Down to Earth: March 2021

DowntoEarth

MONTANA ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION CENTER

NEWS FROM THE MONTANA ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION CENTER

IN THIS ISSUE 2

2021 Montana Legislature

4 Censored Science Victory 6

Spring Creek Mine Victory

7

Citizens’ Vote on Nuclear Plants

8

Clean Energy’s Uphill Battle

10 Gravel Pits 12 Land Use Planning Under Attack 14 NorthWestern Energy in the Legislature 16 Tribal Rights 17 Cryptocurrency 18 Governor’s Power Grab 20 COVID-19 and GHG Emissions

Traditions and Transitions

22 Meet Katy Spence

Clean and Healthful, it’s Your Right, Our Mission.

March 2021 | Vol.47 • No.1

1

MONTANA ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION CENTER

I

f the 2021 Legislative Session had to be However, it included an exemption for State laws described in one word, it would be “takings.” and regulations if they were necessary to protect Not only is the legislature taking away public health, safety, and welfare, provisions that your right to free speech, privacy, assembly, are not included in SB 260. participation, and a clean and healthful In 2013, it was projected that the bill would environment, it wants to take even more. It wants cost Montana $600 million over a six-year period. to take away protections for grizzly bears, wolves, Although the 2013 bill had a 10% compensation sage grouse, and bison. And it wants to radically threshold for the State, it only applied to real expand the meaning of “takings” under the property, a far narrower definition of property Montana Constitution. This than is included in SB 260. expansion of the definition And unlike the 2013 bill, SB of takings is what makes SB 260 provides no exception 260 (Sen. Steve Fitzpatrick, for government regulations R-Great Falls) the most that are necessary to protect worrisome bill of the session. public health, safety, and SB 260 would greatly we l f a r e . G ove r n m en t s expand on the provision in must be able to protect all the Montana Constitution people, including those that already requires a who live downwind or government body to pay downstream from a project by Anne Hedges a property owner for lost or are concerned about their property values whenever a government own property values or well-being. action takes away the entire value of that person’s Takings proposals such as SB 260 turn that property, such as when a road is built on their idea on its head and would force governments land. SB 260 drastically changes that. Currently, to pay whenever a regulation prevents someone the constitution requires a government body from doing something, even if the proposed to pay a property owner when a regulation action would harm others. Because of this broad eliminates all of value of their property. SB 260 application, it is likely to cost the State far more would require the state to pay whenever a state than $600 million. action of diminishes the value of property by To compound the problems even further, SB as little as 25%.

260 defines property so broadly that it includes This isn’t the first time we’ve seen such a far more than just land. It also includes: stocks, takings bill. In 2013, a similar bill failed to pass. bonds, business brands, credit, intellectual property, perceived financial stability of a company, property fixtures, personal property or appurtenances, water rights, permits, domestic animals, all obligations, labor, business licenses, all types of property associated with business licenses, and a host of other types of property. Governments would be prohibited under SB 260 from imposing limitations on any of these types of property, or they could be sued and forced to pay the property owner, regardless of the need to protect other people’s health, property, well-being, or the environment.

The Legislative Session in One Word?

Takings

2

Protecting Montana’s natural environment since 1973 .

MONTANA ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION CENTER

For example, the State of Montana could actually have to pay if it revoked a doctor’s license for malpractice – a policy that obviously removes the incentive to hold doctors accountable.

The Senate, on a party line vote, passed this wide-ranging bill with little debate and very few questions, even though it could have devastating repercussions for nearly every action of State and local governments. When Oregon passed a similar law by initiative in 2004, the State faced almost 7,000 claims totaling nearly $20 billion.

Oregon voters repealed the initiative just three years later. Even a small fraction of that amount would be devastating to Montana!

Rep. Fitzpatrick made clear that the purpose of this bill is to prevent actions such as the initiative that banned game farms in the state. The bill would also apply to any State restrictions on things such as: • Hunting and fishing (such as closures), commercial fishing regulations, exotic species restrictions, bag limits, outfitter set asides, and river permits.

• Floodplain designations, streamside management zones, basin closures, water quality protections, mitigation requirements for gravel

pits (such as hours of operation).

• Prevailing wage requirements.

• State revocation of licenses for medical providers, daycares, healthcare facilities, assisted living, outdoor behavioral programs, building licenses, contractor licenses, food establishments and many more.

• Permit limits or mitigation requirements for industrial or commercial operations or their equipment.

• Quarantine and pest management requirements.

• Road projects.

• Split estates where mineral owners or surface owner object to actions by the State.

• Public Service Commission decisions that prevent monopoly utilities from recovering imprudent costs from customers or from passing on the cost to customers of expensive new projects.

SB 260 sums up the 2021 legislature – reckless disregard for Montanans and their property, as well as for public health and environmental protections. If this bill passes as is, what happened in Texas during the polar vortex will look like child’s play.

Clean and Healthful, it’s Your Right, Our Mission.

3

MONTANA ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION CENTER

MEIC Teams

up to Defeat

“Censored Science”

Rule

by Derf Johnson & Katy Spence

I

n the final days of former President Trump’s presidency, his administration pushed an egregious rule that would have required the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to disregard and ignore scientific research that utilized data from confidential medical information. Officially, it was known as the “Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science” rule but, to opponents, it became known as the “Censored Science” rule.

Immediately after the rule’s publication, which went into effect immediately, MEIC joined forces with the Environmental Defense Fund and Great Falls, Montana, -based Citizens for Clean Energy to sue the federal government and block the immediate implementation of the rule. And just a few weeks later, we won.

The EPA has long relied on studies that contain confidential data to develop new regulations, including dose-response studies, which explore how much exposure to a substance increases risk. For example, studies on the effect of air pollutants on human health could be based on private medical information but inform important regulatory policies regarding air pollution. Studies such as these have helped improve regulations on water pollution, as well as exposure to toxins, workplace chemicals, and

4

cigarette smoke. Participants in human health studies often agree to provide their personal medical information with the condition that their private health information not be disclosed publicly. Federal law also contains protections for private medical information under HIPAA. The Censored Science rule would have required the EPA to disclose raw data from public health studies before it could enact regulations based on that research. Because the EPA cannot disclose private medical records, the rule change would have forced the agency to ignore or lessen the influence those studies would have had on new regulations.

In other words, the EPA would have had to ignore the most important science when it came to public health regulations. It may come as no surprise that supporters of the Censored Science rule included lobbyists for the tobacco and fossil fuel industries.

