as elected officials (i.e. the Attorney General) from professional disciplinary measures and proceedings for actions taken while in office. This bill has already passed the Senate and is now awaiting action in House Judiciary.

• HB 39 (Rep. Tom Millett, R-Marion) would allow for political parties to contribute to judicial candidates and has already been signed into law by Gov. Greg Gianforte.

• SB 15 (Sen. Tom McGillvray, R-Billings) would allow for the impeachment of judges based upon subjective interpretations of their rulings. This bill

has already passed the Senate and is now awaiting action in House Judiciary.

• SB 395 (Sen. Daniel Emrich, R-Great Falls) would tweak the “standing” requirements in order to file and maintain a lawsuit, presumably to discourage and prohibit individuals from pursuing claims in court. This bill has already passed the Senate and is now awaiting action in House Judiciary.

• SB 21 (Sen. Barry Usher, R-Billings) would allow for statewide elected officials to ignore a court order requiring them to perform one of their official duties. This bill has already passed the Senate and is now awaiting action in House Judiciary.

There are many more, but too many to list here.

Of course, many of these will fail in the process as more and more legislators wake up to the fact that bills attacking the judiciary are wholly unnecessary, largely a waste of time, and likely unconstitutional. On that last point, many of these bills will undoubtedly cost the state precious time and money, as laws will inevitably be litigated for their unconstitutional infringement on the separation of powers doctrine (or additional constitutional issues).

MEIC is monitoring these bills closely, as the ability to go to court when an illegal permit is issued or an unconstitutional law is passed is central to MEIC’s advocacy to protect our right to a clean and healthful environment.

Energy Bills ( continued from pg. 13)

committee and awaits second reading in the House. HJ 12 (Rep. Randyn Gregg, R-White Sulphur Springs), a bad resolution fraught with misinformation about EVs, also awaits second reading in the House. HB 550 (Rep. Randyn Gregg, R-White Sulphur Springs) was thankfully tabled in committee, as it was filled with misinformation about EVs that would have allowed car dealerships to refuse to accept and sell EVs from manufacturers. SB 228 (Sen. Denley Loge, R-Saint Regis) started out as a cleanup bill for his 2023 EV bills (HB 55 and HB 60). Unfortunately, the bill was amended in committee to eliminate a 30% registration fee reduction that was supposed to go into effect in 2028 to address the double taxation. As of this writing, it is due to be heard shortly in the House.

SJ 19 (Sen. Andrea Olsen, D-Missoula) swas heard in the Senate right after transmittal. It would create an interim study on improving public transportation in Montana. HB 764 (Rep. Brian Close, D-Bozeman) would make it easier to create or expand urban transportation districts on the initiative of a local Commissioner, and it has passed the House.

Oil & Gas Development

MEIC had a mighty fight with SB 81 (Sen. Josh Kassmier R-Fort Benton), a harmful bill that would have allowed for the leasing of state-owned public lands for harmful enhanced oil recovery using CO2 injection.

After being tabled in committee, blasted to the floor, rejected on second reading, postponed indefinitely, reconsidered, and passed on second reading, MEIC and several key partners helped sway enough votes to kill SB 81 on third reading. MEIC will be on the lookout for this concept resurfacing under a new name in the second half. HB 122 (Rep. Larry Brewster, R-Billings) would give utilities default public rightof-way access for gas pipeline development and has passed the House.

Environmental Regulation of Our Energy System

Pushing for environmental protections in the energy system remains an uphill battle. HB 660 (Rep. Debo Powers, D-Whitefish) would have required the Department of Environmental Quality to develop rules to limit greenhouse gas emissions to protect public health, safety, and welfare and the environment, but this bill was unfortunately tabled. Conversely, HB 630 (Rep. Curtis Schomer, R-Billings) would have required legislative approval for any agency rule concerning greenhouse gas emissions, but it was thankfully tabled. HJ 17 (Rep. Steve Fitzpatrick, R-Great Falls) passed second reading on party line. While just a resolution, this terrible piece of legislation calls for an end to effectively all federal environmental rules and regulations pertaining to our energy system.

