DowntoEarth
In This Issue
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
by Jim Sayer
GFrom a Board Member
reetings from springbedazzled Missoula … and thank you for being a part of this essential organization! As a 20-year MEIC member and current Board Treasurer, I take great pleasure in expressing gratitude directly to you, the people who power our organization in so many ways. However, thinking of you, our current members, also prompts the question: Who will be the members that power MEIC in the future?
It’s a question that’s been on my mind since I joined the board two years ago – and a question I’ve pondered for decades, as the past director of nonprofit groups whose main sources of income were memberships and donations.
By many metrics, MEIC is a thriving organization. We have an incredible 52-year record of success in protecting Montana’s environment. We have an amazing staff: tenacious, hard-working, and among the most experienced of any state environmental group in the nation. We also have remarkable financial reserves and a solid balance sheet to support our work.
Nevertheless, these assets may be offset by a potential liability: younger people may support our mission and work but they aren’t necessarily “joining” MEIC in the traditional sense, as members or donors.
Now that the 2025 Legislature has wrapped up, we’re pulling together a working group to review our membership model, research other nonprofits who’ve been successful in growing their support and broadening their base, and consider how MEIC can do better. Already, we are working to expand our outreach and field operations with “community connector” staff and events around the state.
But we are on the hunt for other creative solutions and would appreciate your suggestions. My guess is that many of you belong to many more nonprofit groups. What are the attractive features of your favorite groups? Are there unique ways that nonprofits catch your attention and sustain your allegiance? Do they have specific ways of reaching out to new populations, especially younger folks? Are there ways they engage
new people, beyond a simple membership fee or donation request?
In thinking about these questions, feel free to think expansively. MEIC’s foundation is strong right now, which makes it the best possible time to consider new directions. And you — as someone who already knows the value of a strong statewide environmental group — are in a prime position to help find those directions.
Please feel free to contact me at jimsayer17@ gmail.com with your ideas, and if you want to have a conversation, don’t hesitate to let me know. I could not be more excited to work with our members to ensure the future of the group that protects our beloved state’s clean and healthful environment. Thanks again and we look forward to hearing from you!
Jim Sayer is a part-time nonprofit consultant and very active volunteer who relishes Montana’s great outdoors and lively communities. He is the former director of Adventure Cycling Association, the Sierra Business Council, and Greenbelt Alliance (in the San Francisco Bay Area), and a former senior executive with the U.S. EPA. You can find him biking, hiking, running and swimming all around Western Montana with family and friends. Let him know your favorite spots, and he might just join you there!
MEIC board member Jim Sayer (left) works the table with staffer Shannon James at a climate rally in Missoula. Photo via Jim Sayer.
Price Tag for Laurel Gas Plant Remains Primary Issue in Rate Case
by Nick Fitzmaurice
In July 2024, NorthWestern Energy filed a rate increase application with the Public Service Commission (PSC). The original filing asked for a 26% increase to residential electricity base rates. This increase included over $2.3 billion in lifetime costs for its Yellowstone County Generating Station (sometimes called the Laurel Generating Station), an outrageous 10.8% return on equity (ROE), and a blank check for investments into the dirty and unreliable Colstrip coal plant that could well exceed $2 billion. This was after the PSC approved a 28% electric rate increase to residential customers in October 2023.
MEIC intervened in the rate case to contest NorthWestern’s proposed increases, with six experts providing testimony and evidence to establish our arguments. The PSC’s hearing was set to begin April 22, but NorthWestern and several other parties filed a partial settlement proposal three weeks after the deadline for filing settlements. The hearing had to be rescheduled for June 9 through June 20 (though it may end sooner). There will be an opportunity for public comment in person and virtually at 9 am the first day of the hearing, and 8 am each day thereafter.
What Was NorthWestern’s Partial Settlement?
A settlement in a rate case is an agreement between certain parties. It does not mean that the PSC has to agree to its terms. In fact, if the PSC does not agree to the provisions of a settlement, then it is void. Although
the parties to the proposed settlement agree to no longer contest settled issues at the hearing, the PSC is the final arbitrator for all issues in a rate case, whether or not they are addressed in a proposed settlement. This makes the participation of interveners such as MEIC all the more important because our attorneys can crossexamine NorthWestern’s witnesses on issues for which the settling parties have agreed to be silent.
A handful of interveners – the Montana Consumer Counsel (MCC), the Large Customer Group, Walmart, and the Federal Executive Agencies – signed onto the partial settlement proposal. MEIC and several other parties did not. While the proposed settlement reduces NorthWestern’s requested rate increase, the utility is still asking for a 20.2% increase to residential electric base rates. The decrease from the original filing is largely attributable to an agreement to lower NorthWestern’s requested ROE from 10.8% to 9.65%, the same ROE the PSC previously approved for most of NorthWestern’s generation assets. NorthWestern also agreed to withdraw its request for a blank check for Colstrip plant investments, but only after Pres. Donald Trump issued an Executive Order allowing the plant to postpone compliance with public health protections (see article on pg. 8). NorthWestern is still requesting to charge customers $11.6 million for recent investments in the Colstrip plant.
This is considered a “partial” settlement proposal because the settling parties did not agree on two very important issues, which will need to be resolved by the PSC. First, the settling parties did not agree on how much NorthWestern can charge customers for its
new gas plant near Laurel. Second, they didn’t agree on certain costs that can be automatically charged to customers, often referred to as “pass-through” costs. For example, if MCC gets its way on those non-settled issues, the increase to residential customer base rates would be 16.0% rather than NorthWestern’s desired 20.2%. If NorthWestern gets its way, the average residential customer will be on the hook for as much as $128.77 annually just to pay for the gas plant. Although the final costs to customers remain to be adjudicated, the partial settlement, combined with NorthWestern’s stance on unsettled issues, would unfairly burden residential customers. While the residential customer class makes up 47% of NorthWestern’s current base revenue requirement, NorthWestern proposes to allocate a disproportionate 54% of the base revenue increase to residential customers.
NorthWestern uses a sleight of hand to argue that the proposed settlement, combined with its stance on unsettled issues, would result in a net 4.2% increase to residential electric rates. NorthWestern is assuming that pass-through costs known as Power Costs and Credits Adjustment Mechanism (PCCAM) will be dramatically reduced by selling nearly six times more excess power into the export market than it has in the past (from $33.6 million to $190.3 million), mitigating the overall rate increase. This is based on mere hopes that the Laurel gas plant — the most expensive resource to operate in the utility’s portfolio — will be cost-
competitive with other regional resources. There is a very real risk that NorthWestern’s overly optimistic projections do not materialize, leaving customers on the hook for the extraordinary costs from building the plant without any offsetting benefits from market sales.
If NorthWestern fails to sell all that power into the market, it can adjust the PCCAM each quarter and charge customers for 90% of under-collected expenses. In other words, if it does not sell enough power to offset the cost of the base rates, then its purported 4.2% increase to residential bills could quietly balloon to the full 20.2% base rate increase. And that is exactly what appears likely to happen based on the actual amount of power NorthWestern has sold into the market since it filed its application in July. MEIC and other parties in the rate case asked NorthWestern to verify its actual market sales for the months since the original rate case filing to truth-test its sales estimate. In the first four months of the Laurel gas plant’s operations, market sales were already $70.1 million below what NorthWestern had projected. NorthWestern should not be able to claim rates will only rise 4.2% because of its fictitious estimate of market sales, when in fact rates will likely rise by as much as 20%.
MEIC’s attorneys at Earthjustice will be raising these issues and more during the rate case hearing. With any luck, the PSC will protect residential and small business ratepayers from another sharp rate increase proposed by a monopoly utility that is more concerned about its shareholders than its customers.
How is the Electric Rate Calculated?
While electric rates are composed of numerous line item charges, NorthWestern’s earnings from rates can be effectively divided into several components:
Base rate: Infrastructure investments that earn a return for shareholders on each dollar spent building or buying a plant (e.g. the cost of constructing a gas plant with a return on equity (ROE) for its shareholders or the cost of buying existing generation resources such as the hydroelectric dams). Establishing an ROE and adding the new acquisition to rates must be approved by the PSC.
PCCAM (Power Cost and Credits Adjustment Mechanism): A rate that is adjusted quarterly with with little scrutiny from the public or PSC. The PCCAM is comprised of variable expenses and is passed directly to customers (e.g. fuel to power a gas plant, coal for a coal plant, or power bought or sold in the market).
Property taxes are also passed on to customers, though they make up a smaller portion of the rate. Any balancing accounts, such as the blank check for the Colstrip plant, would be another addition to rates. While NorthWestern is no longer pursuing a balancing account for the Colstrip plant, it is still requesting a balancing account for wildfire mitigation measures.
