MEIC exists on the edge of government and its operations. If you boil down our dayto-day, a substantial portion is the pickand-shovel work of document review in order to hold the government accountable. It requires regular communication with government officials, accessing and reviewing enormous volumes of documents, attending meetings, and lobbying state officials. Quite simply, this is how we do our jobs. It’s certainly not always glamorous or something we slap on a glossy fundraising letter, but it’s an incredibly important aspect of how MEIC protects our land, water, and climate.
Thankfully, in Montana, we are afforded with strong constitutional rights that guarantee the public access to government. Specifically, Article II, Sections 8 & 9 guarantee the public an “opportunity for citizen participation in the operation of the agencies” and “the right to examine documents or to observe the deliberations of” the government. We use these rights to assure that we understand the implications of everything from rulemakings to permit decisions to draft legislation. Without it, we’d be left in the dark on incredibly impactful decisions and issues that will have serious consequences. When push comes to shove, we also defend these rights in court.
Case in point: back when Steve Bullock was governor, the Montana Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) declared that Hecla Mining, the owner of the proposed Montanore Mine (see article on pg. 24), was a “bad actor.” Hecla’s CEO was a former executive of Pegasus Gold, the company that left a number of underbonded toxic disasters across the state and declared bankruptcy. The Bullock Administration was even sued by Hecla for this designation and had to defend itself right up until Gov. Bullock left office. Once Gov. Greg Gianforte came into office, DEQ dropped the case. Why would Montana’s government let a “bad actor” company off the hook when it causes tens of millions of dollars in taxpayer funds to go to reclamation that the company caused and then failed to reclaim?
Something smelled, and MEIC submitted a records request to the Governor’s office on its decision to drop the “bad actor” designation. After much stonewalling
and a refusal to provide the public documents, MEIC took them to court. The district court agreed with MEIC, finding that Gov. Gianforte’s office had improperly denied our records request and ordered them to provide the documents. However, the judge denied MEIC’s request for attorney’s fees in the matter, which MEIC then appealed. In its order establishing that there is a “presumption” for awarding attorney’s fees when the government improperly denies a records request, the Montana Supreme Court succinctly stated that:
When a party succeeds in litigation based on a right to know request, it has performed a public service in ensuring that Montana’s government is appropriately transparent and accountable to the people. Such cases serve a critical role in developing Montanans' fundamental right to know...
For citizens to be able to enforce the provisions against the government, litigation must be accessible; for litigation to be accessible, there should be a basic presumption towards awarding attorney’s fees when the party seeking to enforce the right to know has prevailed on the merits...
This presumption is not a novelty imagined at the whims of this Court; it is part of the fabric of the right to know which has been errantly lost to an unboundedly deferential standard that allowed for results fundamentally at odds with the Constitution. A presumption towards fees echoes the textual presumption towards disclosure and ensures that future decisions serve to strengthen the right, not to disincentivize public engagement.
Rights can’t enforce themselves. When the government improperly denies a records request, there must be consequences. Otherwise, the government is untethered from its accountability to the people of Montana and is not incentivized to provide documents that are often incredibly important for people’s lives and liberties as well as Montana’s environment.
This award-winning victory was hard-fought and was the product of the expert litigation skills of Rob Farris-Olsen and Kim Wilson of the Helena law firm Morrison, Sherwood, Wilson, & Deola as well as Derf Johnson with MEIC (see article on pg. 7).
Bull Mountain Coal Mine Gets Sweetheart Deal from Feds
by Derf Johnson
The new federal government, led by Pres. Donald Trump — as well as Montana’s congressional delegation — is hell-bent on doing everything it can to prop up fossil fuels and undermine the clean energy transition. Pres. Trump’s Executive Orders were issued fast and furious in his first months in office, a slew of legislation has been introduced in Congress to roll-back basic environmental standards, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is priding itself on instituting the largest “regulatory rollback” in history.
These consequences are now being felt on the ground here in Montana, most noticeably at the Bull Mountains coal mine near Roundup. Bull Mountains, operated by Signal Peak Energy, is Montana’s only underground coal mine and has become famous for its blatant corruption, criminal activity, and environmental destruction. Its “longwall” underground operation has mined beneath and severely impacted numerous springs in the Bull Mountains, negatively effecting (or entirely eliminating) cattle ranches on the surface. The coal extracted from this mine also produces an enormous amount of carbon pollution when it is burned in the furnaces of Asian coal plants.
These impacts have been largely ignored by the state and federal agencies responsible for permitting and regulating the Bull Mountains Mine. Somewhat recently, the mine sought and was issued a permit for a massive expansion from the U.S. Office of Surface Mining (OSM) that would make it the largest operating underground coal mine in the United States. The environmental impact statement (EIS) associated with the mine was incredibly deficient and didn’t account for the enormous amount of carbon pollution that would result from the expansion, and so MEIC and our partners at Earthjustice and the Western Environmental Law Center took OSM to court. Ultimately, a judge agreed that the EIS failed to disclose and evaluate the climate impacts, ordering OSM to conduct a new analysis. The court also forbade the company from mining federal coal until the review was complete.
The prohibition on mining the federal coal posed a problem for the Bull Mountains Mine, so they called up Montana’s congressional delegation and had sweetheart language inserted into H.R.1, the “One Big
Beautiful Bill.” Initially, the language simply forced approval of the mining plan for the Bull Mountains Mine, but because its language was specific to one mine and one company, it likely would have run afoul of the “Byrd Rule” (or deemed “extraneous”) in the reconciliation process. So instead, an incredibly convoluted amendment was inserted that in theory would be generally applicable to all coal mining in the country, but in practice seems to only apply to the Bull Mountains Mine. With its passage, ostensibly the Bull Mountains Mine can begin extracting federal coal.
However, it’s possible that the provision in the Big Bill was not even necessary, because almost a full month before its passage, the U.S. Department of Interior (DOI) forced approval of the mining plan well in advance of the projected completion date of the EIS — in spite of a court order prohibiting the mining of federal coal. You might ask, “How can an agency approve something when a court order prohibits it?”
In part, DOI relied upon Pres. Trump’s “Declaring a
Photo of the Bulls by Kestrel Aerial.
National Energy Emergency” Executive Order, which allowed for DOI Secretary Doug Burgum to “identify and exercise any lawful emergency authorities available to them, as well as all other lawful authorities they may possess, to facilitate the identification, leasing, siting, production, transportation, refining, and generation of domestic energy resources, including, but not limited to, on Federal lands.”
DOI also authorized the fast-track approval of the Bull Mountains expansion under newly established “alternative arrangements” for compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). These alternative arrangements under NEPA were also created in response to Pres. Trump’s energy emergency EO
and expedite the review and approval of projects from a multi-year process down to just 28 days, at most. Presumably, this allowed for DOI to fast-track the Bull Mountains EIS, truncating the intensity and robustness of the review and likely bypassing the opportunity to collect additional data.
It’s clear that if you’re a coal mining executive and not a rancher living above a coal mine, you have a friend in the Oval Office and our federal agencies, as well as in Montana’s congressional delegation. The horrors that society will suffer from unchecked pollution and irresponsible energy production matter little to those with the means to avoid the worst consequences, but the average Montanan will suffer greatly.
When it rains, it pours, and the federal government is opening the skies. On the eve of our Down to Earth deadline, with every article planned and penned and half the staff out for a summer break, the Department of Interior announced its release of an updated environmental review and approval of a massive expansion for the Rosebud coal mine that feeds the Colstrip plant.
This approval greenlights the mining and burning of 33.75 million tons of federal coal and 37 million tons of privately-owned coal across more than 4,200 acres. This is a staggering amount of coal to inject into an Cartoon by J.C. Moore, used with permission. industry that’s been steadily declining for well over a decade. It’s clear this is nothing more than a last-ditch lifeline to an industry we should be thoughtfully and purposefully transitioning away from. Not to mention that this approval ignores Montanans’ right to a clean and healthful environment, which includes a healthy climate.