Housing, Climate, and the Bridge Between the Two

by Laura Collins

The fight against climate change requires a fundamental shift in how cities are designed and regulated. Prioritizing walkability, housing abundance, and transit investment can significantly reduce car reliance and curb emissions at scale. UC Berkeley’s Cool Climate Network has said that infill housing is the “single most impactful measure” that cities could take to reduce emissions. Urban sprawl, a pattern that increasingly characterizes Montana’s development, is one of the most significant contributors to carbon emissions. Ensuring housing availability within existing cities can reduce emissions and make transportation more accessible, but many cities have struggled to address housing reform despite critical shortages. Thus, some state governments, including Montana, are beginning to intervene with state-level zoning reform policy.

One of the primary reasons sprawling development is bad for our climate is the increased dependence on vehicle travel. Greenhouse gas emissions from transportation, particularly from single-occupancy vehicles, lie at the heart of the climate crisis. Nova Scotia’s Dalhousie University estimates that suburban households emit roughly double the carbon emissions

of urban households on average, due to both longer driving distances and larger homes. However, it’s not always a choice that pushes people to drive as much as they do; the built environment overwhelmingly favors car dependency. Suburban environments that over-rely on automobiles continue to be expanded, and alternative transportation infrastructure for bikes or buses remains undersupported. California’s SB 375, the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act, recognizes the relationship between the built environment and car dependency. Aiming to curb urban sprawl, reduce vehicle miles traveled, and prioritize alternative transportation modes to decrease greenhouse gas emissions, the act sets a precedent for future policies aimed at reducing carbon emissions through sustainable urban planning and increased density.

Public misconceptions about what urban density means can also pose a challenge to both housing reform and reducing car dependency. When medium-density housing is prohibited across many neighborhoods of a city, high-density housing is often forced into small sections of the city to meet demands. This artificially inflates land costs, sentences neighborhoods to become unwalkable islands, and perpetuates the misconception that urban density is inherently harmful to quality of life and community character. This perception often leads to opposition to zoning changes that could allow for a more sustainable urban landscape, even without dramatic changes to streetscape or skyline. While many environmentalists understand the connections between climate, mobility, and housing, they may not actively campaign for housing reform. If we are truly serious about tackling the climate crisis, we must also commit to solving the housing crisis — sustainably. Image via PNAS.

Legislature Barrels Toward Land Use Regulations

by Laura Collins

As housing shortages continue to afflict communities across the state, many bills proposing to tackle housing supply and affordability head-on have passed the first house with bi-partisan support. MEIC supports the following reforms in order to increase housing options and decrease-climate changing pollution: change zoning restrictions in fast-growing cities for three and four unit dwellings (SB 266, Sen. Jeremy Trebas, R-Great Falls), eliminate mandatory parking minimums (HB 492, Rep. Katie Zolnikov, R-Billings) and require factory-built homes to be treated the same as other single family dwellings (SB 252, Rep. Dave Fern, D-Whitefish). While some of these bills are similar to what is mandated in a 2023 law, MEIC believes it is also appropriate to allow that law to take full effect, which will let local governments develop growth plans that allow them to choose from a menu of options that were included in the new law and decide how they will allow increased density in their communities. It's worth noting that communities may take different approaches to how they implement multiple reforms at once, should that situation arise.

Unfortunately, a number of legislators and development advocates have latched on to housing reform to conceal their true intentions of deregulation. Cries of “housing for the people!” can be heard echoing through the halls and chambers of the Capitol. Perhaps the loudest of which have come from those seeking to exploit the housing crisis to eliminate Montana Environmental Policy Act considerations (see article on pg. 10), local environmental protections, and water and development review.