Electric Rate = Base Rate + PCCAM + Property Tax Tracker + Balancing Accounts
by Anne Hedges
Just when you think the Montana Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) cannot get any worse, it does. The Montana Supreme Court ruled in January that DEQ must redo the environmental analysis for NorthWestern Energy’s Laurel Generating Station (sometimes referred to as the Yellowstone County Generating Station). The court ruled that DEQ must consider the climate impacts of the 175-megawatt methane gas plant’s emissions in order to comply with Montanans’ constitutional right to a clean and healthful environment, which includes the right to a stable climate. The court also found that DEQ had failed to adequately analyze lighting issues, which are important because the plant is located near residences and the Yellowstone River.
DEQ did not take that court decision seriously. Full stop. DEQ released its revised analysis in early April. It spent 20 pages on a revised analysis of lighting impacts. It spent less than three pages on a purported greenhouse gas analysis (though that analysis wouldn’t suffice for a middle school writing assignment.)
DEQ based its analysis on an internal “fill-in-theblank” guidance document for analyzing greenhouse gas emissions. That document — which MEIC recently received in a public information request — shows that DEQ has no intention of considering climate impacts as required by the Montana Supreme Court. DEQ’s cursory guidance has generic language for how DEQ measures a facilities’ greenhouse gas emissions and then literally has a blank space for DEQ staff to fill in the numeric quantity of greenhouse gas emissions that are expected each year from the plant.
DEQ followed the guidance, but it utterly failed to analyze the impacts of those emissions. DEQ provided the gas plant’s projected annual emissions (though it doesn’t explain why DEQ’s estimate is lower than NorthWestern’s). The stunner was that it provided just one generic sentence pulled from a 2021 Bureau of Land Management report on the impact of those emissions: “The impacts of climate change throughout the specified region of the state of Montana include
changes in flooding and drought, rising temperatures, and the spread of invasive species. (BLM 2021).”
DEQ makes no reference to any of the harmful impacts that BLM projected in the same report including the finding that, “Rising temperatures and recent droughts have killed many trees by drying out soils, increasing the risk of forest fires, or enabling outbreaks of forest insects. In the coming decades, the changing climate is likely to decrease the availability of water in Montana, affect agricultural yields, and further increase the risk of wildfires.” Nor did DEQ follow BLM’s finding in the report that agencies should use the social costs of greenhouse gas to analyze the economic impacts of climate change. DEQ didn’t disclose any economic harm that could result from climate change. Furthermore, DEQ failed to even mention Montana-specific analyses such as the Montana Climate Assessment or economic impact studies on the impacts of climate change on Montana agriculture (Farm Connect Montana 2024) and outdoor recreation (Montana Wildlife Federation 2023).
The Western Environmental Law Center (WELC) and Earthjustice submitted 44 pages of detailed comments on behalf of MEIC and 12 other organizations and businesses that spell out the dozens of ways DEQ’s analysis gets a failing grade.*
DEQ is likely to ignore these comments the same way it ignored the Montana Supreme Court’s requirement that it analyze greenhouse gas emissions for the plant. It appears DEQ is playing a high stakes game of chicken with the future of our state, our health and Montanans’ economic well-being.
*WELC and Earthjustice submitted comments on DEQ’s inadequate analysis on behalf of Montana Environmental Information Center, Helena Interfaith Climate Advocates, Bridger Bowl, Montana Health Professionals for a Healthy Climate, Park County Environmental Council, Northern Plains Resource Council, Climate Smart Missoula, Forward Montana, MontPIRG, Families for a Livable Climate, Environmental Defense Fund, League of Women Voters, Protect Our Winters, and Sierra Club Montana Chapter.
Montanore Mine Receives FAST-41 Designation
by Derf Johnson
Earlier this year, the U.S. Forest Service released its draft environmental assessment (EA) for the proposed Montanore Mine’s newest exploration project (See the March 2025 issue of Down to Earth for a rundown). The proposed mine, owned by Idaho-based Hecla Mining since 2016, would run directly adjacent to and underneath the Cabinet Mountains Wilderness area, will likely dewater and pollute wilderness streams, and will displace endangered species including grizzly bears and bull trout. For decades, the mining company has been working to begin extracting copper and silver from deep beneath the wilderness, and for decades, MEIC and our partners have been holding it at bay.
While finalizing the EA will likely take until at least the end of the year, Pres. Donald Trump recently designated the exploration project (known as the Libby Exploration Project) under the FAST-41 program in order to grease the skids and potentially avoid a robust environmental review of this boondoggle of a mine. FAST-41, created in 2015 under the Obama Administration, is also known as the “Fixing America’s Surface Transportation” Act. It was originally created as a designation that can be applied to certain critical infrastructure projects which require an analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and are identified as important projects for national security and economic development.
Unfortunately, “critical minerals” mining proposals
were added to the list of projects available for FAST41 status in the waning days of the first Trump Administration (“Critical minerals” is a term largely used by industry to encourage expedited mining under the banner of national security and economic development). The Libby Exploration project was included in the first round of projects eligible for FAST-41 designations under the new Trump Administration this past April. This designation will allow for expedited review timelines and increased resources for the permitting process, which inevitably leads to project approvals. The Stillwater Mine — located between Bozeman and Billings — has also recently been granted FAST-41 status, and there are rumors of other Montana projects being granted the status, including coal mines (which would be a stretch to categorize as “important” for national security or economic development).
While the implications of Montanore being granted FAST-41 are not fully clear, MEIC remains very concerned about granting expedited status to an industry that is the #1 source of toxic pollution in the United States. While modern society will need certain metals as we transition to cleaner sources of energy, we do not have to and should not compromise Montanans’ health, land, air, and wildlife in the process of considering whether to permit these projects and evaluate alternatives, such as the circular economy by keeping materials in use for as long as possible and recycling.
The Cabinet Mountains. Photo by Shannon James.
Trump and Congress Try to Revive Dying Coal Industry
by Anne Hedges
As the saying goes, “the Stone Age didn’t end because we ran out of stones,” and neither are we moving away from coal because we’ve run out of coal. And yet, Pres. Donald Trump is trying to revive the dying industry with Executive Orders (EOs) and presidential pardons for toxic polluters, including coal mining corporations and NorthWestern Energy.
On his first day in office, Pres. Trump signed an EO declaring an energy emergency and directed federal agencies to do everything possible to expedite the “leasing, siting, production, transportation, refining, and generation of domestic energy resources,” particularly on federal lands. Of course, his definition of energy resources excluded the most affordable, clean, and abundant energy resources on earth today – wind and solar.
While Pres. Trump was elevating fossil fuels, he was also signing EOs targeting wind energy. One EO stopped off-shore wind projects and put the brakes on wind development across the country. His actions threatened the vibrant wind energy industry and the enormous opportunity we have for further clean energy development in Montana.
In late March, polluters were told they could email the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) requesting exemptions from toxic air pollution standards. On April 8, Pres. Trump issued another series of EOs and proclamations aimed at coal. He granted scores of industrial polluters a two-year waiver from
The Colstrip Plant's coal ash ponds are not sufficiently bonded for how much they will cost to clean up. Coal is one of the most expensive, polluting fuel sources.
toxic air pollution standards, including the Colstrip power plant, which has the highest rate of toxic emissions of any coal plant in the country. The waiver was issued with complete disregard for technology, public health, aquatic resources or wildlife. As a result, people near and downwind from the Colstrip plant will continue to experience higher levels of lead and arsenic than other coal communities in the nation. While every similar power plant in the country has already installed pollution controls limiting toxic air pollution, Montanans will pay the price of this delay with their health, water resources, aquatic life, and wildlife.
The EO didn’t just grant a two-year waiver from toxic air pollution requirements; It also directed EPA to revise the rule and eliminate the requirement that these plants reduce toxic pollution – even if they have the ability to do so. This puts Montanans’ health in the crosshairs despite technology being readily available to protect people from air toxins.
Other EOs claimed that “[c]oal is abundant and cost-effective, and can be used in any weather condition.” First, the plant is only cost-effective compared to nuclear and NorthWestern’s new goldplated methane gas plant near Laurel. The Colstrip plant is anything but cost-effective, especially when
story continues on pg. 25
Coal Mining, Signal Peak Making Moves at the Congressional Level
by Derf Johnson
The Trump Administration and the new U.S. Senate and House majorities have made no secret of their disdain for environmental protections and their apathy in tackling climate change. Elections certainly have consequences, and our democracy and environment will be reeling from the people in authority for decades to come. Pres. Trump’s slough of Executive Orders (see article on previous page) and the administration’s rollback on environmental safeguards is unprecedented. Congress, not to be outdone, is now picking up speed and jumping into the fray with a series of proposals that would roll back a number of different public health and environmental safeguards.