Other parts of the mine are still in litigation for insufficient environmental analyses, and you can bet MEIC won’t let federal approval slide without examining every possible avenue for opposition.
Montana Congressional Delegation’s Public Lands Bait-and-Switch
by Anne Hedges
This article was published as an op-ed in Montana papers.
You can’t take your bird dog hunting on lands being mined or filled with oil rigs, even if they are “public” lands.
While Montanans were right to celebrate removing the sale of public lands from the recent Congressional budget bill, some may not know that our representatives still voted to put millions of acres of public lands on the chopping block. Selling public lands was just one of a dozen different ways that the billionaires’ budget bill privatized our public lands. Just try big game hunting, bird-watching, camping, hiking, or biking on public lands mined or fracked for corporate profit, and see how quickly you’re escorted away.
This is the bait-and-switch our elected representatives pulled on Montanans. They crowed about removing provisions requiring the sale of public lands, but the new law mandates quarterly oil and gas lease sales on public lands, regardless of whether it makes economic sense. It slashes royalty rates, guaranteeing that the public does not receive the compensation it is due for public resources. It lets industry decide which land needs to be offered for oil and gas leasing – regardless of who else uses that land and for what purpose. It increases the duration of drilling permits so that companies can retain leases and tie up public
lands for longer periods of time. And, appallingly, it reinstates the practice of allowing noncompetitive leases on public lands, ensuring that the public will not receive the true value of
the public resources that are being given up.
But it gets worse. We know that coal mining has devastated huge swaths of public lands and waters that agricultural users depend on. However, instead of helping communities transition away from expensive, dirty coal towards cleaner energy, it incentivizes even more coal mining on public lands and slashes royalty payments for mining corporations. It expedites new coal leases and mining permits on public lands, even though coal mining is at historic lows and projected to continue declining. For example, the bill allows the notoriously corrupt Signal Peak mining company to mine more than 50 million tons of coal without consideration for the surface landowners whose water has been lost due to the mine’s operations.
And finally, the bill mandates the opening of four million acres of federal land to coal mining, without providing details about where those lands are, what resources they hold, or what the impacts may be.
In short, it’s a firesale, thanks to our bait-andswitch congressional delegation. If they repeat the tired trope that they are trying to increase jobs or support “all-of-the-above energy,” I say hogwash. If that was true, they wouldn’t have gutted incentives that help create thousands of good-paying solar and wind jobs in Montana and across the country. And while our congressmen hide behind press releases hyping this new law, keep in mind that it will result in not only lost and destroyed public lands, but higher energy bills, increased wildfires, increased drought, more flash floods, and more intense heat waves.
A changing climate isn’t a conspiracy theory or a partisan issue; it’s a fact that we can and need to deal with. Heat waves are worsening, extreme weather is killing more people, and drought is reducing rivers such as the Dearborn to a trickle in June. This bill will set us back decades, so remember who to thank for making those problems worse now and in the future.
Sens. Daines and Sheehy and Reps. Zinke and Downing, you’ve given us higher deficits, less public land, lower revenues, higher electric bills and more heat, wildfire and drought. You have jeopardized our public lands and our future for your rich friends' profits. We are definitely less safe thanks to you.
Anne's bird dog Indie is a big fan of public lands. Photo via Anne Hedges.
Derf Johnson, Rob Farris-Olsen, and Kim Wilson Receive Award
by Katy Spence
In early August, MEIC Deputy Director Derf Johnson was awarded the Montana Trial Lawyers Association’s (MTLA) Appellate Advocacy Award alongside MEIC board member Rob Farris-Olsen and former board member Kim Wilson for Outstanding Appellate Advocacy. This award recognizes their work on MEIC v. Office of the Governor for the State of Montana, a case dealing with the “Bad Actor” mining law and an information request that set an important precedent on Montanans’ Constitutional right to know and the ability to get attorneys fees for successful challenges under this right (see article on pg. 3).
MTLA is a member organization for attorneys who work for justice for those who have been injured, accused, or whose rights are jeopardized. This award specifically recognizes attorneys who have exhibited “outstanding appellate advocacy that advances and protects the rights of Montanans in the civil justice system.”
Wilson speaks at the MTLA award ceremony. Photo via Rob Farris-Olsen.
Rob has previously received this award, as have MEIC board member Roger Sullivan and former board member Terry Trieweiler.
Eliminating Public Land Protections from Coal Mining
As if our Congressional delegation and the Trump Administration weren’t doing enough to jumpstart the moribund coal industry, things are about to get even worse.
After many years of fighting to protect public lands in the Powder River Basin from coal mine development and the resulting pollution, MEIC and our allies were victorious. At the end of 2024, the Biden Administration agreed to stop leasing more public lands for coal development in southeastern Montana, finding that there were already sufficient public lands leased for coal mine development. But one of Pres. Donald Trump's many Executive Orders directed the federal Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to reverse course. In early July, BLM proposed doing exactly that.
Not to be outdone on destroying public lands for private gain, Montana’s Congressional delegation introduced bills in both the House and Senate to require coal leasing on public lands in Montana. MEIC and our partners at Earthjustice, Western Environmental Law Center and others will be participating in these processes and working to prevent the illegal and unfettered access of the fossil fuel industry to our public lands.
Cartoon by J.C. Moore, used with permission.
Kim
MEIC Takes Trump to Court over Air Toxins at Colstrip
by Anne Hedges
On June 12, MEIC joined a dozen other organizations and sued Pres. Donald Trump and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). In an executive proclamation, Pres. Trump allowed power plants like the one in Colstrip to ignore public health regulations that limit toxic air pollution such as mercury, lead, and arsenic from coalfired power plants. MEIC is represented by Earthjustice in the case.
The lawsuit follows a decision on April 8, 2025, by Pres. Trump to issue a series of executive actions allowing companies such as NorthWestern Energy to delay installing pollution controls that hundreds of power plants across the country have already installed. Pres. Trump’s proclamation also allowed these 68 coalfired power plant owners to avoid installing monitors that allow the public and regulators to know if the plants are actually limiting toxic pollution on a continuous basis. Currently, power plants only have to test four times a year to verify that they are not harming public health and the environment with unsafe levels of toxins such as lead and arsenic.
In our lawsuit, we argue that Pres.Trump exceeded the authority given to him by Congress. The law only allows him to delay implementation of a toxic pollution requirement if the technology to limit the toxins does not exist. In this case, that technology has been widely used for decades. Pres. Trump does not have the authority to bypass the requirements for power plants that were established by Congress in 1990. Montanans have been unfairly and unnecessarily
poisoned for decades because the Colstrip power plant has the highest rate of toxic emissions of any power plant in the nation. Nearly every other plant has already installed pollution control technology. But not the Colstrip plant. The Colstrip plant owners’ callous disregard for human health and safety is second only to Pres. Trump’s disregard for public health and the law.
It is even more insulting that despite the Colstrip plant already having continuous emissions monitors, the owners do not have to provide that data to the public to prove they are in compliance with the law, and regulators cannot use the monitors to enforce against any violations of the law. Now, Pres. Trump is giving them a free pass.
What’s more, in June, the EPA proposed to completely repeal the Biden Administration’s 2024 Mercury and Air Toxics Standard (MATS) pursuant to Pres. Trump’s Executive Orders. This would mean the Colstrip plant would continue to poison those living downwind even though the technology exists to limit that pollution and most power plants are already using it. MEIC and dozens of Montanans objected to EPA’s proposal during the July public hearing and also in written public comment. Unfortunately, we fully expect EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin to do Pres. Trump’s bidding and allow NorthWestern Energy and the other Colstrip plant owners to continue to unnecessarily poison people and the environment.
No doubt suing Pres. Trump over this reckless behavior toward public health will just be the first of many MEIC lawsuits against this lawless administration.
EPA Moves to Eliminate Regulation of Greenhouse Gases
In a move that defies science, logic and compassion for the human race and other species, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed that it would move to eliminate a 2009 finding by the US Environmental Protection Agency that greenhouse gases harm public health and the environment. Greenhouse gases, the drivers of climate change, have been building up in the atmosphere in unsustainable amounts since the dawn of the industrial revolution.