In a major win for the environment and Montana’s communities, the failure of SB 146 (Sen. Becky Beard, R-Elliston) was one of the biggest victories of the session thus far. SB 146, or “The Private Property Protection Act,” attempted to strip local governments of authority to regulate land use and development in favor of free and unfettered use of property. From farmers and ranchers to concerned citizens and Tribes, the magnitude of opposition to SB 146 revealed the myriad of reasons such an unprecedented and shortsighted policy would have wreaked havoc on Montana’s

lands and communities. In a moment of tense uncertainty, the bill cleared committee and was read on the Senate floor twice, losing by only a hair both times. However, several other bills angling for free use of private property have progressed to the next chamber, leaving little time to celebrate.

Two bills, SB 358 (Sen. Wylie Galt, R-Martinsdale) and SB 436 (Sen. Carl Glimm, R-Kila), seek to codify the ability of developers to abuse the exempt well provisions when they use it to provide water to subdivisions. While there needs to be clarity on how exactly Montana will regulate exempt wells moving forward, following a court ruling last year invalidating DNRC's exempt well process, these two bills (in particular SB 436) don't yet meet constitutional standards.

SB 262 (Sen. Forrest Mandeville, R-Columbus) would eliminate DEQ’s Montana Environmental Policy Act assessment of all subdivisions in the name of streamlining development review at the cost of analyzing the cumulative impacts of development on the surrounding water resources. HB 714 (Rep. Larry Brewster, R-Billings), falsely claims to “clarify” local governments’ authority to deny family transfer requests. However, the bill effectively eliminates a local government’s ability to prevent abuse of this subdivision review exemption by requiring the local government to provide evidence that the applicant intends to evade subdivision review in written or recorded documentation - an impossible standard for the local government to meet.

While more housing is urgently needed, it is imperative that new growth occurs in urban areas, and not further into our valleys where it will continue to destroy ecosystems, streams, aquifers, and the climate. MEIC will fight deregulatory legislation disguised as housing affordability to conceal its true intentions, a free for all land grab for the wealthy — not the people.

The Power of People Taking Action

by Shannon James

The federal government is in disarray, making it more critical than ever to hold the line at the state level. The power of grassroots action is undeniable, and story-telling plays a key role in shaping policies that impact our communities. When individuals share personal stories about how proposed legislation affects their families and neighborhoods, they provide compelling testimony that lawmakers find hard to ignore.

Movement building is not just about winning every battle – it’s about persistence and taking action together. Thousands of Montanans have already stepped

up to make their voices heard. MEIC supporters have been especially persistent this legislative session, with over 50,000 actions taken through our action center in just the first half of the session.

State-level action is more important than ever, particularly as the federal government continues to dismantle key protections. Holding state legislators accountable is crucial to protecting Montana’s environment, economy, and communities. Fortunately, our elected officials hear constituents even when they don’t want to – our voices matter, and change often requires ideas to be repeated multiple times before they truly resonate.

One shining example of this grassroots momentum was the 2025 Climate Advocacy Day, where more than 350 Montanans from all walks of life gathered at the State Capitol to demand climate action. This year’s turnout surpassed the inaugural 2023 event, reflecting the growing support for policies that transition Montana away from polluting fossil fuels and toward renewable energy solutions. The event showcased the power of collective action, bringing together farmers, teachers, small business owners, Tribal leaders, and young people committed to a sustainable future.

MEIC 's Nick Fitzmaurice speaks at Climate Advocacy Day in January. Photo by Anne Hedges.

MEIC 's Anne Hedges describes the most important bills of the session at the Missoula Legislative Roadshow. Photo by Katy Spence.

Sometimes, we must lose loudly to make real progress. MEIC worked on two proactive bills regarding the opencut (gravel mining) law that was gutted in 2021. SB 460 (Sen. Pat Flowers, D-Bozeman) sought to reinstate consideration for water quality and quantity in gravel pit permitting. SB 391 (Sen. Shane Morigeau, D-Missoula) aimed to reinstate commonsense public participation into the opencut law. Both hearings were scheduled with little notice, but motivated Montanans who have experienced the impacts of a gravel pit near their home quickly organized and showed up to provide powerful testimony in support. Unfortunately, both of these bills were tabled, but these dedicated Montanans will be more motivated than ever to show up again and again.