This absurd rule was a parting shot from an administration that undermined science at every turn. By refusing to let the EPA use the best available scientific studies, the agency would have become hobbled, no longer able to enact regulations that protect our air and water.

Even the rule’s name was a misnomer.

Proponents claimed it would have provided “transparency,” but in reality it was simply an

Protecting Montana’s natural environment since 1973 .

MONTANA ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION CENTER underhanded attempt by lobbyists to discount decades of peer-reviewed epidemiological information in order to push for more lenient regulations for their industries, all at the cost of human and environmental health.

The EPA utilizes studies that undergo rigorous peer review and often makes those studies available to the public. It’s well-established in the research community that medical data is often private and cannot be shared. By trying to force the EPA to subvert established scientific practice, the rule would have undercut the agency’s power and the public’s trust in it.

Luckily for us, the Trump Administration itself gave us the key to defeating this rule: rushing through the process.

On Feb. 1, Judge Brian Morris, chief judge for the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana in Great Falls, scrapped the dangerous rule, writing that the Trump Administration EPA “failed to justify its decision to make the controversial rule take effect right after its publication in the Federal Register, instead of after 30 days, as is typical.”

Thankfully, we were able to take this terrible regulation off of the books based on a poor implementation process by the EPA. Had the rulemaking and implementation been done properly, we could have been wrapped up in litigation for years. A huge debt of gratitude goes to our partners at the Environmental Defense Fund and Citizens for Clean Energy, in particular our brilliant legal counsel Deepak Gupta.

“This absurd rule was a p a r ti n g s ho t fro m an administration that undermined science at every turn.”

Legislature to Consider Protecting Pollinators HB 410 (Rep. Andrea Olson, D-Missoula) would create a statewide plan to help save pollinators in Montana. Montana is the second leading honey producer in the U.S. Each year, honeybees pollinate an estimated $15 billion dollars of crops, and Montana’s honey industry creates products valued at $30 million dollars. Bees are responsible, either directly or indirectly, for a full two-thirds of our food.

Unfortunately, honeybees and this industry are in jeopardy due to a destructive phenomenon called colony collapse disorder (CCD). A sustainable rate of hive loss is around 15%, but in recent years, the USDA estimates that beekeepers have lost 40% to 50% of their beehives.

Several factors contribute to CCD, including the widespread use of neonicitinoids, a class of pesticides that is highly toxic to bees and other pollinators. These pesticides are systemic, meaning that they are taken up by a plant and continue to be deadly to insects throughout the life cycle of that plant. Neonics can also leach into soil and be carried by wind, causing a lasting impact on the landscape long after application occurs.

To save bee populations, there is a national movement to phase out the use of neonics.

Some states have prohibited specific uses of the pesticide and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has also phased it out on national wildlife refuges. HB 410 would help Montana move in that same direction and protect pollinators, the food they help provide, and an important industry in Montana.

Clean and Healthful, it’s Your Right, Our Mission.

5

MONTANA ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION CENTER

Spring Creek Mine Expansion Overturned

by Derf Johnson & Katy Spence

T

he largest coal mine in Montana, and one of the largest in the U.S., must evaluate and account for its contribution to climate change caused by the combustion of its coal. In Feb. 2021, in a major victory in the fight against fossil fuels, a federal district court judge in Billings overturned the permitting and environmental analysis of a massive expansion of the Spring Creek Mine in southeastern Montana.

U.S. District Court Judge Susan Watters ruled that the federal Office of Surface Mining failed to evaluate the pollution resulting from the burning of the coal taken from the mine expansion, including CO2 emissions and toxic air pollutants such as mercury. Watters gave the agency 240 days to complete a “corrective” analysis and an updated environ mental assessment. This victory is an important step in implementing an orderly transition from fossil fuels to clean energy and in accounting for the true costs associated with mining and burning coal.

At its peak, the Spring Creek Mine produced more than 20 million tons of coal annually, which fed coal-fired power plants around the world to create electricity. Burning coal produces enormous amounts of air pollution including acid rain-producing sulfur dioxide, lung-damaging particulate matter, and toxic mercury.

Recently, however, coal production at the Spring Creek Mine has been declining as coalburning plants are being replaced by cleaner and more affordable ways to produce electricity.

Spring Creek is not an anomaly.

The U.S.’s use of coal has been rapidly

6

declining for the last decade as the country moves toward renewable energy and natural gas. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, coal use in the U.S. now accounts for approximately 20% of electricity production, down from a decade high of close to 50% in 2010.

Due to these poor market conditions and poor management, the previous owner of the Spring Creek Mine, Cloud Peak Energy, declared bankruptcy in 2019. The mine was sold to its current owner, the Navajo Transitional Energy Company (NTEC). NTEC is already behind on the coal production taxes that it owes to Bighorn County (where it operates), which doesn’t bode well for the future of the already beleaguered mine. NTEC is now pushing for legislation to delay its tax payments (SB 154, which MEIC opposes).

Regardless, coal is the dirtiest and most carbon-intensive form of energy production, so the ruling by Judge Watters is a welcome reprieve from the Trump Era, and a new direction in holding this dying industry accountable.

Ultimately, preventing this expansion, and others in Montana and across the West, will be a crucial win for public health and a lifesustaining climate. Judge Watters has set an important precedent that the government, and the coal industry, ignore at their own peril.

With the Biden Administration prioritizing a thoughtful transition away from fossil fuels, MEIC is confident that this victory is the first of many more to come. This legal victory was brought about due to the efforts of Shiloh Hernandez of the Western Environmental Law Center, who spent countless hours pushing this case forward.

Protecting Montana’s natural environment since 1973 .

MONTANA ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION CENTER

No Radiation Without Representation

by Katy Spence & Conor Ploeger

B

efore there were promoted posts, emoji likes, and social follows, political activists such as Matthew Jordan went door-to-door to meet voters.

In 1977 and 1978, Matthew hitchhiked around Montana. At night, he slept on the couches of kind strangers. By day, he collected signatures from those who wanted to have the final vote on whether or not the Big Sky State built a nuclear power plant.

“Montana voters want the last word on anything that affects them, their property, and their well-being,” Matthew said.

The law that came out of this effort is the Montana Empowering Voters to Approve Proposed Nuclear Facilities Initiative, or Initiative 80 (I-80), which appeared on the ballot in 1978 and passed with an overwhelming 65% of voters supporting it, despite the fact that the opposition raised a record amount of money to fight it. I-80 sets stringent safety and liability requirements around the development of nuclear energy. I-80 also gives the voters of Montana the right to decide whether the state pursues nuclear energy. HB 273 (Rep. Derek Skees, R-Kalispell) would overturn this initiative.