If passed, many of these proposals would be devastating to environmental protections and public health. Rolling back environmental protections is incredibly unpopular amongst most Americans, and thus are unlikely to reach the 60-vote threshold required to surpass the filibuster in the U.S. Senate. Instead, Congress is attempting to bypass this requirement by stuffing many of these ideas into “reconciliation,” a budgeting process that was developed to expedite the passage of critical federal budget legislation. The process only requires a simple majority for its passage in the U.S. Senate, and so there are a smattering of different riders and amendments that the majority is attempting to sneak into the reconciliation package, including provisions on energy, environmental safeguards, toxic exposure, permitting provisions, sale of public lands, and fossil fuel development.
The reconciliation package is so bad that the ranking member of the House Natural Resources Committee Rep. Jared Huffman (D-California) characterized it to Politico as “cartoonishly destructive” and “worse than anything I could have imagined” for its absurd set of proposals. Relevant to Montana, the reconciliation package would seek to authorize a massive increase in destructive and polluting coal mining on public lands, give taxpayer handouts to coal mining companies, and legislatively mandate specific coal mining projects —
including the expansion of the controversial Signal Peak / Bull Mountain Coal mine north of Billings — without having to follow the normal environmental review process.
The provisions in the House Natural Resources Committee include a requirement to force the leasing of four million acres of public lands to coal companies and for the federal Bureau of Land Management to approve this leasing regardless of the environmental review process. Another section seeks to reduce the royalty payments coal companies owe for the use of public lands for certain coal mining operations from 12.5% to 7%, which would dramatically reduce an important funding stream for state and local governments. The package would also allow for the Signal Peak coal mine — a company with an arms-length rap sheet of criminal and environmental violations — to mine federal coal by sidestepping the normal federal environmental review process.
While the full package has a long way to go before full passage in the House, the real bottleneck will be the vote in the U.S. Senate, where many of these provisions may be met with skepticism. MEIC encourages you to reach out to Montana’s Congressional delegation and tell them to vote no on these public lands and public health rollbacks.
MEIC 's Derf Johnson testified in Congress about a standalone Signal Peak proposal in 2024.
Legislative Recap: MEPA
and Water Quality Suffer Setbacks, But Session Had Some Bright Spots
by Anne Hedges & Derf Johnson
There are so many victories and losses in a single session that it is difficult to write a legislative recap. From a high level, the most significant losses involved the Legislature’s attack on the Montana Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) and the Montana Clean Air Act in order to prevent the state from considering the impacts of climate change in permit reviews (see article on pg. 14). Water resources were the target of several significant pieces of legislation, many of which were amended to be less harmful; but the ones that did pass will result in more toxic pollution and more nutrient pollution (see article on pg. 17).
All things considered, however, there were many bright spots. With 4,495 bill drafts requested, 1,759 bills introduced, and 884 bills passed, it was a busy session with quite a few victories. Montanans may have a law that allows communities to develop solar projects and share the energy produced among people who otherwise don’t have access to the benefits of cheap solar power (see article on pg. 20). Legislators also coalesced around support for new and improved transmission projects to improve the reliability of the electric system (see article on pg. 22). Oddly enough, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. had a positive impact on younger Republican legislators, causing them to speak up and vote in favor of phasing out styrofoam (unfortunately, the governor vetoed the legislation), as well as decreasing the amount of “forever chemicals” (known as PFAS) in our environment (see article on pg. 24). NorthWestern had a slew of bad bills to allow it to avoid Public Service Commission oversight, but those bills failed, as did a number of bills that would have crippled the wind industry in the state by forcing developers to pay outrageous bonds (they already are required to bond) or severely restricted the location of wind turbines (measures that would prevent developers from locating turbines anywhere in the state).
One victory revolved around HJ 61 (Rep. Joshua Seckinger, D-Bozeman), a study bill that would evaluate the rapidly rising costs of property insurance costs in Montana. Currently, Montana has one of the fastest growing costs associated with property insurance in the nation, likely due to a multitude of factors including increased home prices, inflation,
and the increasing prevalence of construction in the Wildland Urban Interface. If the study is conducted, it would also make recommendations for addressing the problem to the 2027 Montana Legislature.
Possibly the greatest victory this session, though, is the defeat of numerous measures attacking the judiciary and rule of law. Most importantly, a number of bills aimed to make judicial elections partisan in nature, but all failed to pass muster due to bi-partisan opposition. These bills would have hyper-politicized our judicial system and allowed for judges to be elected based on party affiliation rather than competence and experience. Additionally, proposals for the creation of a “general claims” or “court of chancery” failed, which would have required that constitutional challenges be brought in a special, intermediary court with justices hand-picked by the Governor (rather than elected by the people). While attempts at judicial “reform” failed this session, these bad ideas are almost certainly coming back in 2027.
MEIC’s staff is relieved the session is over and is ready to switch gears to undo the damage caused by the Legislature and to push back against the seemingly daily assault against public health and environmental protections coming our way from the chaotic and destructive federal government. We have been heartened by our members showing up again and again to testify, contact legislators, and join our weekly calls. We may have our work cut out for us going forward, but the burden is more manageable when you, our members, are in it with us.
Cartoon by John Moore, used with permission.
Pushing Against Nuclear
by Nick Fitzmaurice
In 1978, Montana voters passed an initiative to require a citizen referendum to approve any nuclear power generating facility in the state. Disappointingly, the Legislature overturned this protection in 2021. This session, the Legislature paved the way for the nuclear industry to set up shop in Montana — all without local approval.
Rep. Gary Parry (R-Colstrip) sponsored two bills to bring nuclear energy to Montana, giving legislative authorization for siting nuclear waste storage facilities (HB 623) and uranium conversion and enrichment facilities (HB 696) in Montana.
Nuclear waste can remain hazardously radioactive for tens of thousands of years, yet the U.S. has no permanent repository for spent nuclear fuel. Therefore, the waste must be stored indefinitely on-site at nuclear power plants. Meanwhile, there are only two uranium enrichment facilities and one conversion facility in the nation. Siting these facilities in Montana would promote the development of a harmful uranium extraction industry in the state (Montana has extensive uranium deposits with hundreds of inactive mine sites, particularly in the southwestern part of the state). This would also position Montana as an international hub for hazardous uranium processing and associated waste streams for imported uranium fuel headed to final destinations outside of Montana.
The entire fuel cycle for nuclear energy is highly hazardous to public health and the environment, and is disproportionately harmful to Indigenous communities. Despite this, Rep. Parry and NorthWestern Energy are hoping that Colstrip will become a nuclear hub, though the new laws would allow for such development anywhere in the state.
MEIC worked closely with members of the Montana American Indian Caucus to amend both bills to require votes of approval by people in the county where the facility would be located and by nearby Tribes. Unfortunately, after Reps. Shelly Fyant (D-Arlee) and Jade Sooktis (D-Lame Deer) successfully argued in favor of this amendment for HB 623 (which passed by a vote of 52-47 on the House floor), Rep. Parry urged the House to reject the same amendment
on HB 696. That amendment failed 48-50. The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee stripped the amendment from HB 623 at Rep. Parry’s urging. Despite a valiant effort by Sens. Susan Webber (D-Browning), Shane Morigeau (D-Missoula), and Janet Ellis (D-Helena), the amendments were rejected on the Senate floor, and both bills were signed by the Governor.
Nuclear At Colstrip?
In early May, NorthWestern Energy, the U.S. Department of Energy, and the Southeastern Montana Development Corporation held two meetings in Colstrip, claiming to have completed a technical study on bringing nuclear development to town. They neglected to provide the attendees with that study, and as of this writing, the report is not publicly available. Members of the Northern Cheyenne peppered them with questions and concerns, which the presenters were unable to answer or evaded entirely.