Even advocacy on an individual level matters. Take, for example, a young wind turbine technician who came to Helena for a Saturday hearing scheduled for 10 am, and ended up staying until the hearing

actually started closer to 1 pm. His testimony was key in demonstrating to legislators that these bills have real consequences for working Montanans and that maybe they don’t always have all the facts when a fellow legislator introduces a bill.

The message is clear: sustained engagement at the state level can drive meaningful change. Advocacy is a marathon, not a sprint, and the dedication of an engaged public is what drives long-term change. If we continue to show up, speak out, and hold our leaders accountable beyond the session, we can protect Montana’s future and build a movement that lasts.

MEIC 's Nick Fitzmaurice and Derf Johnson talk to the crowd at the Bozeman Legislative Roadshow. Photo by Denise Roth Barber.

MEIC 's Anne Hedges and board member Steve Martinez at the Kalispell Legislative Roadshow. Photo by Denise Roth Barber.

The Continued Unraveling of Montana’s Water Protections

by Derf Johnson

Despite overwhelming support from the public for clean water, as soon as the session begins, water quality protections cease to be a priority for legislators who seek to pave the way for expedited mining and development permitting. While several bills will impact water quantity (see article on pg. 21), many bills also take aim at the purity and quality of our water. Unfortunately, this session is just a milestone in a decades-long trend of removing water quality protections for short-term development goals. Here are the worst of the worst.

As in previous sessions, legislation is being considered that would allow more water pollution from coal mines. HB 587 (Rep. Gary Parry, R-Colstrip) changes the definition of “material damage” under the Montana Surface and Underground Mine Reclamation Act (MSUMRA). Under the proposed change, material damage would have to be demonstrated through an expensive and time-consuming statistical analysis “measured to a significant degree of confidence.” Even more alarming, the bill eliminates “violation of water quality standards” from the definition, purportedly allowing for coal mines to pollute beyond water quality standards without violating MSUMRA. This definition will almost certainly lead to water quality impacts outside of coal mines and a more difficult process for citizens and adjacent landowners to hold coal mining companies and the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) accountable.

Continuing a tedious saga of rollbacks, HB 664 (Rep. Bill Mercer, R-Billings) attempts to repeal numeric nutrient standards – again. Numeric standards are science-based water quality standards that aim to prevent destructive algal blooms by monitoring and addressing excessive levels of nutrients in waterways. Excess nutrients enter waterways through many means, but most often through sewage and agricultural runoff. In 2021, the Legislature passed legislation attempting to roll back these standards to more subjective “narrative” standards, but the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rejected the “immediate effective date” of the legislation, and the stakeholder working group

and DEQ were unable to agree to a set of regulations implementing the narrative standards. HB 664 is the attempt to do this again, only this time there is no plan in place to replace the numeric standards with a different water quality regulation program. Such a move is likely illegal and not probably to be approved by the EPA, only sowing further confusion in this ongoing saga.

HB 685 (Rep. Steve Fitzpatrick, R-Great Falls) would change Montana’s non-degradation policy, which is meant to “maintain and protect” Montana’s water for high-quality waterbodies. The bill would shift from what should be a “pollution prevention” approach to one of “pollution allowance” through a “feasibility allowance” (an undefined term). The most problematic section of the bill would remove the careful balancing of interests in Montana’s non-degradation policy by eliminating the consideration of pollution and its impacts on the environment and society, and force the department to only consider the benefits of economic development.

Finally, HB 684 (Rep. Steve Fitzpatrick, R-Great Falls) would eliminate the 60-day deadline during which DEQ must consider a citizen petition to review the best available science and information on the potential impairment of a waterbody, which then requires DEQ to develop a plan to restore and protect its water. Removing this deadline makes the petition process effectively meaningless, as it allows for DEQ to entirely ignore a publicly-submitted petition, ostensibly forever. Even if there is insurmountable evidence that a waterbody is impaired, DEQ could potentially ignore a petition under the language of this bill.