Coal-fired power plants, methane gas plants, gasoline-fueled vehicles and other fossil fuel activities have changed the chemical composition of the atmosphere which results in heat building up in the atmosphere, causing increased heat waves, drought, wildfires, floods, hurricanes, and disease. No science supports this reversal. Pres. Donald Trump is issuing a death sentence to people and species across the planet as a result of this counter-factual move. Litigation will follow.
A Big, Ugly Setback for Clean Energy
by Shannon James
The Trump Administration is once again putting fossil fuel profits ahead of people, public health, and the planet. Its latest effort, misleadingly called the “One Big Beautiful Bill,” was a sweeping attack on the clean energy transition: slashing vital tax credits, gutting environmental safeguards, and inserting roadblocks that could stall or kill renewable energy projects nationwide.
At the heart of the rollback are attacks on key provisions of Pres. Joe Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), which sparked a nationwide boom in clean energy. Tax credits like the Residential Clean Energy Credit have made rooftop solar, battery storage, and energy efficiency upgrades accessible to working families. Under the new law, these incentives disappear by the end of 2025, jeopardizing thousands of solar, wind, and battery projects already underway. The booming clean energy jobs sector faces massive layoffs as projects stall or get canceled.
The Department of the Interior has further escalated this sabotage by requiring personal approval from Interior Secretary Doug Burgum or his deputy for virtually every step of renewable energy development on federal lands. This unprecedented power grab creates a bureaucratic bottleneck, threatening dozens of projects, including major solar developments that could power millions of homes. Even projects starting on private lands but relying on federal grid connections are at risk. The intent is clear: stall projects until clean energy tax credits expire at the end of the year. Without those credits, many projects will collapse, taking jobs, investments, and affordable clean power with them.
While the administration claims these measures restore accountability, the real goal is to prop up fossil fuel corporations at the expense of clean energy. With U.S. electricity demand projected to skyrocket, this blockade of affordable, clean power sources will hurt consumers. Households could see utility bills rise by over $100 next year and more than $400 annually within five years.
Adding insult to injury, the bill introduces a “payto-play” scheme allowing fossil fuel companies to bypass environmental reviews by paying fees, which strips communities of their right to protect health and
safety, and cultural and natural resources. The bill also cuts funding for pollution cleanup in schools, reduces efforts to remove dirty diesel buses, and undermines air pollution monitoring programs, handing more power and profit to polluters while communities suffer.
The administration also halted new wind leases on federal lands, paused offshore wind projects, and attempted to claw back billions in clean energy funding approved under the IRA. Projects on private land are also facing delays due to increased federal oversight. And now, the EPA has announced it is eliminating $7 billion in Solar for All grants intended to boost energy security in low-income communities by expanding access to bill-lowering solar power. These funds, already appropriated and obligated, were set to benefit states and Tribal nations eagerly awaiting program rollouts.
The Trump Administration’s attack on renewables contradicts its own cries about an “energy emergency.” Rather, it’s a blatant effort to undermine climate action, block clean energy growth, and keep America dependent on dirty fossil fuels. These actions will result in job losses across the country and higher energy bills for homeowners and businesses.
Yet even with the hurdles being imposed, the market continues to favor renewables, recognizing them as the fastest and cheapest way to meet rising electricity demand. MEIC will continue to advocate for this positive transition to clean energy.
DEQ Thumbs Nose at Montana Constitution, Approves Gas Plant
by Anne Hedges
The Montana Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) thumbed its nose at the Montana Supreme Court, the people of Montana, future generations, and our Constitutional Right to a Clean and Healthful Environment when it released its draft and final environmental analyses for NorthWestern Energy’s gas plant near Laurel.
In early January, the Montana Supreme Court ruled that the DEQ was required to analyze the impacts to the climate from NorthWestern’s large methane gas plant on the banks of the Yellowstone River near Laurel, pursuant to Montanans’ constitutional right. Seven months later, DEQ issued a token analysis.
Just like its draft environmental assessment (EA) for the methane plant, which was issued on March 28 in accordance with the Montana Environmental Policy Act (MEPA), the final EA contained only one single, meaningless sentence about climate impacts on Montana that could result from the plant. DEQ never once mentioned that the methane plant will emit about 25 million tons of greenhouse gas emissions over its expected lifetime. Instead, DEQ assumed only a year’s worth of emissions, as if the plant would not continue to pollute the air for decades to come.
The extent of DEQ’s discussion of what this massive amount of climate-changing pollution would do in the state was limited to, “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 2023).” Even BLM’s cited analysis was far more robust.
Importantly, DEQ ignored the enormous volumes of studies that show the specific impacts of climate change on Montanans’ health, economy, and wildlife and natural resources. For instance, in 2023, Montana Wildlife Federation released a detailed report of the economic impacts of the climate crisis on Montana outdoor recreation. In 2024, Farm Connect Montana released a detailed report of the economic impact of the climate crisis on Montana agriculture. And, of course, there is the comprehensive Montana Climate Assessment and the report on Climate Change and Human Health in Montana. All of these reports – in addition to the Held Supreme Court decision and uncontested expert testimony – have extensive detail that DEQ ignored.
There is no doubt that DEQ failed to do its job – or even try. It completely ignored hundreds of pages of Montana specific scientific data that was submitted by the public. It ignored its constitutional obligation. It ignored future generations. And it wasted four months of taxpayer dollars changing the word “draft” to “final” without any evidence that it considered a single document that was submitted by the public. MEIC is considering legal action to force DEQ to conduct a more robust and scientific analysis in future permitting actions.
NorthWestern's new gas plant on the Yellowstone River. Photo by Kestrel Aerial.
2025 Board of Directors Election
It’s time for the annual MEIC Board of Directors election. Please vote for up to nine candidates. Only MEIC members can vote; subscribers and business corporations are not eligible to vote.
To vote by mail:
• Complete the enclosed postage-paid card and mail it back to MEIC in time to arrive by October 20, 2025.
To vote online:
• Scan the adjacent QR code with your smartphone’s camera to access the online ballot.
• Or submit votes online at tinyurl.com/MEICBoard2025 by October 20, 2025.
Not sure if you’re a current member? Email Maghan at mstrachan@meic.org to check the status of your membership. Thank you for your participation!
Grace Gibson-Snyder
(she/her), Missoula
I’m so grateful to have grown up in Montana. I want to be sure this wonderful place exists for my entire life and for future generations. Beginning in high school, I became involved with environmental work across the state, including lots of local projects in Missoula, working first as an intern with MEIC and now serving on the board, and serving as a plaintiff in the Held v. Montana constitutional lawsuit. Now that I’m nearing the end of college, I am grateful to continue contributing to MEIC ’s work, a pillar of strength and consistency in Montana's environmental protection. I’m doing my best to
contribute a young perspective to the conversations and decisions that shape the organization’s direction. Perhaps more importantly, I am continually grateful for this opportunity to learn from incredible environmentalists, community members, and people who love our state.
Jessie Big Knife
(he/him), Havre
I have been honored to serve as a board member for MEIC . I was raised on the Rocky Boy’s Indian Reservation, located in north-central Montana and am a member of the Chippewa Cree Tribe. From an early age, I developed a strong connection to the environment and a deep bond to Montana’s landscapes and ecosystems. In 2019, I earned my Juris Doctorate from Arizona State University, along with a certificate in Federal Indian Law. I was appointed as the Attorney General of the Chippewa Cree Tribe, and during my tenure, I acquired a diverse array of experience in a variety of practice
areas that included environmental law, tribal natural and cultural resources, Indian education law and policy, economic development, and the development of tribal codes and ordinances. I recently joined Dragonfly Law Group P.C. as an associate attorney. Inspired by the natural beauty of my home Rocky Boy and my deeplyrooted connection to the land, I’m committed to promoting a clean and healthful environment. I am passionate about helping Montanans address the challenges of climate change and believe in protecting one of life’s most vital aspects: the environment in which we all live.
and Healthful. It’s Your Right, Our Mission.