“The majority of the folks who voted for the initiative did not know what they were voting for,” Rep. Skees said during the hearing for HB 273. “That shouldn’t even really be a benchmark.

We’re not even overturning the will of the people when the people did not know what they were voting for.”

That is not true.

“I gave four years to working on that law,” Matthew said. “[But] it was Montana farmers, ranchers, students, businesspersons and housewives who wrote this law, collected the signatures, and voted it into law.”

The road to passing I-80 in 1978 was a long one. The team submitted an initiative two years

prior attempting to completely ban nuclear power plants in the state, but voters rejected it. After some research, the team discovered something that may not be surprising to Montanans.

“Our research had discovered that Montana voters wanted to have the right to decide for themselves whether a nuclear power plant should be built,” Matthew said.

Matthew said the team had not included the input of Montana voters in their first pass at a nuclear law. The measure that resulted was put for t h a s a choice: Montanans could vote whether they wanted the power to “approve” a nuclear plant or not.

55 out of 56 count ies pa ssed I-80, with Montana voters definitively saying that they wanted a voice in the nuclear argument.

Despite years of work and 11,000 sig n at ures , H B 273 is progressing through the 2021 leg i s l at u re a nd would over turn I-80. Montanans a r e s m a r t a nd deser ve a say i n whether the state adopts nuclear.

Clean and Healthful, it’s Your Right, Our Mission.

7

MONTANA ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION CENTER

T

he legislative session has been a tough one for clean energy, but it is not all bad news.

The Good...

Rooftop Solar

There has been both good news and bad news regarding rooftop solar in Montana. Throughout the first half of the session, all eyes were on HB 359 (Rep. Larry Brewster, R-Billings), which would have punished rooftop solar owners.

The bill would have overturned the 2019 rate case decision in which the PSC determined that NorthWestern Energy’s proposal to reduce net metering credits was not justified.

The bill also would have interfered with the “grandfather” clause that protects 3,000 Montanans who rely on rooftop solar from any rate changes, and that is where the bill fell apart.

After numerous Montanans, including many MEIC members, reached out to Rep. Brewster about this potential interference, he realized that the bill would harm the existing contracts.

Minutes before the hearing started, Rep. Brewster asked the House Energy, Telecommunications, and Federal Relations committee to table the bill, and it did.

Since that victory, an excellent bill, HB 448 (Rep. Josh Kassmeir, R-Fort Benton) has been making its way steadily through the legislature.

The bill aims to increase the total amount — or the cap — of generating capacity that can be installed for rooftop solar for commercial rooftop solar owners. That would allow commercial property owners to reap more of the benefits from solar and allow the state to better pursue solar as a renewable energy option.

Victory by Defeats

Bills that aimed to increase taxes on solar (HB 346) and wind (SB 85) were all amended or died in committee. HB 188 (Rep. Denley

8

Clean Energy: An Uphill Battle

by Conor Ploeger

Loge, R-Saint Regis) would have dramatically increased the registration fees for electric vehicles, but the bill has now been amended to increase them by a more modest amount. Finally, a bill (HB 606) designed to hinder utilities across the state from using advanced metering to get more accurate results for ratepayers was defeated due to a joint effort by environmental groups and utilities across the state.

...and the Bad Renewable Portfolio Standard

Montana’s Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) came under attack during this session.

The RPS requires Montana utilities to purchase at least 15% of their electricity needs from renewable sources. NorthWestern Energy and Montana-Dakota Utilities have expressed their interest in changing or repealing the RPS, and the legislature is listening.

First, there is SB 237 (Sen. Doug Kary, R-Billings). This bill aims to remove the community renewable energy projects (CREPs) requirement under the RPS. The CR EPs provision ensures that utilities in Montana pursue locally-owned resources when meeting their requirements under the RPS. NorthWestern has continuously argued that the CR EPs requirement is not feasible and has therefore

Protecting Montana’s natural environment since 1973 .

MONTANA ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION CENTER used it as an excuse not to meet its requirements under the RPS. But the courts have disagreed, ruling that NorthWestern’s shareholders must pay low-income and tribal community energy assistance programs $2.5 million because of the company’s failure to meet this requirement.

However, that requirement could disappear if SB 237 passes.

Two other bills take aim at the RPS. HB 475 (Rep Derek Skees, R-Kalispell) would functionally repeal the RPS by modifying the language so that it covers energy from old hydroelectric dams and nuclear energy instead of its intended role. HB 576 (Rep. Jerry Schillinger, R-Circle) repeals the RPS altogether. Both of these bills would send Montana down the wrong path. Montana, like other states throughout the West, should expand the RPS, not repeal it.

Local Governments

Recent efforts by Montana’s cities have also come under attack. SB 257 (Sen. Jason Small, R-Busby) could make it more difficult for local governments to pass regulations designed to address the climate crisis. This bill could prohibit local governments from enacting regulations aimed to reduce energy

consumption in their jurisdictions through changing transportation plans, design standards, noise limitations, development patterns, etc.

More Barriers for Renewables and Storage

The legislature is considering several bills that could further impede renewable energy projects. SB 201 (Sen. Steve Fitzpatrick, R-Great Falls) sponsored a bill that could make it easier for NorthWestern Energy to avoid having to purchase electricity from wind, storage, and solar developers. Until now, NorthWestern had to consider the avoided costs it would have to pay for future regulation of carbon dioxide, but this bill tries to prohibit consideration of these costs. In other words, this bill could allow NorthWestern to ignore important benefits associated with clean energy when considering the costs of electricity moving forward.

Another barrier is presented in SB 334 (Sen. Brad Molnar, R-Laurel), which would change the cost calculations for transmission systems.

These changes would make it easier for utilities, such as NorthWestern, to obtain electricity from gas plants rather than renewable resources. story continues on pg. 11

Left: A Montana wind farm.

Opposite: A solar panel.

Clean and Healthful, it’s Your Right, Our Mission.

9

MONTANA ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION CENTER

Gravel Pit Developers Tramp on Neighbors’ Rights and Sage Grouse.... Again

by Derf Johnson

S

ession after session, gravel mine developers persuade legislators to weaken protections for neighboring landowners, water, and wildlife – but this session their proposals are truly extraordinary. Two bills would eliminate or severely limit the rights of neighbors as well as eliminating critical protections for sage grouse.

HB 599 (Rep. Steve Gunderson, R-Libby) is a fundamental rewrite of gravel mine laws.