MEIC contends that nuclear at Colstrip is simply not necessary. A recent study from RMI (formerly Rocky Mountain Institute) outlines how renewable energy could replace the Colstrip plant: 763 megawatts (MW) of solar, 918 MW of wind, and 364 MW of battery storage could reliably replace NorthWestern’s current and proposed shares of the coal plant and save ratepayers $529 million over the next few decades. While this isn’t trivial, 5.5 gigawatts (GW) of wind,
continues on pg. 21
Rep. Shelly Fyant (D-Arlee) speaks in favor of local approval on the House floor. story
2025 MEIC Legislator Scorecard
MEIC’s Legislative Voting Record has provided objective, factual information about the most important environmental legislation for Montana legislative sessions since 1974. This year’s legislative scorecard includes critical votes on fossil fuels, land use planning, water quality,
environmental policy, pollution prevention, energy, judiciary, and government transparency. For more information about each legislator’s votes and the 17 bills we scored, visit our website: www.meic.org/billtracker/#/legislators/statescorecard
Senator Town Score
Beard, Becky Elliston 25%
Bogner, Kenneth Miles City 50%
Boldman, Ellie Missoula 92%
Cuffe, Mike Eureka 25%
Curdy, Willis Missoula 92%
Dunwell, Mary Ann Helena 100%
Ellis, Janet Helena 100%
Ellsworth, Jason Hamilton 18%
Emrich, Daniel Great Falls 33%
Esp, John Big Timber 8%
Fern, David Whitefish 75%
Flowers, Pat Belgrade 83%
Fuller, John Kalispell 17%
Galt, Wylie Martinsdale 8%
Gillespie, Bruce Ethridge 25%
Glimm, Carl Kila 17%
Harvey, Derek Butte 58%
Hayman, Denise Bozeman 100%
Hertz, Greg Polson 17%
Hunter, Gregg Glasgow 25%
Kassmier, Joshua Fort Benton 33%
Kerr-Carpenter, Emma Billings 75%
Lammers, Gayle Hardin 42%
Lenz, Dennis Billings 17%
Loge, Denley St Regis 25%
Mandeville, Forrest Columbus 17%
Manzella, Theresa Hamilton 33%
McGillvray, Tom Billings 25%
McKamey, Wendy Great Falls 42%
Morigeau, Jacinda Arlee 100%
Morigeau, Shane Missoula 91%
Neumann, Cora Bozeman 75%
Noland, Mark Bigfork 17%
Novak, Sara Anaconda 75%
Olsen, Andrea Missoula 100%
Phalen, Bob Lindsay 17%
Pope, Christopher Bozeman 75%
Regier, Matt Kalispell 8%
Ricci, Vince Billings 25%
Smith, Laura Helena 83%
Tempel, Russ Chester 58%
Tezak, Tony Ennis 17%
Trebas, Jeremy Great Falls 17%
Usher, Barry Billings 18%
Vance, Shelley Belgrade 33%
Vinton, Sue Billings 25%
Webber, Susan Browning 83%
Windy Boy, Jonathan Box Elder 92%
Yakawich, Michael Billings 17%
Zolnikov, Daniel Billings 33%
Representative Town Score
Albus, Eric Glasgow
Barker, Brad Red Lodge
Baum, Denise Billings
Bedey, David Hamilton
Bennett, Lyn Columbia Falls
Bertoglio, Marta Clancy
Brewster, Larry Billings 8%
Buttrey, Edward Great Falls 15%
Byrne, Ed Creston
Caferro, Mary Helena
Carter, Robert Missoula
Close, Brian Bozeman
Cochran, Curtis St Regis
Cohenour, Jill East Helena
Crowe, Thedis Browning
Cunningham, Melody Missoula
Darling, Julie Helena
Demarois, Scott Anaconda
Deming, Lee Laurel
Duram, Neil Eureka
Edwards, Becky Bozeman
Elverum, Pete Helena
Essmann, Sherry Billings
Etchart, Jodee Billings
Falk, Terry Kalispell 0%
Fielder, Paul Thompson Falls 0%
Fitzpatrick, John Crow Agency
Fitzpatrick, Sidney Anaconda
Fitzpatrick, Steve Great Falls
Fox, Mike Hays
France, Tom Missoula
Fyant, Shelly Arlee
Gillette, Jane Three Forks
Gist, Steve Cascade
Gregg, Randyn White Sulphur Spr.
MEPA Gets Scapegoated…Again
by Anne Hedges
When the Montana Supreme Court ruled that Montanans’ fundamental constitutional right to a clean and healthful environment includes the right to a stable climate, we knew the victory could spell trouble. When the Montana Supreme Court issued its decision in the Held v. State of Montana case in December, the legislative session was due to start just two weeks later. In Held, the court ruled that the state must consider climate change and its impacts when conducting an environmental analysis under the Montana Environmental Policy Act (MEPA).
MEPA is a 50-year-old Montana law that allows neighbors to learn the details about proposed developments in their area. This law provides the public with specifics on a project's location, environmental and social impacts, as well as information about harm to wildlife, cultural, and historic resources – such as sacred Tribal sites or other historic landmarks that could be impacted. MEPA provides everyday Montanans with the details they need to learn more about a project and how it will impact their safety, community, sacred places, or families’ health. And it allows the public to comment on the project and requires the State to respond to those comments.
MEPA has been under attack for 25 years. Time and time again, the same cast of high-paid industry lobbyists line up at the Capitol to complain — the public wants to know too much, they ask too many questions, and they demand answers from agencies
that should be catering to their employers. If these lobbyists had gotten their way sooner, we might not have mitigation solutions such as dust suppression on rural roads near industrial operations and prevention of shooting ranges next to school bus stops — and yes, these are actual examples of how MEPA has helped Montanans.
Since 2001, these same corporations have told legislators that MEPA is hampering economic development and interfering with their ability to make money. But they are wrong; there is no history of the State ever denying a project from moving forward under MEPA.
MEPA simply requires a “hard look” at the impacts and an opportunity for the public to be notified and provide input. In fact, in 2011, after signing a bill to weaken MEPA, Gov. Brian Schweitzer ordered agencies to consider how the new law would improve business development. A subsequent comprehensive look at MEPA makes no mention of lost profit or jobs, though it does conclude by saying, “Nearly everyone we spoke with suggested that to the extent that MEPA provides more information to the public and allows the public to contribute, it is a great decision-making tool.” MEPA doesn’t impair economic development; it ensures that it is done in a way that considers the people who already live there.
Two bills rose to the top of MEIC’s priority list during this session as attempts at an end run around the Department of Environmental Quality’s (DEQ)
obligation to consider climate change impacts when it issues air pollution permits for projects like power plants or oil and gas wells.
HB 285 (Rep. Brandon Ler, R-Savage) and SB 221 (Sen. Wylie Galt, R-Martinsdale) were greased from the start and flew through the process with no amendments. HB 285 repeals language from MEPA that references our constitutional right to a clean and healthful environment. It also repeals a provision that says MEPA is supposed to prevent harm, repeals language requiring consideration of long-term productivity of the land and consideration of longterm impacts from projects, and eliminates language that asserts MEPA is supposed to protect against the decline of Montana’s environment.
SB 221 tries to narrow the scope of any analysis of a project's impacts on climate change to such a degree as to make it utterly meaningless. Despite containing bizarre language that could not be interpreted by the sponsor, industry and pro-fossil fuel unions lined up to support SB 221 using the same old tropes they used to weaken MEPA in 2001 and again in 2011 — much of which has been ruled unconstitutional by the Montana
Supreme Court. Overall, the bill requires the State to ignore climate impacts even when a project will result in hundreds of millions of tons of greenhouse gas emissions.
But they didn’t stop there. Republicans have argued for years that the state cannot deny a permit under MEPA; it can only do so when issuing permits under substantive statutes like the Clean Air Act. In a preemptive move, the Legislature passed HB 291 (Rep. Greg Oblander, R-Shepard). HB 291 prevents the state from adopting any regulation for greenhouse gases that was not adopted first by the federal government. The result is that the state cannot mitigate or limit greenhouse gas emissions.
If the state cannot analyze or limit greenhouse gas emissions from industrial operations, then those who are concerned about the climate crisis have nowhere left to turn but the courts. Fortunately, the courts have consistently protected our right to a clean and healthful environment and the right to participate from such legislative attacks. Unfortunately — and by design — it takes litigation, money, and years of legal wrangling to get the court to weigh in.
These bills are ultimately a stall tactic to prevent action on the climate crisis while powerful lobbyists and politicians rake in the cash from industrial polluters. MEIC, public health advocates, and the people of this state who care about the environment, public health, and the economy will push back against these industrial robber barons. Montanans’ constitutional rights, health, and ability to protect our families and property depend on it.
Cartoon by John Moore, used with permission.
Coal Mining: Repeating Past Legislative Mistakes
by Derf Johnson
Montana’s coal mining industry pursued a number of different legislative reforms during the 69th Legislative Session. While most of these passed and were signed into law by Gov. Greg Gianforte, the changes were relatively minor in terms of environmental and water quality-related protections. However, HB 587 (Rep. Gary Parry, R-Colstrip) made very significant and problematic changes to Montana’s Surface and Underground Mine Reclamation Act (MSUMRA), the primary law regulating coal mining in Montana. If implemented, these changes could have a dramatic impact on water quantity and quality for water bodies directly adjacent to coal mines, impacting not just the environment but people who depend on water for their homes and livelihoods.