Jim Sayer (he/him),
Missoula
I’m excited and honored to be an MEIC board member. I support MEIC ’s mission 1000% and want to ensure that this essential organization grows even stronger and better-resourced to protect our constitutional right to a clean and healthful environment. With all the new folks moving to our state, we need to advocate for policies and models that reduce the impacts of growth on Montana’s ecosystems and wildlife – and in the process, create good places for people to live.
Jeremy Osborn
(he/him),
Helena
I came of age in the youth climate movement, engineering my studies at Middlebury College in Vermont to best suit a budding passion for activism. After graduating, I became a cofounder of the international climate advocacy organization 350.org, where I served as a co-coordinator and organizer, and then Operations Director and Director of Risk Management, for 14 years. Through that journey, I became intimately acquainted with both the campaigning side of environmental advocacy as well as the institutional tools that serve it, including nonprofit governance, operations, and organizational
development. I moved to Montana in 2013 with my spouse, who grew up in Helena, to raise a family and enjoy nature’s bounty under the big sky. I currently spread my time between various projects in carpentry, political compliance work, and nonprofit consulting, as well as raising two rambunctious kiddos. MEIC was on my radar from the very beginning when I was studying organizations in coal country addressing climate change. I have been excited to dig deeper into their work more recently, supporting MEIC as a member, and a sometimes-consultant. It is crystal-clear to me that Montana would not be the place it is today were it not for MEIC ’s dedicated work, and I’m thrilled to be considered for the board to continue supporting this invaluable organization.
Mary McNally
(she/her), Billings
I grew up in New England and moved to Billings 38 years ago. My journey to Montana included years in the Midwest and three years on the Rosebud Reservation, where I fell in love with the Great Plains. I have degrees in Urban Studies, Business, and Economic Geography and taught for 29 years at MSU-Billings. My long-term professional and political interest has been to bridge the false dichotomy between a clean and healthy environment and economic well-being. I pursued that as a Professor, and it eventually
led me to run for the Montana House in 2010. I served in the House and Senate until 2022. I am frankly in awe of the work the MEIC does, and has done, for the past 50 years. I relied on their expertise when I was in the legislature trying to decipher the chaos that is Montana energy politics. The more I learned, the more I was impressed by the organization, the focus on clean air and water and a livable climate, the incredible staff, and their effectiveness. It is frustrating to see Montana retreat on key environmental issues, and that makes MEIC more important than ever. My husband (Monte Smith) and I love living in this incredible place and are actively fighting to protect it. I would be honored to serve on the board of MEIC .
Rob Farris-Olsen (he/him), Helena
I grew up in Helena before going away to earn a bachelor’s degree in environmental studies–chemistry and a law degree from the University of Montana School of Law, with a certificate in Environmental and Natural Resources law. For the last 10 years, I’ve worked at Morrison Sherwood Wilson Deola, PLLP in Helena, where I handle a wide variety of cases including challenging subdivisions and gravel pits based on environmental concerns. I also served as a Helena City Commissioner and a State
Representative for House District 79. Beyond that, I’m a proud father and husband, with two young kids. In each of these endeavors, I’ve worked to make Montana a better place for my family and community. I’m excited to now be on the board of MEIC to help ensure that our fundamental right to a Clean and Healthful Environment is not degraded, and our landscapes are protected for generations to come.
Dr. Jesse Therien
(he/him), Bozeman
I moved to Bozeman 20 years ago to pursue graduate studies, driven by a deep interest in many things including renewable energy — from its molecular foundations to practical, community-based production and use. My work has consistently focused on regionally-sourced, sustainable energy solutions that minimize environmental impact and enable regional reliance. On a commercial scale, I designed and operated a biodiesel production facility that sourced feedstocks from across Montana and have since continued my passion into other renewable energy forms, including solar, electric
vehicles, and renewable diesel. I think we all benefit from what nature offers and that our energy choices should be thoughtful and minimize our impact on the environment. Over the years, as part of Yellowstone-Teton Clean Cities, I have crossed paths and worked with MEIC on issues as they relate to transportation in Montana and I know as part of the board, I will have a chance to learn from others and share some of what I’ve learned.
Meridian Wappett
(she/her), Helena
I am a dedicated advocate for conservation and public lands in the American West. Growing up in the Northern Rockies, I developed a deep connection to wild rivers and the outdoors, fueling my passion for environmental protection. I hold a B.S. in Conservation-Restoration Ecology and Natural Resources Pre-Law from Utah State University, and recently graduated from the University of Montana School of Law with certificates in Natural Resources and Environmental Law and American Indian Law. I am currently an Attorney-Fellow on the Climate Team at the Western Environmental
Law Center in Helena, where I work on both federal and state cases. During law school, I gained valuable experience with Advocates for the West, the Center for Biological Diversity’s Northern Rockies office, and the Department of Interior Solicitor’s Office, Public Lands division, all focused on protecting wild spaces in the Northern Rockies. Prior to my legal career, I worked with various environmental nonprofits, developing and lobbying for environmental legislation at state and federal levels, and leading community-based climate action groups. In my free time, I am a true “weekend warrior” and outdoor enthusiast. I spend my time rafting, skiing, summiting peaks, dreaming up crazy trail runs, and photographing sunrises and sunsets, often with my sweet pup and partner. My life is defined by my unwavering commitment to conserving public lands and wild places, and I am thrilled to contribute to this life-long passion as a board member with MEIC .
NWE Denies Climate Risks, Hides True Bill Impact of Proposed Rate Increase
by Nick Fitzmaurice
NorthWestern Energy’s rate case is in its final months after an intensive eight-day hearing at the Public Service Commission (PSC) concluded on June 18. With post-hearing briefs from NorthWestern and intervening parties filed in July and August, the PSC will make a final decision this fall on whether, and by how much, NorthWestern can increase customers’ rates.
NorthWestern filed its rate increase application with the PSC in July 2024, kicking off a rate case proceeding after the PSC had already approved a 28% increase to electricity rates in October 2023. NorthWestern initially requested an outrageous 26% increase to residential electric customers’ base rates. After entering into a partial settlement agreement with several intervening parties (MEIC did not sign onto the settlement), the utility’s final request is still for a massive 20% increase to residential customer base rates. Base rates are tied to the utilities’ profits and are derived from capital investments into utility infrastructure. They make up about three-quarters of the total rate for electric service, with the remainder associated with variable costs that are passed directly to customers. If variable costs remain the same, a 20% base rate increase could mean as high as a 15% overall bill increase for Montana’s residential electric customers compared to rates from July 2024. MEIC jointly intervened in the rate case alongside NW Energy Coalition, Natural Resources Defense Council, and District XI Human Resource Council, represented by our attorneys at Earthjustice, as the voice for environmental, climate, and affordability considerations in these proceedings.
The “joint parties” presented our arguments and evidence through the testimony of six experts with extensive pre-hearing filings before questioning by NorthWestern, the PSC, and other intervening parties at the hearing itself. Our experts explained how NorthWestern overstated its need for new generation, then failed to properly evaluate cleaner, more affordable alternatives to the Yellowstone County Generating Station (YCGS – sometimes called Laurel Generating Station) and life-extending investments at the Colstrip plant. Our experts also laid out how NorthWestern hid the true impact to customers of this rate increase with
unrealistic projections of market sales, as well as how NorthWestern’s proposed rates would unduly burden its customers, particularly low- and moderate-income households.
As one of our experts, I testified to NorthWestern and the PSC’s responsibilities under Montana’s Constitution to consider climate change in energy investments and the regulation thereof. I explained that NorthWestern faces tremendous risks from climate change, while its fossil fuel investments exacerbate these risks, and that the utility should not be rewarded with a higher return on equity as a result of its mismanagement in the face of these rising risks. NorthWestern fought for months to keep any mention of climate change out of the official record for these proceedings, but the PSC denied NorthWestern’s motion to disqualify my expert testimony, and had to do so again when NorthWestern renewed its motion against my testimony during the hearing itself.
