In August, a district court ruled DEQ must factor in climate impacts and greenhouse gas emissions while evaluating projects under the Montana Environmental Policy Act, or MEPA. The ruling came from the youth-led climate case Held v. Montana.
A working group tasked with reworking MEPA has published draft recommendations. But members disagree over how to conduct climate analyses.
Gordon Criswell from Talen Energy which operates Colstrip says agencies should only analyze a project’s direct greenhouse gas emissions.
"I believe indirect effects are difficult to quantify and are likely to result in double counting of emissions."
Other members say the group's recommendations don’t fairly balance the economic benefits of a proposed project with its contributions to climate change.
Anne Hedges, with the Montana Environmental Information Center, criticized Criswell’s argument.
"We believe that the full suite of emissions need to be accounted for. The idea that some people have mentioned, that we should only be looking at the direct emissions from diesel trucks traveling on a coal mine, when in fact all that coal has no other purpose other than to be burned, means that you are missing the majority of the impacts."
The Supreme Court in July will hear the state’s appeal of the Held case.
The Court’s ruling, and the 2025 legislative session could impact the suggestions the working group puts forward.
The working group will meet on June 27 to discuss its final recommendations.
-
Legislators have voted forward bills on property tax relief, Medicaid expansion, judicial oversight and more. -
Policy that would change Montana’s bedrock environmental law will be taken up when lawmakers resume their work later this week. -
Press freedom and press access are at stake in the fight over the Gulf of Mexico's name. Legislators want to make sure you use the right bathroom. A climate change court ruling is behind several bills to change Montana's environmental laws. And Republican lawmakers join Vice President Vance in making fun of climate activist Greta Thunberg. -
A landmark Montana Supreme Court decision last year struck down laws passed by Republicans that would have changed Montana's bedrock environmental policy. Now, GOP lawmakers have introduced a suite of bills to undo the court's ruling. -
Hundreds of people rallied at the Capitol last week to ask state lawmakers to pass legislation to protect the environment for future generations. A state Supreme Court ruling last year forces state agencies to consider climate change, but some Republican lawmakers are pushing legislation that could challenge that order. -
In a first, the Montana’s ’s highest court last week affirmed that the constitutional right to a clean and healthy environment includes a stable climate. Although the decision could have future implications, it doesn’t drastically change environmental policy in the state right now. -
The Montana Supreme Court has decided a right to a clean and healthful environment includes a stable climate. It’s the final step in a case where 16 young people sued the state for failing to act on climate change.
-
Montana's Constitution says citizens have the right to a "clean and healthful environment." Does that mean the state is obligated to address climate change? A group of youth plaintiffs went to court to find out. Catch up on the story with this timeline of major developments in the Held v. Montana case.
