1 week Ago By BLAIR MILLER [email protected]
A package of bills aimed at addressing the Montana Supreme Court’s landmark decision in the Held v. Montana case is nearing the end of its legislative journey, and some of the proposals are already on their way to the governor for his signature. The House on Thursday gave final approval to , sponsored by Sen.
Wylie Galt, a Martinsdale Republican, after a hardy half-hour debate about climate change, Montana's energy landscape, and what responsibilities the Supreme Court gave the Legislature when it declined to outline how the state should work to uphold citizens’ right to a clean and healthful environment under the state constitution — leaving that to lawmakers. And late last week, the Senate passed versions of three other bills that address the court decision in Held, which found the state of Montana was violating Montanans’ right to a clean and healthful environment and stable climate system by prohibiting agencies from analyzing the impacts of greenhouse gas emissions when deciding whether to grant permits for energy and mining projects. The courts called the prohibition the "limitation" to the Montana Environmental Policy Act.
The combination of the primary four bills that make changes to MEPA, according to lawmakers, will streamline energy production and clarify how and when greenhouse gases can be tracked, though some say they are concerned the package could roll back the state’s environmental protections and put it back in court. The package received backing from the head of the Department of Environmental Quality in a news conference earlier this session. Galt's bill requires the state Department of Environmental Quality to prepare guidance for state agencies to determine when a greenhouse gas emissions analysis would be necessary in analyzing permits for projects in the state — particularly any project that deals with fossil fuels.
But it also includes language that a greenhouse gas emissions analysis would look at the "proximate" — or immediate — effects of projects and limits the scope of what a "proposed action" by the state means to exclude any effects of emissions outside or "downstream" of the permitted project. Rep. Steve Gist, R-Cascade, who carried the bill in the House, provided the example of oil or coal getting shipped on rail cars and burned out of state, saying that should not count toward Montana’s emissions — an argument that dates back to the Held trial itself.
"You can't regulate that project when it goes across state lines," he said. But that facet of the bill has drawn concern from environmental groups and some Democrats. Rep.
Marilyn Marler, a Missoula Democrat who is the executive director of the Montana Natural History Center, criticized the bill for only looking at short-term impacts, which she said was how Montana ended up with broad negative health impacts from the state's asbestos mines near Libby. Rep. Jonathan Karlen, also a Missoula Democrat, said the bill would allow the department to look at emissions at the permitting stage but ignore future emissions once the project is complete.
"There are scientific ways to gauge emissions from a project. It's readily available," he said. "This codifies burying our heads in the sand and ignoring that information.
" House Speaker Brandon Ler, the Savage Republican who is carrying a MEPA bill of his own, said the measure had "nothing to do with climate change" but was a direct response to the Supreme Court's ruling and a way to keep lawsuits from holding up energy projects and preventing business expansion in the state. Those sentiments were echoed by his caucus, all of whom voted for the bill. "I think the climate is changing, and perhaps some sort of response is necessary," said Rep.
David Bedey, R-Hamilton. "But I'm not sure impoverishing ourselves is the solution." The bill passed its final legislative vote 63-35, with support from all Republicans present and six Democrats, and now heads to the governor's desk.
Two of the other MEPA bills, and , were amended by the Senate Finance and Claims Committee and are awaiting final approval in the House, where representatives will have to agree or disagree with the Senate’s changes. The third — from Shepherd Republican Rep. Greg Oblander — largely prevents the Department of Environmental Quality and local air pollution control programs from adopting standards that are stricter than federal air quality and pollution standards.
It is on the way to the governor’s desk because it was not amended in the Senate, where it cleared a final vote last Friday, 30-19. HB 270 from Rep. Katie Zolnikov, R-Billings, and HB 285 from Ler saw changes from the Senate Natural Resources Committee that mostly added language to each that coordinates them with other related bills.
Zolnikov's bill, which primarily struck the language in the law that contained the so-called MEPA "limitation," was changed to coordinate with Galt’s SB 221. It directs DEQ to develop guidance for a state agency should it have to undertake a greenhouse gas emissions analysis for a project. The bill, which did not see a vote against it in the House, passed the Senate late last week on a 47-2 vote.
Galt, like the speaker did in the House, said on the Senate floor Ler's bill "spells out clearly" that MEPA is procedural in nature and not a substantive permitting statute — an argument at the center of the Held case. But there has been concern as the bill made its way through the Legislature that it would do away with project review guardrails that have long protected the environment. Several Democrats said they believe language in the bill, which some see as making it far more difficult for people or groups to challenge a permit, would be contested in court on the basis it fails to uphold the right to a clean and healthful environment for current and future generations.
"I guarantee if it passes, it will be challenged and lose on that count," said Senate Minority Leader Pat Flowers, D-Belgrade. "It’s pretty clear it is violating our inalienable rights.".