Each day of the hearing opened with an opportunity for public comment, when people from across the state expressed their concerns for the unaffordability of this rate increase and the harm of NorthWestern’s fossil fuel investments. Unfortunately, a number of politicians and NorthWestern contractors also showed up to support the utility and the increase in rates.
MEIC 's Nick Fitzmaurice testified as an expert at the rate case hearing, despite NorthWestern Energy's efforts to prevent him from testifying. Screenshot from PSC livestream.
So what’s at stake in this rate case? The most important issues for MEIC center around cost recovery for the YCGS gas plant, future treatment of the Colstrip coal plant, NorthWestern and the PSC’s consideration of climate change risks in infrastructure investments, and the affordability impacts of any rate increase. Specifically, we have advocated for the PSC to disallow substantial costs for YCGS (if cost recovery is allowed at all) related to cost overruns, facility units that have not come online, inflated annual operating projections, the lower cost of renewable energy alternatives, and the climate costs that NorthWestern has ignored.
MEIC highlighted how maintenance costs for the Colstrip plant are increasing drastically, while NorthWestern’s share of those costs will increase if it acquires extra shares of the plant at the end of the year. MEIC has also advocated for the rejection of NorthWestern’s proposed “Reliability Compliance Balancing Account” for future life extending investments at the plant, as well as for the disallowance of any current or future capital investments in the plant. We are advocating for the PSC to open a dedicated docket to address the myriad issues at the Colstrip plant, including increasing costs and risks associated with an aging plant, rising fuel costs, reliability
issues, decommissioning timelines, community and workforce transition, and eventually replacing the plant’s power and grid services.
MEIC is contesting a number of issues that impact affordability, including advocating for a lower approved return on equity, pointing out that NorthWestern is pocketing certain revenues that should be flowing back to customers, and pushing back against NorthWestern’s proposal to shift costs from larger industrial customers to residential customers. MEIC is also encouraging NorthWestern and the PSC to utilize the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases to assess the true costs of fossil fuel investments. Given the acute unaffordability of NorthWestern’s proposed rate increase, it is distasteful that the utility has gone to great lengths to obscure the true impact its proposals would have on customer bills. (Go to MEIC’s website for a more detailed breakdown of these issues in our July 17 blog post “NorthWestern Energy Rate Case Costs that Should Not Be Charged to Customers”)
We now await a final decision from the PSC, at which point MEIC will continue fighting to transition NorthWestern’s electric generation portfolio to affordable, carbon-free energy.
The "Nuclear Renaissance" is Built on False Promises and Growing Risks
by Shannon James
Over the past year, the federal government has doubled-down on nuclear energy, initiating policies meant to fast-track “advanced” reactor deployment and prop up the domestic nuclear industry. Supporters call it a “nuclear renaissance,” but let’s be clear: this is not a beacon of progress. It’s a highrisk, high-cost gamble that threatens public health, safety, environmental justice, and a clean energy future.
Nuclear energy has always been riddled with false promises. These projects can take decades — if they’re ever completed at all — and typically come in far over budget. When reactors do come online, it is ratepayers who foot the bill through soaring electricity costs. Meanwhile, uranium extraction continues to devastate Indigenous lands, and the industry still has no viable long-term solution for the radioactive waste it creates. So why are we barreling down this dangerous path, when we have safer, faster, and far cheaper energy sources like wind, solar, geothermal, and storage?
In the past year alone, the federal government has plowed ahead with a reckless pro-nuclear agenda that fast-tracks approval of a new type of nuclear technology, bypasses historic safety measures, and decreases public and regulatory oversight. In July 2024, the Accelerating Deployment of Versatile, Advanced Nuclear for Clean Energy (ADVANCE) Act was signed into law, requiring the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to “streamline its licensing process,” i.e. weakening its safety reviews. Alarmingly, the law even directs the NRC to revise its mission statement to prioritize efficiency and industry support over its foundational responsibility: protecting public health and safety.
On the campaign trail, Pres. Donald Trump acknowledged the risks of nuclear energy, citing its complexity, ballooning costs, and safety concerns. Yet since returning to office, he’s reversed course. In May, he signed four executive orders aimed at
quadrupling U.S. nuclear capacity by 2050, adding 300 gigawatts of new capacity, and dismantling the NRC’s independence in the process. These executive orders:
• Mandate expedited approvals for new reactor designs and licenses, limiting the NRC’s ability to conduct thorough safety reviews.
• Shrink the NRC by reducing staff and reevaluating critical radiation safety standards.
• Transfer greater authority to the Department of Energy (DOE) and Department of Defense (DOD), bypassing independent oversight. This includes directing DOE to approve three new reactor designs by July 2026.
• Prioritize nuclear expansion as a tool for “national security” and powering energy-intensive industries like artificial intelligence data centers. The common theme? Accelerate nuclear development at the expense of public safety, environmental review, and regulatory integrity. The consequences of this reckless agenda are already showing. Around the same time the executive orders were signed, the Department of the Interior approved a uranium mine in Utah after just 11 days of
story continues on pg. 26
This map shows uranium deposits and Tribal reservations in the Western U.S. Map via Stanford.
New Data Centers Threaten to Increase Montanans’ Electricity Costs
by Ben Catton
Data center investors are making plans to come to Montana soon. As in “as soon as possible.” While NorthWestern Energy doesn’t have a clear plan for supplying the vast amount of power it will need, it’s becoming clear who it expects to pay for the generation and grid infrastructure to serve these huge customers. The question is, should Montanans be required to subsidize behemoth tech companies?
In a July 30 BusinessWire press release, NorthWestern expressed its intent to take advantage of its broad “customer base” to “improve cost efficiency” for a massive data center by “spreading the fixed costs of operating Montana-based energy infrastructure.” This should alarm ratepayers, as should the potential for boom-and-bust burdens. Montana utility customers could get stuck paying the bill if these data center developers disappear before they pay for the system expansions that are needed to support their operations.
In rapid fire over the past six months, developers and NorthWestern have rattled off plans for six data centers across Montana. If executed, the current proposals would more than triple NorthWestern’s current annual average electricity load in Montana. In December, NorthWestern Energy announced plans to supply a combined 400 megawatts (MW) of electricity to two
data centers near Butte; one is Atlas Power and the other is still unnamed. In April, a Sabey Data Center subsidiary purchased 600 acres in Butte. Sabey hasn’t stated how much power it’s shopping for, but it’s safe to assume that it will also want hundreds of MWs. In June, TAC Data Center announced plans to build a data center on 600 acres near Great Falls. The TAC Data Center will require up to 600 MWs of electricity. Then in late July, two more companies joined the fray. Krambu announced plans for a 100 MW facility and Quantica announced a 500-1000 MW data center. Collectively, these proposals total at least 2100 MWs (before factoring in the electricity needs of the proposed Sabey data center). Currently, NorthWestern provides about 760 average MW of power to its existing Montana customers, according to its annual report to investors. Even if it acquires a larger share of the Colstrip plant at the end of this year, it’s nowhere near enough electricity to cover all of these demands. In a recent op-ed, NorthWestern CEO Brian Bird repeatedly cites increased demand as justification for NorthWestern’s rate increases. But existing customer demand is relatively flat. Forcing customers to pay for new generation and transmission for data centers could be cost-prohibitive.
story continues on pg. 26
BPA Ignores Law and Moves to Increase Cost of Regional Energy System
by Nick Fitzmaurice
The Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) made a decision in May 2025 that could cost its customers millions of dollars, favoring the interests of BPA’s executives while jeopardizing the affordability and reliability of the Western electric grid.
Energy markets are one of the most complicated –and important – arenas when it comes to decarbonizing our energy system. They are the answer to the fossil fuel industry's playbook to create doubt and confusion around clean energy, falsely pointing to the inherent variability of renewable wind and solar energy as a reason to rely on fossil fuels for so-called “base-load” power (an outdated, 20th century term).