The protection and restoration of Montana’s rivers and streams isn’t just good for the ecological health of our waterways, but good for Montana’s economy and our way of life. Unfortunately, the Legislature still hasn’t read the memo. MEIC will be at the Capitol every day until adjournment, fighting for our rivers, streams, and lakes, but we can’t do it without your help, so be sure to watch our email action alerts for the most pressing bills on our list.

Cabinet Mountains: Forest Service Releases Draft EA on Mining

by Derf Johnson

For decades now, MEIC and our partners have been fighting against a set of proposed silver and copper mines that will be directly adjacent to and tunnel underneath the Cabinet Mountains Wilderness in northwest Montana. Frankly, the mines (Montanore and Rock Creek) are a terrible idea. They are being proposed in the heart of a largely untrammeled section of the North American inland temperate rainforest, where they would impact an isolated population of grizzly bears, dewater and pollute bull trout streams, and impact a sacred Indigenous space as well as one of the first federally-designated wilderness areas in the U.S. To date, we have been successful in birddogging the project, so much so that Hecla Mining (the current owner of the proposals) has “shelved” the Rock Creek project. However, Hecla has applied for a new exploration permit for the Montanore project, and just this past January, the U.S. Forest Service released a draft environmental assessment (EA) detailing the project and accepting comments from the public.

While Hecla has been downplaying the project as a relatively benign exploration project, the reality is much more alarming. The “exploration project” would be a 16-year project, including extensive dewatering activities, an extension of the mining access tunnel by nearly a mile, and the construction of 6,300 feet of “lateral drifts” further into the ore body. All of this underground activity, of course, would result in a major expansion of the waste rock storage facilities on the surface, the installation of several sumps for dewatering, and increased discharges of polluted water to area surface waters. It’s notable that the Forest Service proceeded with a simple EA considering the major environmental impacts associated with the project as well as the potential for full-scale mining that will almost certainly precipitate from the exploration activities.

On that point, the impacts associated with the full-scale build-out of a mine in the area cannot be overstated and include: dewatering of wilderness streams, regional extinction of endangered wildlife, water pollution, noise and traffic impacts, and massive infrastructure directly adjacent to and underneath a

wilderness area. Shockingly, the EA improperly limits its analysis to only the immediate environmental impacts of the evaluation phase of the Montanore Project, even though impacts from development of a full mine are an obvious, connected action to the exploration phase, and have been repeatedly evaluated in the past by the Forest Service and Hecla.

MEIC submitted a very robust set of comments on this project, along with the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes and our conservation partners Earthjustice, Save Our Cabinets, Earthworks, the Clark Fork Coalition, Montana Trout Unlimited, Cabinet Resource Group, and the Yaak Valley Forest Council. While this project is unlikely to go away anytime soon, our resolve and commitment to protecting this treasured landscape and refuge for wildlife is strong. There’s no saying when the Forest Service will actually make a final decision on the project, but it is likely to come in late 2025 or 2026. Stay tuned for comment opportunities and other ways you can help protect this landscape.

Photo by Peyton Olson.

Welcome, Denise Roth Barber!

Hello! As MEIC’s new Development Officer, I am responsible for developing and implementing strategies to gain, retain, and increase financial support from individual donors and foundations.

Prior to coming to MEIC, I was the coordinator for the Department of Environmental Quality’s Climate Pollution Reduction Grant, and before that I followed political money for nearly 25 years at the National Institute on Money in State Politics. In addition, I am actively engaged at the local level, including serving on the Helena Citizens Council, and previously on the Citizens Conservation Board and the Helena Open Lands Management Advisory Committee.

I was an organizer with the Northern Plains Resource Council for several years in the ’90s, where I worked on air pollution issues in Billings during the

sulfur dioxide emission wars, as well as waste reduction efforts and other environmental issues facing Montana.