It prohibits the Montana Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) from limiting the operating hours of gravel mines, from requiring range or wildlife “fire prevention and control” measures, and from considering acid mine drainage or sedimentation on adjoining lands or waterways for all gravel pits regardless of size. It also creates two different permitting processes. The worst one would apply in instances where the operator argues that it won’t impact surface or ground water or there are fewer than 10 primary residences with permanent water and sewer systems within one-half mile of the mine site. In those instances, there would be no public notification, hearings, involvement, or consideration of neighbors’ concerns. Current law requires public involvement for all proposed gravel mine permits as long as there are 5 residences within one mile.

10

HB 599 guarantees that in drier areas of the state, neighboring landowners will have no notification or opportunity to protect their property or health from gravel mine operations.

The bill also shortens DEQ’s permit review from 30 day to 15 days in most instances. The bill quite possibly violates Montanans’ constitutional right to participate in government decision-making and would devastate the property rights of neighboring landowners.

SB 284 (Sen. Russel Tempel, R-Chester) would eliminate any requirement that gravel mines provide compensatory mitigation for impacts to critical sage grouse breeding grounds (known as leks) if the gravel mine operation is more than six-tenths of a mile from the lek. This limitation on sage grouse protections will further harm an already imperiled bird and make the listing of the sage grouse under the federal Endangered Species Act more likely – something hunting and agricultural interests have tried hard to avoid.

Protecting Montana’s natural environment since 1973 .

MONTANA ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION CENTER

Clean Energy (continued from page 9) Defeats, Per Se

There have been many bills that have died in this session that would have been good for Montana. HB 150 (Rep. Mary Ann Dunwell, D-Helena) would have established a carbon tax in Montana. HB 99 (Rep. Denise Hayman, D-Bozeman) would have required NorthWestern to do its due diligence before purchasing an electricity-generating resource by eliminating a step in the process called pre-approval. HB 182 (Rep. Laurie Bishop, D-Livingston) would have changed the amount NorthWestern could collect from its customers when it fails to accurately project its expenses. Finally, SB 197 (Sen. Janet Ellis, D-Helena) would have eliminated certain

W

hile electric vehicles (EVs) have been slow to gain widespread popularity in the U.S., the global movement away from gas-powered vehicles may pull our reluctant country into the next phase of transportation.

Pressure from international governments, stock market support, and consumer demand for climate-friendly products are pushing auto manufacturers to make ambitious promises surrounding EVs. In Jan. 2021, General Motors (GM) became the first U.S.-based automaker to pledge a cessation of production on gasoline-powered cars, vans, and SUVs by 2035, despite the company’s support of the Trump Administration’s relaxed fuel efficiency targets. Following its EV

requirements in the RPS in order to make it easier for NorthWestern to purchase electricity from CREPs. S en. Ch r istopher Pope, D -Bozeman introduced a handful of bills this session. One would have established a rate that would have encouraged the development of electric vehicle charging stations by making it easier for the manufacturers to procure energy from public utilities, and his SJ 12 proposed a study of electric transportation throughout Montana.

SB 292, another of Sen. Pope’s bills, would have established utility energy conservation standards to encourage utilities to establish annual conservation targets.

announcement, however, GM’s stock rose 3.5%.

Ford has also made promises to invest in electric and autonomous vehicles. The Mustang Mach-E hit dealerships in March, and critics predict its $40,000 price tag (plus $7,500 federal tax credit) will make it an appealing choice for consumers who balk at Tesla’s more pricey models.

And Volkswagen announced just last week that it aims for more than 70% of its European sales to be EVs by 2030, with a goal of 50% each in the U.S. and China.

It’s like a set of dominoes: between consumer demand, reg ulations, and manufact urer competition, knock one down, and the rest will follow.

Clean and Healthful, it’s Your Right, Our Mission.

11

MONTANA ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION CENTER

Land Use Planning Under Attack

by Derf Johnson

O

ne of the biggest pressures on Montana’s land and water in the past few decades has been development. The demand for additional housing and business space, particularly in western Montana, is only increasing as the population grows, in part because out-of-staters discover Montana’s high quality of life, open spaces, and the reprieve it provides from populous metro areas that were particularly hard-hit by COVID-19.

The legislature is using this as justification for eliminating or reducing land use planning protections for our land, water, and communities.

Notably, the laws under threat are not prohibitions on development and growth, but rather ways for communities to plan for and mitigate development in order to preserve the amenities of their area. I’d like to think that Ed Abbey was thinking about Montana’s wild places, working farmlands, and river valleys when he wrote, “Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell.”

If we don’t think about, plan for, and condition development, we will end up with spoiled water, trammeled wild places, displaced wildlife, and broken communities.

A number of bad bills this session have already died, thanks to organizations and individuals from all over Montana testifying and contacting legislators. Unfortunately, a few of the bills have “squeaked through” and will be taken up in the second half of the session.

One of the worst bills is HB 527 (Rep. Fiona Nave, R-Columbus). It would prevent a group of residents in Stillwater County from creating a citizen-initiated zoning district (CIZ) to mitigate – not prohibit – the impacts of oil and gas development on the Beartooth Front. There are over 100 CIZs across the state that have already been adopted in unzoned areas in order to protect property values, local infrastructure, and water, as well as to maintain the residential and agricultural character of an area.

Another zoning bill, SB 294 (Sen. John Esp, R-Big Timber), purports to bring Part 2 county zoning (zoning initiated by the county itself) into compliance with Williams v Missoula County, a Montana Supreme Court decision that declared unconstitutional the delegation of “veto power” to large tract landowners. This bill does away entirely with “protest” rights and instead

Ravalli Country has 41 CIZs. Image from Ravalli County website.

12

Protecting Montana’s natural environment since 1973 .

MONTANA ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION CENTER allows public “comment” to be considered by the commissioners as they are required to do in most other instances.

The problematic provision of SB 294, however, is Section 1. This section would provide a mechanism to limit a referendum on Part 2 zoning to “electors residing in the district,” which would arguably exclude residents who are already subject to municipal zoning within a county. This disenfranchises those not in the “district” but who are still impacted by zoning decisions that may have major implications for the growth of their communities.

SB 164 and SB 165 (Sen. Carl Glimm, R-Columbus) would allow for additional nutrient pollution of Montana’s surface waters from development. SB 165 would eliminate: sanitation reviews for subdivisions that are more than 500 feet from water bodies, regardless of the hydrologic connection to the ground water; stormwater runoff permitting for minor subdivisions; and sanitation review for facilities that expand (such as wastewater treatment plants). SB 164 also increases the concentration of nitrates that are allowed in a groundwater mixing zone to 10 milligrams per liter. Nitrates are commonly associated with sewage.