Here in the 21st century, the variability of wind and solar can actually be a tremendous asset to the grid, particularly when these resources are dispatched across a large regional area where diverse weather patterns can provide complementary power at any given time. While electric transmission lines are the physical infrastructure that connects the grid system and delivers electricity from generators to consumers, energy markets dictate how these electricity transfers occur and which energy resources are utilized.
While fully-developed energy markets cover much of the U.S., the West is still a patchwork of entities juggling responsibilities. This is changing, generally to the benefit of affordable and reliable power in the West,
but we are at a critical juncture that will determine how clean, affordable, and reliable the Western electric grid will be. It has long been understood that a single West-wide market would maximize benefits for electricity customers, but two competing markets are under development: the Extended Day Ahead Market (EDAM) managed by the California Independent System Operator (CAISO), and Markets+, managed by the Southwest Power Pool in the Midwest. While EDAM builds off of CAISO’s wildly successful Energy Imbalance Market (EIM) (NorthWestern Energy has realized over $153 million in benefits since joining in 2021), Markets+ is a wholly new market that threatens to splinter the trading of power in the Western U.S. These two markets have been jockeying for utilities to join for several years, but hope for a unified Western market was dealt a blow when BPA announced in May that it would join Markets+. BPA provides market power and transmission service to a 300,000 square-mile region across eight states, including parts of Montana (see map). BPA’s decision could drive up energy bills, weaken grid reliability, and reduce access to clean energy across the West. It also made this decision counter to the law, which is why MEIC and several other organizations across the Northwest (represented by Earthjustice) are challenging BPA’s decision in court.
Many analyses, including those conducted by BPA itself, indicate that joining Markets+ would be far more expensive for electricity consumers than joining EDAM, or than simply delaying a final decision and sticking with the EIM (utilities joining Markets+ must exit the EIM). The Northwest Power Act obligates BPA to ensure cost-effective and reliable power for the Northwest, and BPA’s decision runs counter to that legal obligation. The decision also has tremendous ramifications for the environmental impacts of utilities’ electricity portfolios in the West, and BPA neglected to conduct any analysis required by the National Environmental Policy Act.
The development of an efficient and affordable market in the West is crucial for the clean energy transition and grid reliability. BPA should have to follow the law and consider what’s best for the region.
State Stalls on WUI Code as More Houses Burn
by Laura Collins
Montana is facing a growing and increasingly dangerous wildfire threat. Fueled by climate change, population growth, and rapid development in high-risk areas, wildfires are becoming more frequent, more intense, and more destructive. As more homes are built in Montana’s wildland-urban interface (WUI) — the zone where human development meets wild landscapes — the risks to life, property, and the state’s financial future grow with each passing year.
Montana’s wildfire risk is as much a climate issue as an urban housing policy issue. The state’s rapid population growth and urban housing shortages are driving both affluent “amenity migrants” and lowerincome “affordability migrants” to settle in the WUI. Many rural areas offer relatively affordable housing and fewer land-use restrictions compared to many urban centers, creating an incentive to develop in high-risk areas. These remote developments often lack access to emergency infrastructure, such as adequate water for firefighting. Critically, homes built to modern wildfire safety standards are 40% less likely to be destroyed than those built without such protections. Yet, wildfire damage in these areas disproportionately affects the vulnerable “affordability migrants” who — unlike the affluent “amenity migrants” likely building second, third, or fourth homes — have fewer resources to protect their homes and recover from damages.
WUI development is not only the leading cause of wildfires, but as it expands, it also worsens the fires themselves, and the cost of our inaction is staggering. In 2023, Headwaters Economics reported that an astonishing 87% of wildfires from 2010 to 2020
were caused by human activity, and estimated that 50-95% of the state’s $2.5 billion spent annually on wildfire suppression goes toward protecting residential structures. Yet, from 1990 to 2020, the number of new homes built in wildfire-prone areas of Montana doubled. During that time, Montana lost more than 1,400 structures to wildfires. Yet, subdivisions continue to be built in high-risk zones without proper planning, oversight, or fire-resilient infrastructure. This is due to the lack of any clear, enforceable wildfire safety standards in Montana’s current legal framework.
Despite these damages and mounting dangers, Montana remains one of the few Western states without a comprehensive, statewide set of WUI zoning and building standards. While the state has developed an impressive wildfire risk map through its Department of Natural Resources and Conservation (DNRC), it has not created the legal or regulatory framework necessary to act on that data. Rather, Montana’s current approach to wildfire risk management is dangerously inadequate.
The state has adopted a heavily diluted version of the International WUI Code, deliberately omitting provisions such as structure density, water access, road requirements, and ongoing maintenance requirements. In fact, state law explicitly prohibits local governments from denying development based on its location in the WUI or requiring fire-safe building material and techniques in zoning regulations. What's left for communities are optional, half-baked guidelines, limited funding for landowner incentives and education programs, and overly complicated land-use laws that, too often fail to suffice. As a result, even counties and
Wildfire risk in Montana needs to be considered in where and how we build. Image via FEMA. cities that want to take action find themselves hamstrung by limited authority and overlycomplex procedures. It’s no wonder so few have bothered to try.
We need a statewide WUI code, yesterday. MEIC is working to support an important legislative interim study on increasing wildfire safety to demonstrate the need to tackle this problem sooner rather than later. Montana
has a chance to learn from other states and act before it’s too late. Washington, for instance, has adopted the full International WUI Code and provides statefunded assistance to help local governments implement wildfire safety measures. The Montana legislature has the power to do the same.
By using the DNRC’s wildfire risk maps, Montana must adopt mandatory wildfire safety standards that account for location, density, construction materials, landscaping, water supply, and road access for all development in the WUI. Additionally, local governments need to be given discretion to adopt higher standards for wildfire protection to manage unique local hazard conditions. Jurisdictions should then be supported by state-level funding and technical expertise to implement and enforce WUI regulations. Finally, the link between urban housing shortages and WUI development must be addressed through robust policy changes that will meaningfully improve sustainable housing options and discourage further sprawl into high-risk areas.
MEIC is working to promote responsible WUI policy. Given the mounting stakes, we can’t afford
inaction any longer. Responsible WUI policy would grant all Montana communities, especially those at greatest risk, access to tools and support needed to grow safely. But this will require centralized rulemaking and enforcement, dedicated funding and technical support to build local capacity, incentives for retrofitting existing homes in high-risk and socially and economically vulnerable communities, and integration of wildfire planning with broader affordable housing and climate policy.
Montana’s current approach to wildfire risk is failing. Wildfires are becoming more common, more destructive, and more expensive. Housing pressure, climate change, and population growth are converging in dangerous ways. The solution is not simply to stop building, but to build smarter. Mandatory wildfire safety standards will not only protect Montana’s homes and landscapes but also its people, economy, and way of life. By strengthening both fire-safe development standards and sustainable urban housing policy, Montana can become a national leader in climate-smart growth. MEIC is working to make that happen.
Image via PNAS.
The Libby Exploration Project: Give an Inch, and Hecla Will Take a Mile
by Ben Catton
Hecla Mining Corporation’s plans to mine next to and underneath the Cabinet Mountains Wilderness are shortsighted and rife with pitfalls. The company has an arms-length rap sheet of bad behavior, including citations and forced closures for workplace safety violations, conducting unfair labor practices that led to a strike, poisoning water with cyanide spills, allowing toxic metals to pollute water and wildlife, violating permits, and so on. It’s an unacceptable list.
Hoping to thwart decades of resistance, Hecla has reframed its large Montanore Mine ambitions into the Libby Exploration Project, a “smaller” ore-surveying endeavor. It’s an obvious attempt to be given an inch in order to take a mile. Despite the rebranding, the Libby Exploration Project is still massive in ecological impact. The site is in the heart of our North American inland temperate rainforest, home to an isolated population of grizzly bears, wolverines, and bull trout, just to name a few of the threatened species in the area.