In 2023, at the request of the coal industry, the Montana Legislature passed HB 576 (Rep. Rhonda Knudsen, R-Culbertson), which dramatically changed the definition of “material damage” in MSUMRA. “Material damage” is a term used to define impermissible impacts to water quality and quantity outside of a coal mines permit boundary. Prior to HB 576, the definition included “violation of water quality standards” in the definition of material damage, meaning that coal mining companies could not violate water quality standards without causing material damage. The prohibition on violation of water quality standards was originally included in MSUMRA to protect sensitive prairie streams in eastern Montana from the dramatic impacts associated with coal strip-mining. HB 576 specifically stripped this language from the definition of material damage, with the intent of allowing for coal mining companies free reign to violate water quality standards.
Thankfully, while Montana Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) administers the coal mining program and the implementation of MSUMRA, the program must still comply with federal standards and regulations. To assure compliance, the U.S. Office of Surface Mining (OSM) reviews and rejects any changes to state standards that do not comply with minimum federal standards. OSM reviewed HB 576 and ultimately rejected the change to the definition of “material damage” this past January. With OSM’s decision, the requirement that coal mines not violate water quality standards remained intact.
Fast-forward to this session, when the coal industry took another run at changing the definition of material damage with HB 587, past precedent be damned. The definition once again removes the inclusion of water quality standards as a compliance requirement for coal mining companies, even though OSM has clearly stated that such standards must be included within state programs. HB 587 went even further by requiring an expensive statistical analysis in order to demonstrate material damage that is “measured to a significant degree of confidence.” The “degree of confidence” required is not defined or further explained in the legislation and will almost certainly lead to mischief from the coal industry.
While HB 587 went into effect immediately, it cannot be enforced by the DEQ unless and until OSM approves of the changes through the review process. While past precedent should be a guide for how OSM decides to consider this significant change, there is a possibility that the Trump Administration’s OSM may develop a different interpretation for the requirements under material damage.
This simple definition is incredibly significant for assuring that eastern Montana’s water quality is protected, especially as the coal industry continues to recede and yield to cheaper and cleaner energy sources. As part of OSM’s review process, there will be a comment period and potentially a hearing on the change, perhaps as soon as this summer. Be on the lookout for information on how you can engage, so that we can all raise our voices to OSM and request that it protect Montana’s water in the face of destructive coal mining practices.
Water Quality Takes a Bruising This Session
by Derf Johnson
Protecting Montana’s water quality is an essential part of preserving Montana’s environment, cultural values, and economic prosperity. Water is absolutely the lifeblood of this semi-arid state, and the critical ingredient for assuring that Montanans continue to prosper and enjoy our home. Unfortunately, once again, the Montana Legislature has kowtowed to strong industry lobbyists and bent the knee to the polluters at the expense of clean water for all. In particular, two major changes to Montana water quality laws could have dramatic, long-lasting impacts on Montana’s water quality — and the people that depend on it.
HB 664 (Rep. Bill Mercer, R-Billings) once again attempts to repeal Montana’s numeric standard for nutrient pollution in water bodies. These standards were adopted in 2014 and were developed after nearly a decade of stakeholder involvement and science to determine the correct water quality standards that would be needed in order to protect the beneficial uses of our waterways — which include swimming, drinking, and fishing — from the harms caused by excessive nutrients in the water such as algae blooms that choke out aquatic life. Nutrients generally find their way into waterways through failing septic systems, law care, and agricultural runoff. Unfortunately, due to pressure from municipalities and industry, these standards have been under attack for several years. In 2021, the Montana Legislature passed SB 358 (Sen. John Esp, R-Big Timber), which tried to entirely repeal Montana’s numeric standards and direct the Montana Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) to conduct a rulemaking and develop a narrative standard and adaptive management plan. Fortunately, the change to the law was rejected by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as it was deemed to not comply with the federal Clean Water Act.
Over the following years, DEQ and its nutrient working group conducted a stakeholder process and ultimately a rule package for the implementation of narrative standards through an adaptive management plan. Unfortunately, those proposed regulations fell
short of protecting water quality and were ultimately disfavored by virtually all of the interests that they would impact. Instead of proceeding with the regulations, DEQ chose to shelve the rules and instead supported an entire repeal of the numeric water quality standards this session. The difference this time? There is no plan required or in place for a replacement standard to protect Montana’s water quality.
This places DEQ and the state of Montana in an incredibly precarious situation. Not only is the state repealing protective water quality standards and compromising our water resources, but it is potentially risking primacy over the regulation of nutrients by failing to comply with federal standards. Without a state program to “implement, administer, enforce and maintain,” the state could lose the ability to run its own water quality program. Ultimately, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency will review and approve or reject this change, and MEIC will be intricately involved in that process.
Additionally, the Legislature passed and Gov. Greg Gianforte signed HB 685 (Rep. Steve Fitzpatrick, R-Great Falls), which “waters down” Montana’s nondegradation policy — a law that protects highquality waters in Montana from pollution degradation. The bill changes the name of the policy to “feasibility allowance,” contemplating pollution management through an allowance of pollutants instead of the prevention of pollutants. Further, it eliminates a requirement that the DEQ fully evaluate the costs of pollution in a proposal to degrade (such as impacts to the environment and society) while still requiring that DEQ conduct an analysis of the associated benefits (such as jobs and payroll from a particular polluting project). This one-sided approach will almost certainly weaken Montana’s water quality protections for projects that are looking for an “authorization to degrade” — or rather, now “an allowable pollutant load.” Montana’s waters will almost certainly suffer as a result, and so MEIC will be bird-dogging this change as we move toward implementation.
Sustainable Communities in the Legislature: It Could Have Been Worse
by Laura Collins
Now that the 69th Montana State Legislature has wrapped up, here’s the rundown of some of the most notable outcomes in the land use arena.
Defeating the Private Property Protection Act and Related Legislation
Early in the session, Sen. Becky Beard (R-Elliston) sponsored a bill drafted by development interests that would have blocked local governments’ ability to regulate land use
in favor of the unregulated use of property, except in instances of overt health and safety hazards. This shortsighted bill would have rolled back decades of wellestablished growth management and environmental safeguards — the foundations of land use planning. After intense lobbying by conservation interests, SB 146 failed second reading in the Senate by only one vote. Fortunately, it also failed reconsideration in a tie vote.
Multiple bills — two of which were sponsored by Rep. Jedediah Hinkle (R-Belgrade) — supported the same unregulated use of property. HB 658 sought to remove local governments’ authority to enforce sanitation regulations stricter than state law, including in sensitive groundwater management areas. It also would have prohibited local governments from requiring septic systems to be updated when a property changed uses, even if the new use would have been beyond the system’s capacity.
Next, Rep. Hinkle introduced HB 899 to undermine local government’s ability to prohibit county growth policies from referencing agricultural protections or “sensitive lands.” This would exclude any mention of wildlife habitat, scenic views, and other resources a community might want to protect, but the bill’s language was so vague it could have prohibited numerous considerations.
Thankfully, HB 658 was tabled in the Senate and, in another close call, HB 899 failed on third reading on the House Floor.
Exempt Well Bills Failed After Bad Amendments
Last year, a court order invalidated Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation’s (DNRC) practice of administering and regulating exempt wells. In response, Sen. Wylie Galt (R-Martinsdale) introduced SB 358, which was the result of compromises between stakeholders representing conservation, developers, well drillers, realtors, stock growers, and municipalities. While MEIC opposed the bill as introduced, we believed amendments could have made the bill acceptable. Unfortunately, the series of amendments that did arise dramatically modified the bill in such a way that it became unpalatable for MEIC and our conservation partners.
DNRC’s exempt well loophole to the water rights system has led to haphazard and unplanned growth, water pollution, and the drawdown of critical aquifers. The bill would have required metering for new water appropriations and for DNRC to monitor exempt uses. It also included a public petition process to evaluate any aquifer for water quantity shortages, which would have potentially excluded exempt wells from being permitted in these aquifers.
In the end, MEIC opposed the bill due to a number of persistent loopholes, such as allowing developers greater water appropriation for subdivisions of up to 24
MEIC 's Laura Collins testifies at a hearing during the 2025 Legislative Session. Photo by Jim Sayer.
lots. The fact is that almost no interest group was satisfied with the proposal, and the bill died on the Senate floor.
Prioritizing People, Not Cars
There were several promising bills to make cities more walkable, transit-oriented, and more densely housed. Before HB 764 (Rep. Brian Close, D-Bozeman), a transportation district could only be created or expanded through a citizen-led petition effort. After HB 764’s passage, County Commissioners will now be able to initiate the process, relieving the burden from the citizens. HB 764 also allows a district to be expanded to communities beyond the previous limits when funding is available or when a city-county interlocal agreement requires it. This is a fantastic win for increasing access to transportation in both urban and rural communities.