Two bills still snaking through the session would change the subdivision review process by limiting the ability of local governments to mitigate subdivisions and giving more power to developers. SB 211 (Sen. Steve Fitzpatrick, R-Great Falls) would entirely prohibit local governments from considering the loss of agricultural soils in subdivision review. This is in direct reaction to work in Missoula County to preserve prime agricultural soils in order to promote food security and protect local, family-owned agricultural operations. SB 174 (Sen. Greg Hertz, R-Polson) would upend the subdivision review process by changing the standard of review and the decadesold set of criteria used to consider and mitigate subdivision impacts. This bill gives power to the hands of private developers and takes it away from local communities.

Eliminating MEPA Review

T

wo bills chip away at the important protections provided by the Montana Environmental Policy Act (MEPA).

Both bills seek to eliminate environmental review in specific instances: HB 594 (Rep. Joe Read, R-Ronan) would eliminate the State’s obligation to comply with MEPA for forest management grants.

The Department of Natural Resources and Conservation grants money to private and public entities to conduct forestry projects for wildfire risk reduction and forest health.

Most projects are 40-100 acres in size.

Unfortunately, HB 594 provides no limit on the size of the forest projects that could avoid MEPA compliance. MEPA compliance is often the only tool that local governments and neighbors have to learn the details of proposed projects on neighboring or public property and to have input into a decision.

This public involvement results in more informed decisions so that the project can be better designed to protect water, wildlife, and property.

SB 53 (Sen. Jeff Welborn, R-Dillon) would amend the hardrock mining law to change the permitting process for decorative rock quarries. Certain aspects of the bill are positive changes, because they would free up resources at the Montana Department of Environmental Quality so that the agency can focus on other permitting decisions.

However, the bill exempts rock quarries under 15 acres from having to conduct an environmental analysis under MEPA. MEPA analysis is critical to ensuring that the public is notified and involved in decisions affecting the environment and assuring that mitigation measures are considered.

Clean and Healthful, it’s Your Right, Our Mission.

13

MONTANA ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION CENTER

NorthWestern Energy: Again Trying to Shove Coal Down Our Throats

by Anne Hedges

F

ree market pr inciples be d am ned.

NorthWestern Energy and the Montana legislature are more concerned about overturning private contracts, interfering in private business decisions, making companies stay in business even if they lose money, and inhibiting future investments in Montana – all to force the continued use of fossil fuels. It seems that free market principles are just a talking point for most Republican legislators. Continued reliance on expensive fossil fuels seems to m a t t e r mo r e than keeping utility bills low for average Montanans. And as for climate change, “them’s fightin’ words.”

Even with stiff compet it ion, perhaps the most troubling bill is SB 84 (Sen. Duane Ankney, R-Colstrip), supported by NorthWestern Energy.

It would increase legislative interference with the independent and constitutionally-created Montana Consumer Counsel (MCC). The MCC protects consumers, such as NorthWestern Energy’s customers, before the Montana Public Service Commission (PSC) in order to ensure that utility customers are not overcharged. MCC is

14

often the only entity looking out for consumers when utilities request a rate increase from the PSC. SB 84 would allow legislators overseeing the MCC to have financial conflicts of interest and would make it more difficult for MCC to hire the necessary experts to defend consumers against rate increase requests by NorthWestern and other monopoly utilities.

NorthWestern supports four other bills that are intended to overturn the 1982 private contract between the Colstrip owners (see below for descriptions of SB 265, SB 266, SB 176, and SB 88). NorthWestern knew the terms of the Colstrip ownership contract when it bought a small share of the plant in 2007. Now, NorthWestern is asking the legislature to overturn the 40-yearold agreement to benefit its shareholders at the expense of its customers and the owners of 70% of the plant. Unfortunately, at least so far, the legislature is going along with these shenanigans.

SB 266 ( R e p. S t e ve Fitz pat r ick, R-Great Falls) wou ld force the Colst r ip plant owners to pay for expensive and quest ion able repairs or face p en a lt ie s of $100,000 per day. The bill would require the other owners to pay for whatever repairs NorthWestern thinks are necessary even if the other owners will not be reimbursed by their customers through their allowed rates. SB 265 (also Rep. Fitzpatrick) would overturn the provision in the original ownership contract which rquires disputes among the owners to go to arbitration in Spokane, Washington, the state in which owners

Protecting Montana’s natural environment since 1973 .

MONTANA ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION CENTER of 50% of the plant are based. SB 265 would require arbitration over disputes between the owners to occur in Montana. Sen. Fitzpatrick is a chip off the old block. He’s the son of John Fitzpatrick, long-time lobbyist for the gold mining industry and NorthWestern Energy.

The apple doesn’t fall far from the tree.

SB 176 (Sen. Brad Molnar, R-Laurel) is similar in that it would require the Colstrip owners to invest in the plant regardless of whether the investment is prudent. But it goes even further and requires any entity receiving money directly or indirectly from the Coal Tax Trust Fund (cities, towns, Tribes, schools, water districts, food and agriculture programs, small businesses, and more) to sign a statement swearing allegiance to coal.

SB 88 (Sen. Duane Ankney, R-Colstrip) also is intended to rewrite the Colstrip ownership contract, but this bill would require the owners to post a bond with DEQ to fund all maintenance at the plant regardless of whether it’s necessary. This puts DEQ, for the first time ever, in the role of a plant owner, an idea wholly contrary to free market ideology, as well as potentially exposing the State to liability for the extensive clean-up costs.

But Sen. Ankney — who is term-limited after this session — has other “over-the-top” bills. For example, SB 86 would force the plant owners

to pay for all lost residential and commercial property values associated with Colstrip’s closure (again, as estimated by DEQ, an agency with no expertise in this arena), regardless of where in the state those properties may exist, their value, or the time of the investment. Sen. Ankney’s misguided SB 87 would require the owners of the plant to transfer water rights to the town of Colstrip and to forever pay to provide and pump water from the Yellowstone River, 30 miles north, regardless of whether the town already has sufficient water supplies for municipal purposes.

What’s most troubling about all of these bills is the negative impact they could have on renewable energ y investments in Montana. The out-of-state Colstrip owners also own part of the transmission system that transports electricity from Colstrip to West Coast markets.

Those markets are demanding clean energy, which Montana has in abundance and could provide. But these same owners are hesitant to reinvest in Montana considering that all these hostile proposed bills would punish them and attempt to prevent them from meeting the demands of their regulators and their customers.