Unfortunately, the Libby Exploration Project is marching steadily towards approval. Earlier this year, the U.S. Forest Service released its draft environmental assessment (EA) for the proposed exploration project (see March 2025 Down to Earth). Not long after that, the project was granted FAST-41 status by the Trump Administration (see June 2025 Down to Earth). Objections to the draft EA were due August 5, and MEIC submitted vigorous objections alongside our partners and many of you who signed a petition.
Beyond the obviously problematic aspects of the
project — such as its location and Hecla’s poor track record — the details of the Libby Exploration Project, including Hecla’s Plan of Operations and the EA, cry out for opposition. The documents downplay impacts or offer unclear plans for mitigating said impacts, ranging from the potential for dewatering of streams, increasing stream water temperatures, surface subsidences, and geochemical leaching.
Additionally, the documents don't explain why different liners are used for two waste rock storage areas (which are notorious for leaking). They also omit the liners' expected lifespans, performance in extreme temperatures, and how new and old liners will connect. The documents assume noise won’t travel far, but mining involves drilling, blasting, and heavy machinery; noise pollution alone can compel grizzly bears to avoid critical habitat.
Notably, the documents also gloss over important financial assurances and offer scant reclamation plans. Reclamation and closure costs are a critical part of project capital planning, but if underestimated or mismanaged, they can become a major public and environmental liability, as seen in the long-term damage left by other mines across Montana.
This project is not a cautious step forward — it is a dangerous repeat of past mistakes. MEIC is working to have the Forest Service reject Hecla's proposal and prioritize the long-term protection of irreplaceable wilderness, wildlife, and water over short-term corporate interests.
The Cabinet Mountains Wilderness.
Photo by Shannon James.
Lincoln County Commissioners Petition for More Pollution in Montana’s Water
by Derf Johnson
Open-pit coal mines in the Elk Valley of British Columbia are poisoning Montana’s Lake Koocanusa and Kootenay River with selenium pollution (see map). The mines are owned by Glencore, a Swiss-headquartered multinational commodities trader that has a well-known reputation for corruption, bribery, and environmental damage. Glencore does not pay taxes to Montana state or local governments from its B.C. Mines, and likewise doesn't appear to employ any Montanans at these operations. Currently, its only real connection to Montana is its ownership of the defunct Columbia Falls Aluminum Company Superfund site along the Flathead River.
In 2020, the Montana Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) adopted a “site-specific” standard for selenium in Lake Koocanusa of .08 μg/L (micrograms per liter). Glencore (and its predecessor Teck Coal) see the standard as a threat to their bottom line and actually tried to repeal the standard through a review process at DEQ. This effort was rebuffed but is now in litigation.
However, in a surprising move, the Lincoln County Board of Commissioners (who represent the far-northwest Montana county and the watershed most impacted by Glencore’s pollution) submitted a petition to DEQ in July requesting that it weaken the water quality standard for selenium from 0.8 to 1.5 μg/L, as well as weaken the definition of “steady state,” a determining factor in assuring that water quality is protected and restored.
Unfortunately, it appears the commissioners are doing the dirty work for Glencore in attempting to weaken this water quality standard. There is no scientific justification for weakening the current standard, because fish in Koocanusa showed unhealthy levels of selenium at water quality levels of 1.5 ug/L. While selenium is beneficial to human health in trace quantities, the impact of excessive selenium pollution on fish populations is well-documented. Selenium has been shown to result in sudden and severe crashes in fish populations by causing a significant reduction or elimination of reproductive capacity. There are multiple species of fish in Koocanusa that regularly exceed selenium standards every time the eggs are sampled, such as longnose sucker, northern pike minnow, and redside
shiner. Further, mountain whitefish regularly exceed standards in the Kootenai/y River. Other fish in Koocanusa have been observed with elevated levels of selenium, including largescale sucker, rainbow trout, westslope cutthroat trout, and the U.S. federallyprotected bull trout.
The decimation of our fish populations would not just be an ecological disaster for the watershed but would compromise the recreation economy in northwest Montana. Boating and fishing was found to be Montana’s second largest recreational activity, accounting for $149 million in economic activity.
The science shows that 0.8 ug/L protects fish in Koocanusa and fish downriver in the Kootenai/y. It’s shocking that Montana elected officials are attempting to weaken a water quality standard in order to give a hand-out to an incredibly wealthy company that doesn’t provide any jobs or economic benefit to Montana — only pollution.
DEQ held a hearing on August 13, where it accepted public comments on the petition. Only one Lincoln County Commissioner spoke in favor of the petition, but a number of outfitting businesses and advocacy organizations spoke against weakening this essential water quality standard. DEQ needs to make a decision on Lincoln County’s petition by September 2. Hopefully by the time this issue hits your inbox, DEQ will have recognized that this petition is nothing but an attempt to protect the bottom line of a wealthy international commodities trader, and will stand strong on this issue as they have in the past.
It's Coming: NorthWestern's Next 20-Year Plan
by Nick Fitzmaurice
NorthWestern Energy is currently developing its 2026 Integrated Resource Plan (IRP). Under Montana law, regulated monopoly utilities such as NorthWestern Energy must prepare and submit to the Public Service Commission (PSC) an IRP every three years. These plans detail how utilities plan to supply reliable and affordable electricity to their customers over the next 20 years. NorthWestern’s IRP receives extensive public scrutiny because these plans lay the groundwork for future resource acquisition, such as the utility’s decision to build the Yellowstone County Generating Station, its pursuit to increase its ownership in the Colstrip plant, and its plan to eventually replace that plant with the most expensive form of power available — nuclear.
Montana’s IRP requirements are created by the Montana legislature and fleshed out through rulemaking at the PSC. The 2019 Legislature updated this process, but it took the PSC until 2023 to adopt rules for implementing the legislation. In the 2025 Legislative Session, before those rules were ever implemented for the development of an IRP, Rep. Gary Parry (R-Colstrip) proposed HB 55. As introduced, the bill was atrocious. Fortunately, MEIC was able to secure numerous amendments on the bill to maintain and strengthen transparency and public participation — two aspects that were severely lacking in NorthWestern’s previous IRP process.
Unfortunately, NorthWestern has a long history of hiding its analyses and methodologies from public scrutiny. But transparency and public participation are crucially important. After NorthWestern submitted its 2023 IRP, nearly 500 people from across Montana showed up at the PSC’s public meetings decrying the plan’s extensive deficiencies. PSC staffers referenced these comments extensively in their review of NorthWestern’s IRP. They explained that many of the deficiencies could have been avoided through robust engagement with stakeholders. At the urging of the public, PSC staff found “the 2023 Plan less transparent, accessible, and analytically rigorous than Montana’s planning statutes and the Commission’s 2023 planning rules require.” Unfortunately, the PSC severely
watered down staff’s recommendations in their final IRP comments submitted to NorthWestern, but many shortcomings identified by commenters were still included.
The opportunity for robust public engagement is rapidly approaching. NorthWestern’s Electric Technical Advisory Committee (ETAC) has been meeting for more than a year without any public participation, and the utility recently launched an IRP Stakeholder group, in which I represent MEIC. A draft IRP may be available to ETAC and the stakeholder group as early as this month, and the final draft is supposed to be released to the public in December, prior to NorthWestern’s plan to file the plan with the PSC in March 2026. However, NorthWestern’s recently announced merger with Black Hills Corporation may delay this process and will almost certainly require changes in the draft plan. As NorthWestern pulls together its draft plan, it will host public meetings and/ or webinars sometime this fall or winter, followed by public meetings at the PSC likely next spring once NorthWestern has filed its draft plan there.
In the current era of frenzied data center demand projections driven by artificial intelligence (see article on pg. 17), engagement in these meetings will be essential to ensure that NorthWestern’s 2026 IRP does not set the utility on the trajectory of building more gas plants and running the Colstrip plant for decades. MEIC will be calling on the public to attend these meetings and voice the need for a clean and affordable energy future.
The 2023 IRP meeting in Missoula.
Photo by Katy Spence.