HB 492 (Rep. Katie Zolnikov, R-Billings) relaxed mandatory parking requirements that some municipalities mandate for new projects. Decades of excessive parking requirements have led to a surplus of land dedicated solely to parking, constraining land available for residential and mixed-use development. Car-centric development reduces a community’s walkability and harms its character. Often, residents and tourists’ favorite places to visit are designed for people, not cars. HB 492 is a big step towards a less car-centric and more people-friendly Montana.
Family Transfer Loophole Persists
It wouldn’t be the Montana State Legislature without at least one attempt to open up subdivision exemptions for more abuse. The most abused provision in the subdivision law is the family transfer exemption, which allows developers to give subdivided lots to immediate family members who may then sell them to a third party, all without government review. HB 714 (Rep. Larry Brewster, R-Billings) would have increased the abuse of this exemption by reducing local governments’
authority to deny family transfer applications even when there is a preponderance of evidence that the applicant intended to evade subdivision review. It also tried to expand the definition of immediate family to include siblings, grandparents, and grandchildren —a change that would have resulted in an increase in lots being exempted from local review. Thankfully, HB 714 was amended to remove these two egregious provisions and ultimately passed as a somewhat benign bill, that even has some redeeming qualities.
On the flip side, SB 477 (Sen. Theresa Manzella, R-Hamilton) would have improved local governments’ ability to curtail family transfer abuses, but it was unfortunately tabled in committee.
Exempting Subdivisions from MEPA Review
While the worst bills failed to cross the finish line, one truly concerning bill became law.
SB 258 (Sen. Forrest Mandeville, R-Columbus) removes the requirement that the state Department of Environmental Quality must comply with the Montana Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) when it reviews a subdivision’s sanitation system.
Sen. Mandeville argued that the MEPA process is duplicative of state sanitation review. Unfortunately, this reasoning does not acknowledge the important differences between the two review processes. While subdivisions are subject to review under the Sanitation in Subdivisions Act, this review only assesses the sitespecific conditions of the specific development. It does not consider a development’s potential cumulative impacts that may occur due to development in the surrounding area, including impacts to water quality. The cumulative impacts are only considered under MEPA review. Under this new law, those cumulative impacts will no longer be considered. This is a major concern for our right to a clean and healthful environment.
Legislators Tapped Out on Energy
by Nick Fitzmaurice
MEIC is taking stock of changes in the energy landscape coming out of the Legislative Session. Here’s a rundown of the energy bills MEIC was tracking.
Renewable Energy
Possibly the greatest proactive win for clean energy this session would be the passage of SB 188 (Sen. Chris Pope, D-Bozeman), the Montana Solar Shares Act. As of this writing, the bill has not yet made it to the Governor’s desk, where it will have to clear its final hurdle to becoming law. SB 188 would enable households and businesses to subscribe to shares in a community solar generation project and receive monthly credits on power bills. The benefits of solar would be made available to households and businesses who otherwise cannot invest in their own solar array due to property limitations, status as renters, or financial constraints. This legislative success would not have been achieved without the incredible leadership of MEIC’s partners at the Montana Renewable Energy Association and the Northern Plains Resource Council.
Clean energy also saw other wins, including the codification of solar consumer protections in HB 760 (Rep. George Nikolakakos, R-Great Falls). Another good bill is HB 31 (Rep. Neil Duram, R-Eureka), which clarifies and refines wind and solar bonding and decommissioning requirements.
The anti-wind sentiment encountered in the first half of the session was mostly assuaged in the second half. Sen. Bob Pahlen’s (R-Lindsay) anti-wind SB 160, SB 283, and SB 505 all stayed dead, as did HB 389
(Rep. Brandon Ler, R-Savage). These bills would have been so restrictive, they would have driven the wind industry out of the state. HB 915 (Rep. Jerry Schillinger, R-Circle), which would have doubled the property tax rate on wind generation facilities, did not make it out of committee in the House. As a concession, Rep. Katie Zolnikov (R-Billings) was able to pass HB 939 with some reasonable setback requirements between wind turbines and occupied residences.
NorthWestern’s Wish List for Planning & Regulation
In addition to its shenanigans on data centers (see article on pg. 23), there were a few other bills that addressed concerns of NorthWestern. HB 55 (Rep. Gary Parry, R-Colstrip) was the result of a special legislative interim committee proposed by NorthWestern Energy in the 2023 Legislative Session. As introduced, the bill contained a long list of problems, largely related to public participation and transparency in NorthWestern’s Integrated Resource Planning (IRP) process. MEIC worked extensively to secure amendments that addressed our concerns. The final bill improves public participation and transparency, while creating additional oversight for NorthWestern’s acquisition of new energy resources.
HB 490 (Rep. Amy Regier, R-Kalispell), NorthWestern Energy’s wildfire liability bill, was improved by amendments but remains fatally flawed. It requires the unqualified Montana Public Service Commission (PSC) to approve a utility’s fire mitigation plan if it is “in the public interest,” but it doesn’t give the PSC sufficient time or resources to conduct that review. It also shields the utility from significant liability if it causes a wildfire because they can only be held liable if they didn’t follow the best practices of similar utilities in Montana, thereby barring comparisons to
Turbines in Big Timber are safe from aggressive legislation... for now. Photo by Bradley Wyss.
better utility management in other states. Essentially, if NorthWestern’s actions caused a fire — like the one it caused that burned down the town of Denton — NorthWestern’s actions cannot be compared to more reasonable and responsible utilities that made efforts to prevent such catastrophes.
Electric Vehicles & Public Transportation
As always, bills addressing electric vehicles (EVs) and transportation were a mixed bag.
HJ 12 (Rep. Randyn Gregg, R-White Sulphur Springs) was a resolution fraught with misinformation about EVs. After a spirited hearing, it languished and eventually died in the committee. SB 228 (Sen. Denley Loge, R-Saint Regis) started out as a clean-up bill for the Senator’s 2023 EV bills (HB 55 and HB 60). Unfortunately, the bill was amended to eliminate a 30% registration fee reduction that was supposed to go into effect in 2028 to address a double taxation of EVs. Transportation bills fared a little better. SJ 19 (Sen. Andrea Olsen, D-Missoula) creates an interim study on improving public transportation in Montana. HB 764 (Rep. Brian Close, D-Bozeman) will make it easier to create or expand urban transportation districts on the initiative of a local Commissioner (see article on pg. 18). Unfortunately, the bill to support Big Sky Passenger Rail Authority’s (BSPRA) revival of
passenger rail across southern Montana failed on the Senate floor. HB 848 (Rep. Denise Baum, D-Billings) would have appropriated $2 million each year for the project, which has received numerous grants and broad support in Montana.
Other Energy Bills
HB 326 (Rep. Gary Parry, R-Colstrip), as originally written, 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). This bill was resurrected after transmittal with amendments to leave the coal severance tax alone and apply a 2% “severance tax” on non-coal energy generation only to thankfully fail second reading on the House floor shortly after.
Unfortunately, HB 122 (Rep. Larry Brewster, R-Billings) passed, overriding local jurisdictions by giving utilities default public right-of-way access for dangerous gas pipeline development. Another rotten resolution that snuck through was HJ 17 (Rep. Steve Fitzpatrick, R-Great Falls), which calls for an end to effectively all federal environmental rules and regulations pertaining to our energy system.
HJ 54 (Rep. Seekins-Crowe, R-Billings) was a late and baffling resolution that would have encouraged harmful garbage incineration for energy production. Luckily, it died on the Senate Floor.
Nuclear ( continued from page 11)
34 GW of solar, and 13 GW of batteries of utility-scale resources came online in the U.S. last year alone. That’s orders of magnitude higher than is needed to replace the Colstrip plant, and considering Montana has the second-highest wind generation potential and fourthhighest solar generation potential in the nation, this replacement power is well-within reach.
The renewed fervor surrounding nuclear energy is bolstered by big promises from industry and billions of dollars in subsidies and marketing support from the federal government. However, the technology has yet to live up to the hype. Vogtle (the only nuclear plant built in the United States in over three decades) took 15 years to build — almost twice as long as scheduled — with a final price tag of $36.8 billion, 163% over
the original projection of $14 billion. Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) are no exception. NuScale’s flagship project for the only SMR design licensed for commercial operation by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission was cancelled in 2023 after cost projections more than tripled from $3 billion to $9.3 billion.
We need to bring carbon-free power online today, not 10 to 15 years down the road. We also need to listen to Indigenous communities that would be impacted by any proposed facility, and we certainly don’t need to saddle Montanans with billions of dollars in unnecessary costs and highly radioactive waste streams to manage in perpetuity. These bills are bad for Montana, but MEIC will continue fighting for a clean, just, and affordable energy future.