A large, proposed wind farm north of Colstrip appears to have stalled out, potentially as a result of these bills. It would be a shame if Montana lost out on renewable energy investments because story continues on pg. 21

Left: The coal ash ponds at Colstrip.

Opposite: Colstrip at night by Colin Ruggiero.

Clean and Healthful, it’s Your Right, Our Mission.

15

MONTANA ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION CENTER

Infrastructure vs. Tribal Rights

by Derf Johnson & Cari Kimball HB 481 (Rep. Steve Gunderson, R-Libby) is a mean-spirited, direct attack on the First Amendment rights of individuals and organizations who participate in rallies and protests against projects that cause environmental harm. This bill targets activity that is already illegal (trespassing and vandalism) and adds massive new criminal and civil penalties onto sentences if the crime was associated with “critical infrastructure,” such as pipelines, transmission lines, wireless communication facilities, and other types of industrial facilities. The legislation would punish people who protest the Keystone XL pipeline, but the bill’s wording is incredibly ambiguous and likely to be found unconstitutional because of its vague and broad potential application. This bill would chill the First Amendment right to assembly and to petition the government. It also would levy massive criminal penalties against organizations found to be a “conspirator” in the activity.

Pipelines leak, climate change is real, and Tribal sovereignty is important. These are some of the reasons why MEIC opposes SJ 16 (Sen Steve Hinebauch, R-Wibaux). This is a Joint Resolution of the House and Senate urging congressional This session has seen a couple of bills focused on the use of polystyrene (Styrofoam) in foodrelated businesses. Unfortunately, they’re not quite moving in the right direction.

HB 407 (Rep. Mark Noland, R-Bigfork) would prohibit local governments from regulating food packaging or containers (i.e., plastic and Styrofoam). The bill would achieve this goal by prohibiting local governments from taking any action, including a voter referendum, to regulate or tax these containers. This bill has passed the House and is awaiting a hearing in

and presidential approval of the Keystone XL Pipeline. Montanans have different priorities for the future of our state, from reducing our dependence on fossil fuels to creating livelihoods for our communities that last more than just a couple of years. Keystone XL would deepen the climate crisis, rendering the long-term prospects of sustainable local economies less viable.

M EIC supported SB 146 (Sen. Shane Morigeau, D-Missoula), which would have established Indigenous Peoples’ Day as a statewide holiday, replacing Columbus. As a holiday, Indigenous Peoples’ Day better celebrates the durability of some of the most universally held Montana values – our dedication to our families and our communities – by uplifting those who first established those as traditions here. The bill would have helped Montanans deepen their appreciation of the contributions that Indigenous community members make to our state. Unfortunately, this bill was tabled in committee. the Senate. Please call your senator and urge them to vote NO. On the other end of the spectrum was SB 265 (Rep. Marilyn Marler, D-Missoula). This bill would have phased out the use of polystyrene for food-related businesses in Montana over the next five years. Throughout 2024 and 2025, restaurants would have had to stop using polystyrene for to-go boxes and serving food and beverages. By 2026, food packaging plants would have had to use alternatives to polystyrene. Unfortunately, this bill was tabled in committee.

Styrofoam Dreams

16

Protecting Montana’s natural environment since 1973 .

MONTANA ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION CENTER

Cryptocurrency: Our Newest Energy Foe

by Katy Spence

T

here’s a new energy guzzler in town, and its name is “cryptocurrency.” That town, however, cannot be in Missoula County, Montana.

Cr yptocurrency is a virtual currency that only exists as computer code. Popular cryptocurrencies include Bitcoin and Ethereum, which have seen exponential growth in the last 10 years. In just one year, the combined value of all cryptocurrencies in the world increased from $250 billion in Jan. 2020 to $1 trillion this past January.

With every get-rich-quick scheme, however, there’s a downside. With cryptocurrency, it’s the outrageous amount of electricity that certain facilities use.

Through a process called “mining,” users can sometimes earn cryptocurrency without having to buy it. Huge facilities are dedicated to mining, and the process is incredibly energy intensive.

Current estimates suggest that cryptocurrency mining globally consumes more than 100 terawatt-hours of electricity a year, which is

comparable to energy consumption of entire nations, such as the Norway or Argentina.

M issoula Count y has been debating cryptocurrency facilities for years. In early Feb. 2021, the Missoula County Commission unanimously adopted permanent zoning that regulates where cryptocurrency mining operations can be located and how those facilities are powered.

If someone wants to open a cryptocurrency mining facility in Missoula County, thefacilities must either purchase or develop enough new renewable energy to offset 100% of their electricity consumption, according to the Missoula Current. The facility must also dispose of all its e-waste through a Montana DEQcertified e-waste recycling program.

Missoula County cited the “grotesque” amount of energy needed for a cryptocurrency mining operation and an imperative to address the climate crisis as reasons for these regulations.

Not all of Montana is free of the effects of cryptocurrency. In late 2020, Marathon Patent Group announced its plan to build a Bitcoin mining facility, which will draw its electricity from the coal-fired Hardin power plant in Big Horn County.

While some cryptocurrency operations are moving to more renewable and green energies, the appeal of cheap coal-fired electricity remains, as it will increase the profit of crypto miners. MEIC is closely monitoring the cryptocurrency trend in our state, and pushing for operations to adopt energy standards like those in Missoula County.

The amount of energy used by Bitcoin mining is comparable to that of entire countries.

Graph from BBC.

Clean and Healthful, it’s Your Right, Our Mission.

17

MONTANA ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION CENTER

Limiting Access to Justice and Consolidating Power

by Derf Johnson

A

m ajor t heme of bot h t he 2 0 21 Montana Legislature and the Gianforte Administration can be found in a number of bills that would considerably and negatively change the way in which government does business. These changes consolidate power in the governor’s office and the legislature, while taking power away from the judicial system, State agencies, and average citizens. These bills are also a reaction to the recent election of President Joe Biden, by proposing a number of “states’ rights” concepts that are poorly planned, unworkable, and likely unconstitutional.

Reducing Access to Justice

The legislature and Gianforte Administration are intent on dramatically changing the Montana judicial system. SB 140 (Sen. Keith Regier, R-Kalispell) would eliminate a body known as the Judicial Nomination Commission, which currently proposes candidates for all vacancies for Montana district court judges and Supreme Court justices. In place of the Commission, applicants for open positions would have to apply to, and be selected by, the governor. This bill, which Lieutenant Governor Juras played a direct role in promoting, will undoubtedly lead to a more political and less effective judiciary, in which judges are selected based on their partisan positions rather than legal acumen.