In my free time, I can be found gardening, biking or hiking on our great public trails, floating down the rivers, or traipsing along the stream banks trying to land a fish. Most of all, I love spending time with my family and friends.

Canadian Coal Mines & Water Pollution: IJC Update

By Katy Spence

The International Joint Commission (IJC) has progressed in its pursuit to mitigate and reclaim the selenium pollution emanating from massive metallurgical coal mines in British Columbia’s Elk River, which flows across the Canada/U.S. border into Lake Koocanusa and into the Kootenai/y River. The IJC is the entity responsible for implementing the Boundary Waters Treaty, as well as a long and involved investigation and mitigation process that includes stakeholders from federal, provincial, state, and Tribal governments. Most recently, the IJC’s International Elk-Kootenai/y Watershed Study Board solicited comments on its Plan of Study, which outlined how it plans to explore the impacts of water pollution in the Kootenai/y watershed with a mandate to protect the river system. The entire IJC process should take a couple of years, with some push to lengthen the process to ensure it is done thoroughly and leads to durable results.

As of this writing, this process has not yet been impacted by executive orders coming out of the White House, but Pres. Donald Trump has made other

moves to undermine transboundary water treaties and projects, so it’s quite possible that this process could also be impacted. Stay tuned.

Photo of Fording River Coal Mine by Alec Underwood.

The Only Constant in Life is Change

by Anne Hedges

The old phrase (of debated origin) sums up life at MEIC. There have been so many moments over my 32 years at MEIC when I said to myself, “We have the best staff ever.” MEIC has a knack for attracting great people to our staff and to the board. Both make the organization stronger, healthier, and a whole lot more fun.

At the end of 2024, I was again reflecting on how fortunate we are to have such an amazing staff and how I deeply appreciate what each and every one of them contributes to the betterment of Montana, the planet, and our office. Then came the gut punch. Cari Kimball, my co-director, was leaving MEIC to work for another wonderful organization in Montana. She wanted to do something new and work on one of her long-time passions: human rights issues. It was bittersweet. The world needs more people like Cari – light-hearted and tenacious, and completely committed to doing her part to leave the world a better place.

Her departure at the beginning of the Legislative Session caused a bit of a scramble and some reshuffling of staff duties. The timing wasn’t perfect… but then again, it never is. MEIC was fortunate to hire Denise Roth Barber to step into Cari’s role as MEIC’s fundraiser. I’ve known Denise since her days at the Northern Plains Resource Council where she fought SO2 pollution from Billings-area refineries. Many MEIC members know her because she previously worked for the State developing its climate plan.

Thankfully, other staff stepped up to pick up Cari’s remaining duties. Most notably, Julie Wintersteen stepped into a new position as Chief Financial Officer,

helping ensure MEIC stays legal and your investment in MEIC stays safe. Julie’s willingness to step up was a huge relief and ensured continuity in the business side of MEIC’s operations.

Together, Julie, Katy Spence (our master of communications, strategy and outreach) and Derf Johnson (our workhorse who oversees litigation, mining, clean water, and so much more) will join me as part of a management team to help keep the organization strong, legal, mission-driven and working toward justice for all.

This amazing group of coworkers makes it much easier for me to step into the role of Executive Director. While I intend to maintain the organization’s fiscal health and internal strength, I will also maintain much of my advocacy work, because that is my passion. I also believe it is essential to empower our newest staff to become enduring leaders in realizing MEIC’s mission. Finally, I will be forever grateful to our founders –especially Robin Tawney-Nichols and Phil Tawney, and Len and Sandy Sargent. It is our job to keep their vision of MEIC alive.

Together, we can and will face some tough years ahead with determination, persistence and laughter. We are privileged to do the job you — our members — have given us. Thank you for believing in us and helping to keep us strong in these tough headwinds.

P.O. Box 1184 Helena, MT 59624