Transmission Makes Progress in Helena
by Nick Fitzmaurice & Anne Hedges
MEIC has been saying for years: you can’t transition without transmission. Without wires to move electricity from our abundant renewable wind and solar energy sources to where there is demand for carbon-free electricity, these projects cannot be built. This was a fantastic legislative session for electric transmission, which so far continues to enjoy broad bipartisan support as an essential precursor to reliable and affordable electricity. MEIC worked hard all session to craft, amend, and guide much of this legislation across the finish line.
HJ 15 (Rep. Greg Kmetz, R-Miles City) passed unanimously in the Senate, and with only one dissenting vote in the House. This resolution lays out the need for additional electric transmission capacity in Montana and the region to ensure affordable and reliable electricity service in the state. It will now be sent to key decision-makers so they understand the bipartisan statewide support for increased transmission capacity in Montana. SJ 12 (Sen. Gregg Hunter, R-Glasgow) also passed resoundingly. SJ 12 is a study resolution to explore the economic damages incurred by current congestion on Montana’s interstate
transmission system. A complementary resolution supported by MEIC, SJ 21 (Sen. Daniel Zolnikov, R-Billings), also passed. It requests the state to study possibilities for interstate coordination on transmission projects.
Two more substantive transmission bills also passed resoundingly. SB 355 (Sen. Wylie Galt, R-Martinsdale) enables beneficial competition for transmission development in eastern Montana by repealing Montana Dakota Utilities’ right of first refusal for electric transmission infrastructure. SB 301 (Sen. Daniel Zolnikov, R-Billings) started as an awful bill from NorthWestern Energy, introducing tremendous confusion into the transmission development process while leaving customers on the hook for any excessive and unnecessary utility investments into transmission. MEIC and others secured extensive amendments, turning the bill into a helpful pre-approval process to expedite transmission development, while ensuring that proper environmental analyses are conducted and that the Public Service Commission (PSC) retains the right to disallow rate recovery for imprudently incurred costs. MEIC will engage in the rulemaking process at the PSC in the coming year as it irons out the bill’s implementation.
Montana’s electric grid is split into two parts: The electric transmission infrastructure in the western twothirds of the state is connected to the western grid of the U.S., and the transmission infrastructure in eastern Montana is connected to the eastern grid. These two grids divide the country from Canada to Texas with very little connectivity and unsynchronized frequencies. Straddling these separate systems and with limited connectivity across state borders, Montana is severely limited in its ability to move large amounts of power across the state and to trade power with utilities in other states. Bills that passed this session indicate that many Montana decision-makers agree: Montana needs more transmission.
The Data Center Development Gold Rush Has Reached Montana
by Ben Catton
While data center projects may appear promising at first glance — touting the potential for economic growth and infrastructure investment — the processes that safeguard our environment, electricity bills, public health, and infrastructure are being trampled by these overeager juggernauts of “opportunity.” For instance, ButteSilver Bow County Commissioners voted in mid-April to approve the sale of 606 acres of land to Horizons Montana, an LLC owned by Sabey Data Centers with only a few days’ notice. One commissioner, Bill Anderson, pressed for more time to allow public input, but his concerns were ultimately ignored.
In December, NorthWestern Energy cheerily announced plans to supply 400 megawatts of electricity to two data centers beginning in 2026 and 2027. NorthWestern’s current annual load is 750 average megawatts, making this proposal a more than 50% increase in annual demand for energy. The announcement rightfully raised concerns across the state, including from the Montana Public Service Commission (PSC).
The PSC sent a letter to NorthWestern regarding this proposal, reminding the utility that the PSC is legally obligated to oversee such significant changes to Montana’s utility services. They wanted to know if NorthWestern intended to comply with its legal obligations and request permission from the PSC. NorthWestern effectively brushed them off. Instead, NorthWestern had two bills introduced — HB 877 and HB 911, both sponsored by Rep. John Fitzpatrick (R-Anaconda) — that attempted to bypass PSC oversight of public utilities entering into contracts with data centers and other industrial operations. HB 877 would have eliminated the PSC’s ability to protect existing utility customers when NorthWestern makes deals to provide power to data centers, and HB 911 would have allowed NorthWestern to create an unregulated shell company that would serve power to
large customers,with little PSC oversight to protect existing customers. Fortunately, both bills failed.
Data centers are not traditional commercial enterprises. Their energy and water demands are far beyond what most of our current infrastructure is designed to handle, and they often return far less to the local economy than expected. In April, the Texas Senate unanimously passed legislation that would regulate data center and utility relationships. The legislation addresses concerns around transmission cost recovery, grid load forecasting, and outage protections for residential consumers. If a state with hundreds of data centers is trying to add protections retroactively, Montanans should learn from their experience. HJ 46 (Rep. Millet, R-Marion) was a study resolution that would have examined similar issues. Unfortunately the Republicans on the Senate Energy Committee torpedoed the study.
Data centers receive one of the lowest property tax rates in Montana (0.9%), and HB 424 (Rep. Katie Zolnikov, R-Billings), which cleared the Legislature, will extend that low tax rate to any new power-generating facility connected to a data center. Unfortunately, this means that data centers won’t provide much tax benefit to the communities they occupy. Data centers also can extend the life of fossil fuel plants to power their computers and cool their buildings, use enormous volumes of water resources, and result in existing ratepayers subsidizing their energy generation and transmission system costs. Utilities and data center owners (think Meta, Amazon and Google) have immense political sway, and across the country, they are successfully lobbying for less regulation and less oversight of artificial intelligence (AI) and cryptocurrency operations, with tax breaks for both. These data center proposals should be scrutinized closely. Communities shouldn’t hand over so much power — be it electrical or political — to projects that can result in higher electricity bills for existing utility customers and little tax revenue for local and state governments.
Concerns Around Microplastics and PFAS Creates Coalitions
by Ben Catton
Despite the legislature doing the right thing to address the harmful impacts of polystyrene (Styrofoam) and the heroic efforts by sponsor Rep. Marilyn Marler (D-Missoula), the Governor cynically vetoed HB 477. The bill aimed to phase out Styrofoam single-use food containers. After passing both legislative chmbers, it was on track to become a landmark piece of consumer protection and environmental legislation. Sadly, Gov. Greg Gianforte vetoed the bill, calling it “government overreach” and citing his personal appreciation for styrofoam’s insulative properties on his coffee.
His self-serving rationale ignored polystyrene’s impacts to human health and the environment. Styrofoam is non-biodegradable and non-recyclable, and it takes 500 years to break down in landfills. Styrene (a chemical in Styrofoam) leaches into foods and drinks, exposure to which can cause irritation of the skin, eyes and respiratory tract and gastrointestinal problems. Chronic exposure affects the nervous system, causing symptoms like depression, headache, fatigue and weakness, and minor effects on kidney function and blood. Styrofoam strains our waste systems. It breaks apart and looks like food to wildlife, which can get sick and die from eating it.
Eleven states have prohibited the use of styrofoam food containers. If Montana had joined that list, it would have been the first “red state” to do so — showing that Montanans of all stripes have more of an appetite for reasonable consumer protections than they do for eating microplastics and toxins. Rep. Marler and Sen. Shane Morigeau (D-Missoula) worked tirelessly across the aisle to find reasonable solutions for this issue.
The sector of the Republican caucus that identifies with the “Make America Healthy Again” movement, led by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., is increasingly concerned about pollution, especially as it relates to food and human health. In addition, microplastics and “forever chemicals” (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, a.k.a. PFAS) are so pervasive in our environment, that concerns around them are also reaching a fever pitch. That opening allowed for coalition-building across party lines to tackle the problem of styrofoam food containers, and it allowed for the passage of HJ 44 (Rep. Zach Wirth, R-Wolf Creek), a study resolution
cup that said "VETO"
Naturally, many in support of the bill took to the internet to express their displeasure, including this satirical, altered image.
focused on endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) and PFAS impacts on Montana water quality. This study will allow lawmakers to identify exposure routes, map contamination risks, and explore scientifically grounded solutions — including remediation strategies, product labeling, use restrictions, and legal mechanisms for accountability.
Montanans have deep appreciation for our public lands, clean water, and healthy soils, and most recognize that stewardship is a necessary value to maintain these resources. We hope to see this coalition-building continue in spite of a few bad actors.
Despite bipartisan and small business support, Gov. Greg Gianforte vetoed HB 477 and posted a video of him drinking out of a Styrofoam
on the side.
After More Than a Decade, Legislature Passes Indigenous Peoples ’ Day
by Katy Spence
In perhaps one of the best examples of persistence at the Legislature, Rep. Shane Morigeau’s (D-Missoula) SB 224 has passed and been signed into law, enshrining Indigenous Peoples’ Day on the second Monday in October.