Another similar bill, HB 380 (Rep. Kerri Seekins-Crowe, R-Billings), would require that members of the Judicial Nomination Commission be confirmed by the Montana Senate, rather than by the Montana Supreme Court, as the current

18

law dictates.

HB 537 (Rep. Bill Mercer, R-Billings) would eliminate the ability of plaintiffs to file lawsuits in the 1st Judicial District of Montana (Lewis and Clark County). Depending on the type of lawsuit, plaintiffs typically have the choice of filing either in the district in which the dispute arose or in the 1st Judicial District. This bill would force cases into the districts where the dispute arose and the district in which the judge is elected, potentially compromising the impartiality of the judges.

Power Grab in the Legislative Branch

The Republican-dominated legislature feels that it had to kowtow to a Democratic governor for the past 16 years. With the election of Gov. Greg Gianforte, legislators are eager to “make hay while the sun shines” by making major changes to the legislative process and State agency rulemaking. Most notably, SB 225 and SB 227 (Sen. Steve Fitzpatrick, R-Great Falls) would give much greater latitude to and control by the legislature over how State agencies propose and adopt rules. In particular, SB 227 could be thought of as Montana’s “Congressional Review Act,” whereby the legislature is able to override

Protecting Montana’s natural environment since 1973 .

MONTANA ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION CENTER an administrative rule through a simple majority vote on a resolution and without the approval of the governor.

SB 82 (also Sen. Fitzpatrick) would upend the decades-old process of requiring consensus among legislators serving on legislative interim committees charged with reviewing administrative rules.

It would provide the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate (almost assuredly Republ ican s for some time to come) with a vote in the event of ties on the committees.

HB 447 (Rep. Bill Mercer, R-Billings) would provide the l e g i s l a t u r e w it h greater review author it y over administrative rules, require State agencies to give advance notice to legislative review panels, and prevent State agencies from adopting rules in the period three months before a legislative session.

SB 32 3 (S en .

Chris Friedel, R-Billings) is a terrible bill that would prohibit State agencies from adopting any rule that may have a cost impact on businesses of more than $1 million. $1 million is an extremely low threshold. If this bill were to pass, only the legislature would have the authority to adopt such rules, which would put the executive branch at the mercy of the politically-driven legislative

branch. This would increase political pressure and prevent agencies from implementing important programs, including those that are required under federal law, such as the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, solid and hazardous waste laws and so many more. SB 323 applies to all government rules including those at the Departments of Public Health and Human Services, Revenue, Business & Labor, Commerce, Fish Wildlife & Parks, and Environmental Quality.

Unconstitutional Attacks on the U.S. Government and the Biden Presidency

SB 2 7 7 (S en . Tom McGillvray, R-Billings) is a flagrant violation of the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution. The bill would give the Legislative Counci l the power to review Executive Orders issued by the president and requires that “the state, a political subdivision, or an organization receiving publ ic f und s f rom the state may not implement an executive order that the attorney general determines to be unconstitutional.” First, this is a solution in search of a problem. Second, and ironically, the entity charged with determining the constitutionality of laws under the U.S. Constitution is not the Montana Attorney General, but the U.S. Supreme Court.

Clean and Healthful, it’s Your Right, Our Mission.

19

MONTANA ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION CENTER

One Year Later

2

What COVID-19 Taught Us About Fighting Climate Change

By Katy Spence 020 was a year like no other. We stayed home, cut our own hair, and got reacquainted with neighborhood walks. But how did our drastic lifestyle changes affect energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions?

When the U.S. started to “lock down” in March 2020, the nation saw a sudden and sharp decrease in the demand for oil and gas. Transportation demands shifted from air travel and commuter travel to increased use of renewable electricity, which the International Energy Agency (IEA) reported “far outpaced the contribution of coalfired power plants.”

The decrease in mass transportation and closure of major factories around the world resulted in significant decreases in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The U.S. alone saw a 13% decrease, according to Nature.org, largely due to the extended impact on work and ground and air transportation.

Surprisingly, many climate researchers expected more significant decreases, considering the worldwide shutdowns. Unfortunately, they’re now predicting emissions will quickly rebound as vaccines become more available, and people resume their pre-pandemic routines.

Although our day-to-day routines have changed dramatically, the average consumer has had surprisingly little impact on global energy consumption this past year.

We’re spending more time than ever at home.

People in lockdown swarmed online, finding themselves in video conferences and online games, streaming videos, and engaging on social media.

According to the IEA, global internet traffic increased by nearly 40% between Feb. and April

20

2020. Residential energy consumption increased for many people while in lockdown.

During this same period, however, the world saw a net decrease in energy consumption.

The BBC reported in April 2020 that, though residential energy consumption in the United Kingdom was up by as much as 30%, the closure of large factories was driving the country’s total usage down 20% lower than in the same period the previous year.

In fact, experts predicted that 2020’s total global electricity consumption would fall far below 2019. However, an IEA report in Jan. 2021 revealed that power consumption rose by the end of the year and exceeded 2019 usage by 8% as many countries reopened and resumed “business as usual.”

It’s important to note the huge impact that reducing transportation and fossil fuel emissions had on reducing GHG during this past year.

Individuals can make a difference fighting climate change, but fossil fuel companies have spent years pushing the blame on individuals when adaptations in the energy industry could make the biggest difference.

Streaming, for example, might not have as big of an impact as you think. A 2014 study in the peer-reviewed journal Environmental Research Letters found that an individual streaming video for 30 minutes resulted in emissions of about 0.2 kilograms of CO2 , or about the equivalent of driving 0.5 miles.

The remaining Colstrip power plant units in Montana, on the other hand, produce about 11 million tons of GHG each year. You’d have to continuously stream Netflix for more than

Protecting Montana’s natural environment since 1973 .

MONTANA ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION CENTER 800,000 years to produce the amount of carbon dioxide that Colstrip produces in one year.

That’s why MEIC is dedicated to changing the behavior of corporations and big interest groups who can make the most impact fighting

climate change. Because if one year of staying at home has taught us anything, it’s that we need to make some big cuts in our fossil fuel usage if we want to significantly reduce our greenhouse gas emissions.

NorthWestern (continued from page 15) of unconstitutional legislative attempts to force continued operation of an expensive and highly polluting plant.

Yet another bad bill from Sen. Ankney is SB 328.

In Montana, we’ve always considered the reclamation of disturbed land as part of the cost of doing business. We’ve even enshrined this into our constitution, requiring that “all lands disturbed by the taking of natural resources shall be reclaimed.” Montana has requirements for the bonding and reclamation of coal mining (under the Montana Surface and Underground Mine Reclamation Act, MSUMRA) that go beyond what is required by federal law.