Exempt Wells Place a Heavy Load on Lakes and Rivers
by Laura Collins
We’ve barely begun “algae season,” and southwest Montana is already experiencing earlier and more widespread algae blooms in its waterways. Algae blooms can be toxic to humans and animals, but even non-toxic varieties can deoxygenate and destabilize aquatic ecosystems already stressed by the impacts of climate change, warming waters, and low flows.
Nutrient pollution stems from a number of sources. In urban areas, nutrient runoff from conventional lawn care and wastewater treatment are key factors in causing large algae blooms. Rural areas heavy with agricultural operations and individual septic systems suffer from high nitrate contamination in ground and surface waters, threatening downgradient water quality and human health. Encouraged by legal loopholes, high concentrations of residential septic systems and wells result in nutrients being leached into surface and groundwater while also overdrawing aquifers.
Without science-based statewide management, we face irreparable harm to both our water resources and
Iour constitutional environmental rights. DNRC's weak attempt to fix it failed in the legislature but we can't keep waiting while the problem becomes a bigger crisis. MEIC is working together with partners to explore ways to finally get serious about finding the solution.
It’s clear that relentless pressure remains necessary to achieve basic water protections and end the prolific abuse of exempt wells. Otherwise, we may find ourselves wading through murky green summers for seasons to come.
Welcome, Maghan!
have spent most of my life in Montana, where I earned a bachelor’s degree in social work and a certificate in public administration from the University of Montana. I bring more than 10 years of experience from the Montana Department of Transportation’s Office of Civil Rights honing my skills in navigating bureaucracy and advocating for equity to my new role at MEIC. I am deeply committed to environmental justice and ensuring all voices are heard, which drives my passion for MEIC’s mission. I’ve had the privilege of serving the State of Montana for most of my career and have seen most of the state including the entirety of Highway 2 from Idaho to North Dakota. I believe everyone deserves a healthy environment and look forward to assisting MEIC fight for a healthy Montana.
Outside of work, I enjoy exploring wild landscapes. You can find me kayaking, hiking, or snowshoeing often accompanied by my beloved – albeit grumpy – rescue pup, Mora.
Missoula's Clark Fork hosted an early, intense algal bloom this June. Photo by Katy Spence.
environmental review — a process that normally takes years due to the serious risks of uranium contamination. What could possibly go wrong?
The only new nuclear plant to come online in the U.S. in the past 30 years is Georgia’s Vogtle plant, completed at a staggering cost of $36.8 billion. Despite the hype, not a single small modular reactor (SMR) is operating in the U.S., and just three exist globally (one in Russia and two in China). The notion that DOE will approve three entirely new reactor designs by next year and build 300 gigawatts of nuclear capacity over the next 25 years is nothing short of a dangerous pipe dream.
In June, Pres. Trump abruptly fired NRC Commissioner Chris Hanson, a move that raised alarms. The Union of Concerned Scientists called it a threat to the agency’s independence and its ability to ensure nuclear safety. Then in July, it came to light that a staffer from the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) who was assigned to the NRC told top officials in May that the NRC would be expected to “rubber stamp” reactors approved by DOE or DOD. This effectively sidelines the NRC’s ability to independently assess the safety of new reactor designs. These moves, taken together, represent the most aggressive political interference in the NRC since its founding. They threaten to transform what should be a watchdog agency into a lapdog, paving the way for risky, untested nuclear technologies to be rushed onto the grid with minimal oversight.
Then, at the end of July, another commissioner at the NRC, Annie Caputo, announced her resignation
as the Trump Administration escalates efforts to streamline nuclear energy rules and reduce the agency’s independence. Caputo, known for her industryfriendly stance, cited a desire to focus on family, but her departure raises concerns about deeper political shifts at the NRC.
This isn’t just a bureaucratic battle; it’s about public health, safety, environmental justice, and our future. Nuclear energy is not necessary to meet our climate goals. Clean, affordable, and proven technologies like wind, solar, geothermal, and storage are already here. What we need is the political will to invest in them, not to pour billions into a failed industry with a harmful track record. MEIC will continue to push back against this expensive and dangerous nuclear agenda and NorthWestern Energy’s continued interest in building a new nuclear plant to enrich its shareholders, and we’ll be counting on your voice to help.
Data Centers ( continued from page 17)
Power is just the first worry; water is another concern. Data centers can use millions of gallons of water each day. Water in Montana is already allocated to existing water users, and the frequency of droughts is increasing. We need to protect agricultural and community water needs, as well as ecosystem needs such as Montana’s threatened coldwater fisheries.
Luckily, some politicians are realizing that these are local issues. During the Water Policy Interim Committee’s (WPIC) first meeting on July 30, Rep.
Jane Gillette (R-Three Forks), who is not on the committee, showed up to suggest that WPIC study how data centers will impact water supplies. Members of the public, organizational leaders ranging from the Montana League of Cities and Towns to the Association of Gallatin Agricultural Irrigators, and members of WPIC supported the idea. Montanans need to see our regulators and elected leadership in the driver’s seat as these deals unfold, not the money-hungry utilities and the potentially fly-by-night data center developers.
This image via European Parliament Research Services illustrates the connection betwen nuclear energy and nuclear weapons.
From the ED: A Solar-Powered Marathon
by Anne Hedges
Every day can feel like a sprint filled with a constant bombardment of chaos, deregulation, cruelty and autocratic behavior in Washington, D.C. It’s impossible to keep up – and that’s the point. This administration wants you to check out, give up, and acquiesce to its authority. We, like many millions of others in this country, refuse to do that. This issue is full of resistance by MEIC staff, members, and allies, and we will continue that resistance for the duration.
While we fight for a better future, it’s easy to lose sight of what motivates and encourages us. When our Congressional delegation relinquishes its role in the balance of power and instead votes to further consolidate power... when they advocate for giving billions of taxpayer-funded subsidies to the fossil fuel industry while taking away healthcare and services from millions of hardworking Americans... But instead of embracing hopelessness, as this administration wants, we can (and should) find joy.
Poet Toi Derricotte says, “Joy is an act of resistance,” and in the midst of the chaos, we cannot lose sight of those things that fill our soul, such as enjoying the outdoors, laughing with friends and family, and realizing that there are good things happening in the world that we should celebrate.
One of my best antidotes to the daily slog of news is knowing that the pace of solar energy deployment around the world is exponential and unprecedented. That’s not hyperbole, it’s fact.
Solar power is growing faster than any energy source in history. It took about eight years for solar energy to go from 110 terrawatt hours (TWhrs) to 1000 TWhrs, and it only took three years to go from 1000 TWhrs to 2000 TWhrs, growing 29% in 2024 alone. Wind in the second fastest-growing generation.
In 2024, solar energy added twice as much new energy to global systems as any other source – three times as much as new coal generation and nearly five times as much as methane gas. Last year, renewables added 858 TWhrs, nearly 50% more than the previous record increase in 2022, and solar energy was responsible for most of that. Solar and wind energy combined provide 15% of global electricity, more than
all of the hydropower in the world.
In April 2025, solar generated more energy than nuclear energy and was the fourth largest power source in the world. All of this means that solar power has displaced what would have otherwise been a 12% increase to global fossil fuel generation.
In the last five years, 99 countries have doubled the amount of electricity they produce from solar, including emerging economies like South Africa and Brazil, but also more established countries like China (where solar contributes 12% of generation), Chile (22%), Australia (18%), and Brazil, which has now realized 10% of their generation from solar, despite being at only 1% five years ago.
So while the U.S. stalls out its energy transition, it’s heartening to know that the rest of the world has not. While it means that the U.S. may lose its status as a leader and driver of technological change and Americans will pay the price for that regressive behavior, the rest of the world is not sitting idly by. They are going forward.
When the opportunity rises, we will be ready to right the wrongs and fix the trajectory of energy development in this country. In the meantime, we need to stay strong, resilient, and find moments of joy to sustain us. This is a marathon – we need to maintain our resolve and fight for every step forward.