Legislation to establish a state-recognized holiday for Indigenous Peoples' Day has been introduced for at least the last six sessions, so its approval is long overdue in a state that is home to 12 Tribes and seven reservations. While this is not yet federally recognized, Montana joins 17 states that celebrate the holiday.
Many individuals and groups rallied in support of this bill, including the Montana American Indian Movement, Red Medicine LLC, and Western Native Voice. MEIC was proud to support this bill this year and in years past.
Executive Orders ( continued from pg.
you consider the annual cost of fuel, maintenance, and operations, and eventual cost of cleanup. The EO also ignores the Colstrip plant’s abysmal record of operations during times of extreme weather. In recent years, the plant has been partially or entirely offline during extreme weather events, costing customers a fortune because NorthWestern had to buy power from the market when it was the most expensive.
Some of the EOs try to claim that reopening closed coal plants or extending the life of uneconomic plants is a matter of “energy security.” But these EOs encourage the overseas sale of coal and do nothing to stop the flow of oil and gas resources to overseas markets. If energy security were the concern, the orders would have mandated increased production of renewable energy resources and prohibited the export of coal, oil, and gas. But instead, the orders did the opposite.
One of the EOs directed the Department of Interior (DOI) to prioritize and expedite coal leasing on public lands despite the dramatic decline in coal production over the last 20 years due to competition with cleaner resources. In response, the Interior Secretary issued orders to the agency to approve the environmental impact statement for new coal mine expansions within
8)
28 days, ignoring the time it takes to determine baseline conditions, analyze water resources, consider community impacts and concerns, or protect public health and water resources.
There have even been rumors of EOs that would target nonprofits that work on environmental issues, promote climate action, or oppose the bolstering of the coal industry. Rest assured that, in the case of such an EO, MEIC will continue to advocate for clean air, clean water, sustainable communities, justice, and a livable climate. We will speak out against those who weaponize authority, and we stand firmly united with our fellow environmentalists and nonprofit advocates who work to provide vital services across this country.
Ultimately, these energy EOs are just a wishlist for an uncompetitive industry and a power-hungry administration. Most of the published orders will be implemented through rules adopted by the EPA and DOI. These and future rules will be subject to judicial challenge where courts will hopefully hold the administration in check and require it to comply with the laws adopted by Congress and signed by previous Presidents.
Keeping the Momentum
by Shannon James
The 2025 Montana Legislative Session has officially wrapped, and needless to say, the MEIC team is ready for a well-earned moment of rest and recovery. But even as we catch our breath, one truth remains clear: the work doesn’t stop here. Protecting Montana’s clean air, clean water, and stable climate is a year-round commitment.
With the current presidential administration pursuing widespread deregulation, the path forward often feels like an uphill battle. Environmental rollbacks are piling up at the federal level, threatening hard-won protections and undermining public trust. In moments like these, it’s easy to feel overwhelmed. But it’s exactly in these moments that we must pause, reflect, and recognize every victory — no matter how small. Because movement-building isn’t about instant transformation; it’s about persistence, unity, and celebrating each step forward. And this year, Montanans showed up.
The final stretch of the Legislative Session was packed with rallies, Earth Day events, and passionate grassroots energy. One standout moment for our small nonprofit came when MEIC’s Anne Hedges took the stage to open the “Fight the Oligarchy” rally in Missoula ahead of speakers like Tracy StoneManning, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and Sen. Bernie Sanders (pictured). On a Tuesday afternoon, more than 9,000 Montanans packed the venue and gathered outside, coming together to push back against unchecked corporate power, systemic greed, and growing political corruption. It was a reminder of the power in collective action.
Building power starts in our communities. It starts with people showing up, making calls, testifying at hearings, writing letters, knocking doors, and supporting one another. The bills we tracked this session generated tens of thousands of grassroots actions — phone calls, public comments, and citizen advocacy that made a real impact. And the work continues.
There are several critical opportunities ahead for Montanans to stay engaged and make an impact. From June 9-20, the Public Service Commission will hold hearings on NorthWestern Energy’s rate case, a vital chance for the public to speak out on issues of affordability, fairness, and the urgent need to transition to clean energy. Later this fall, NorthWestern’s
Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) will open for public comment. This long-term energy blueprint determines what types of energy infrastructure Montana invests in, what sources power our homes and businesses, and what kind of energy future we leave for the next generation. Meanwhile, at the federal level, we must remain vigilant and united in opposing regulatory rollbacks that threaten the air we breathe, the water we drink, our public lands, and our shared climate. MEIC will let you know when the time is right for you to weigh in and raise your voice.
We face immense challenges. But we also have incredible opportunities. Clean energy technology is more affordable and more accessible than ever. Montana has incredible wind and solar potential. We could be generating good-paying jobs, lowering electricity costs for families, and reducing pollution in our communities. The path to a more sustainable and equitable future is possible. That’s why MEIC is committed to keeping the momentum going with your help.
Longtime MEIC supporter Mindy Ferrell understands the power of collective action. A dedicated community organizer and staunch defender of Montana’s constitution, Mindy values MEIC’s role in shaping civic engagement.
“MEIC has been the gold standard when it comes to civic education, legislative engagement, and outreach. I look to them as a model for active citizenship,” Mindy said. “They’ve built a strong, dedicated audience, and I hope that momentum goes beyond the legislative session. We need to keep showing up and staying engaged to make a meaningful impact throughout the state.”
The road ahead is long, but Montanans have never shied away from hard work. This movement is growing. And together, we are just getting started.
Playing Defense and Offense
by Anne Hedges
Each session, MEIC’s staff works harder and harder to keep up with the ever-increasing flurry of drafted and introduced bills. We help pass good bills, as well as amend and clarify bills that are well-intentioned but poorly-worded or have unintended consequences. We also work to defeat proposals that would upend our constitutional rights, undermine public health, veil government decisions in secrecy, or benefit polluting corporations at the expense of everyday Montanans and the land, air and water on which life depends.
But what you might not know is how many bills that MEIC works to have introduced. Two of MEIC’s proposals passed and are described in more detail earlier in this newsletter (a resolution supporting transmission and a resolution asking for a study of wildfire insurance issues). Both of these bills had strong bipartisan support.
But even when they don’t pass, we find this process to be an important means for education on our priority issues. For example, MEIC worked with Rep. Katie Sullivan (D-Missoula), Public Service Commissioner Annie Bukacek and a number of MEIC supporters to introduce a bill to require a smidgeon of transparency regarding data center energy use. Although it ultimately failed, it became a catalyst for the letter the PSC sent to NorthWestern Energy regarding its proposed data center load (see article on pg. 23).
We worked with Rep. George Nikolakakos (R-Great Falls) to introduce a resolution supporting renewable energy. Although the resolution did not pass, it created an opportunity to educate the House Energy & Telecommunications Committee of the benefits of renewable energy in Montana. HJ 8 (Rep. Becky Edwards, D-Bozeman), a study resolution on addressing the unfair tax and fee system for EV’s compared to fossil fuel powered vehicles, provided a similar opportunity.
No session is complete without discussing the opencut permitting process. A 2021 amendment to the law eliminated protection of water and air resources, limits on operating hours, lighting restrictions, and public participation requirements. Sens. Pat Flowers (D-Belgrade) and Shane Morigeau (D-Missoula) brought bills to correct some of the most egregious harm. People from across the state provided outstanding
testimony on the harmful impacts of the current permitting and appeal system, but the Senate rejected these bills after hearing self-serving mistruths from the developers.
That led MEIC to introduce another bill thanks to Sen. Janet Ellis (D-Helena) to allow any party challenging an environmental permit to go to district court instead of going to the Board of Environmental Review (BER). The BER is dysfunctional. It rarely meets, often cancels meetings, contains few attorneys, and can take over nine years to rule on a permit appeal. As one opponent admitted, it works as intended. It delays resolution of cases until long after the project is built and operating. While the bill was defeated, legislators and Department of Environmental Quality admitted the problem needs to be addressed.
MEIC worked on many bills to increase the public’s right to know and helped Rep. Ed Staffman (D-Bozeman) to introduce HB 271. While the Legislature approved the bill to limit the Governor’s ability to keep information from the public, unfortunately the Governor vetoed the bill.
MEIC works not only to prevent harmful legislation from passing, but also to try and improve the law and legislators’ understanding of important issues. MEIC staff do this with joy, laughter, frustration, anger, and strategy. I couldn’t be prouder to work with a team of talented individuals who care so much and work so hard to improve the world in which we live. For them and for you, our members who support us every step of the way, I am grateful.
MEIC 's 2025 Lobbying Team from left to right: Shannon James, Laura Collins, Nick Fitzmaurice, Anne Hedges, Ben Catton, and Derf Johnson.
P.O. Box 1184 Helena, MT 59624