SB 328 would weaken these standards by allowing for a partial bond release before the entire coal mine is reclaimed. The bill also would potentially allow for bond release even if the reclaimed land is contributing to the violation of water quality standards. This change is likely in violation of federal surface mine reclamation laws.

What is the most alarming about this bill is that the coal mining industry continues to suffer major economic losses as coal-fired power plants are replaced with cleaner and more affordable options. Over the past decade, there have been over 50 bankruptcies in the coal industry, including several in Montana.

Unfortunately, coal corporations are looking for ways to cut costs and save money, and adequate reclamation obligations are surely near the top of their list. These major economic changes should be encouraging the Montana legislature to strengthen, not weaken, our reclamation laws.

Clean and Healthful, it’s Your Right, Our Mission.

21

MONTANA ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION CENTER

Meet Katy Spence

H

ello! It’s been my pleasure to join the MEIC team at the busiest and most stressful time: in the middle of a legislative session. In truthfulness, it’s been a wonderful crash-course in what MEIC does best: fight for your right to a clean and healthful environment.

Growing up in rural Kansas, I was fascinated by tallgrass prairie remnants that thrive in unmown ditches. A high school love of plants led to college courses in biology and botany. When college chemistry became a bit too tough, I pivoted to my second love: writing. But my interest in the natural world never wavered, and I sought a way to connect these passions.

In 2015, I moved to Missoula to pursue a master’s degree in environmental journalism at the University of Montana. This time was transformative for me. I learned about biogeochemical cycles (and how climate change has really messed those up), statesanctioned environmental racism, and radiation cycling through a forested landscape while on a reporting trip to Fukushima, Japan. I knew that my place was at the crossroads of communicating science and finding actionable solutions to the biggest environmental challenges of our day.

That being said, my post-grad journey took a three-year detour through the technology/business world, where I picked up skills in marketing, project management, and entrepreneurship. While I’m grateful for the time I spent in this industry, working with the MEIC team and such an impassioned membership truly feels like coming home.

If you’ve been getting our emails or seeing an uptick in social media lately, that’s me! Let’s connect online or by phone — I’d love to hear more about what you want to see from MEIC.

Eliminating Pollution Standards for Nutrients SB 358 (Sen. John Esp, R-Big Timber) would eliminate the numeric nutrient criteria from Montana’s water quality standards. Numeric nutrient standards prevent the discharge of high levels of nutrient pollution, which can have major and adverse impacts on aquatic and human health.

Sources of nutrient pollution include fertilizer, manure, sewage, detergents, and stormwater runoff. Many of Montana’s waterways are already suffering from high levels of nutrient pollution due to decades of accumulation from a variety of sources.

22

This bill would inject considerable chaos and uncertainty into currently clear standards. The administrative and permitting process would become less predictable, and it would be difficult to understand the limits. Finally, the federal 9th Circuit court is currently considering an appeal regarding variances from the numeric nutrient standards. Its decision could entirely upend the process and make the repeal of numeric standards even more complex.

Protecting Montana’s natural environment since 1973 .

MONTANA ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION CENTER

Thoughts from the Executive Director

by Cari Kimball

M

EIC is starting a new chapter. With Anne Hedges and I assuming co-directorship to lead the organization, we’re taking this moment to look at what MEIC has been doing — noting our areas of strength and identifying where we can be doing more or doing it better.

This evaluation is a work in progress, and we’ll be reaching out to you, our network of supporters, for input.

For now, here’s what we are most excited to maintain and where we’re excited to change things up. Because I’m a millennial, the chorus from the song Decepticons by esteemed ’90s rapper, One Be Lo, plays on repeat in my head when I think about what comes next at MEIC.

Some Things Change

Here’s how we’re shaking things up: Political strategy. Perhaps you noticed that the 2020 state-level elections took a hard anti-environment turn. Oofda.

We’re already shifting strategy to meet a world where the federal political climate for environmental protection is more favorable than at the state level.

Movement building. While MEIC has always relied on people power to influence policy, we are increasing our capacity to emphasize this crucial movement-building work. With the addition of two new staff positions – a Communications and Engagement Director (Katy Spence) and a Campaigns and Advocacy Director (Melissa Nootz)

– and two amazing staffers filling them, MEIC is better poised to energize our supporters and grow Montana’s community of change-makers who care about our environment.

Intersectional environmentalism.

A concept elevated by activist Leah Thomas, intersectional environmentalism describes how forces of social inequity and environmental degradation often overlap and compound one another. The future of the environmental movement depends upon dismantling s ystem s of oppression.

If our strategies to prevent environmental harm further entrench corporate kleptocracy, wealth inequity, white supremacy, and misogyny, we are shooting ourselves in the foot. More than ever, MEIC will be emphasizing the long view: that a more just and equitable world is one with fewer environmental problems.

MEIC - a nonprofit environmental advocate P.O. Box 1184 Helena, MT 59624 P.O. Box 1375 Missoula, MT 59806 (406) 443-2520 www.meic.org meic@meic.org MEIC’s purpose is to protect Montana’s clean and healthful environment. The words “clean and healthful” are taken from the Montana Constitution, Article II, section 3 - Inalienable Rights, which begins: “All persons are born free and have certain inalienable rights.

They include the right to a clean and healthful environment. . .”

Some Things Stay the Same

Here’s what we will maintain: Our sense of responsibility to speak truth to power.

If we disagree with powerful decision-makers on an issue, we’ll say it – respectfully and firmly.

Our belief that clean air, water, soil, and climate form the bedrock of our quality of life here in Montana.

Our role as experts on State environmental policy. With more than 45 years of experience, MEIC is widely relied upon as a government watchdog and resource for concerned citizens, politicians, and the media. We’re here to stay.

Our defense of the fundamental right of all Montanans to a clean and healthful environment.

Our immense respect and fondness for MEIC’s members and supporters. You folks make this work possible, and you inspire us every day. Thank you.

As we forge ahead, meeting the challenges of the current political climate in the State of Montana, we are so grateful for your support. If you have ideas, questions, concerns, or just want to shoot the breeze, please be in touch. We love hearing from you!

Clean and Healthful, it’s Your Right, Our Mission.

23

Nonprofit Organization U.S. Postage PAID Helena, MT Permit No. 132

MONTANA ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION CENTER P.O. Box 1184 Helena, MT 59624

CHANGE SERVICE REQUESTED

24

Protecting Montana’s natural environment since 1973 .