Shaylee Ragar: The 69th Legislature has reached week seven. Debates over environmental issues from wolves to the right to a clean and healthful environment are heating up at the Statehouse. This is The Session, a look at the policy and politics inside the Montana Statehouse. I'm Shaylee Ragar with Montana Public Radio.
Ellis Juhlin: And I'm Ellis Juhlin with Montana Public Radio.
Amanda Eggert: And I'm Amanda Eggert with Montana Free Press.
Shaylee Ragar: I'm so glad to have our environmental experts on the podcast this week. Welcome Ellis and Amanda. You guys are joining from Missoula and Bozeman, respectively. What's up with you guys?
Amanda Eggert: Well, I am ready to get a little of this snow melted, and for a little bit warmer temperatures to come.
Ellis Juhlin: This is my third winter in Montana, and I'm enjoying the fact that there's actually an abundance of snow, which is what I felt like I was promised when I moved here from Utah. So, I finally can say I have more snow than family back home and that feels pretty good.
Shaylee Ragar: You know where the temperature is really hot right now is on policy discussions about the management of wolves. This has been a hotly debated issue for a long time in Montana. What's new on the policy front this session, Ellis?
Ellis Juhlin: You know, Shaylee, that's so true, and I love to say when it comes to wolves, the feelings are just big. Whether you love them, whether you hate them, everybody's got big opinions on wolves. So in 2021, there was a bunch of legislation that would make it easier to kill wolves, with the goal of reducing that population.
Now, fast forward, it's 2025, and lawmakers say that it didn't do enough, and there's still too many wolves. We saw two bills brought at the beginning of the session to go even further and try and cut that population in half. Fish, Wildlife, and Parks estimates there's about 1,100 wolves in the state right now, so this would cut the population to that benchmark of 550.
That's happening through House Bill 176, which is carried by Republican Shannon Maness from Dillon, and it would set up an unlimited kill quota for wolves. As long as the population remains above 550 wolves across the whole state.
“The reasoning behind this is the current problem we are having of certain areas having their quota filled earlier in the year and shutting down hunting and trapping. These areas are areas with higher numbers of wolves but low quotas.”
Ellis Juhlin: And really what this bill would do is it would authorize the Fish and Wildlife Commission to open up regulations for the existing wolf hunting and trapping season.
“Having a statewide quota instead of regionally will allow the numbers to be brought down more quickly to reach our goal in reduction.”
Shaylee Ragar: So when you're watching these long committee hearings on these proposals, where are people following? What arguments are they making for and against for these policies?
Ellis Juhlin: That's a great question. And I think it's worth mentioning too, that there are so many people who show up when hearings like this happen.
Committee chairs get to decide how long public comment goes for, how long people can leave comments. And there were a lot of upset people in the room that felt like they had a lot to say and weren't able to say it all.
“I'm obviously opposed. And I had a lot to say.”
Supporters of the bill say that this is necessary because wolves are killing too many things.
“Our deer, elk, and moose cannot continue to take this pressure and survive. Our ranchers are also bearing more and more cost and problems with the ever increasing number of predators.”
On the flip side, opponents say none of those things are really an issue here.
“Elk populations are robust across the state of Montana. Most hunt units are at or above objective. Deer are the same. Livestock depredations are not significant.”
Former Yellowstone wolf biologist Doug Smith came in and spoke against these bills.
“Biologists should not be encumbered by politicizing their management.”
We also saw some pretty scathing commentary on the fact that it's been four years and we haven't cut the population in half despite loosening all these regulations.
“I think we got a problem here. I think our hunters suck.”
Representative Tyson Renningwolf, a Democrat from Browning, spoke on the House floor.
“Another ‘Hunt, baby, hunt’ bill. Here it is.”
Pretty critical of, of the ability of hunters to kill wolves.
“But here we are playing party politics. Let's just go ahead and kill this bill.”
Shaylee Ragar: What's next for these bills?
Ellis Juhlin: So there were those two bills like at the beginning of the session. We're down to the one that would have that unlimited statewide quota until the population drops to 550 wolves. The other one died on the House floor and the bill that's moving forward has now passed out of the House and has been assigned to committee on the Senate side but not had a hearing yet.
Shaylee Ragar: Let's move on to another hot topic at the legislature right now. That is the Montana Environmental Policy Act. Amanda, tell us what is it? Why do lawmakers want to tinker with it?
Amanda Eggert: Yeah, the Montana Environmental Policy Act, also called MEPA, was passed by legislators in 1971, and it's considered one of Montana's bedrock environmental laws.
It has a major role in environmental reviews that accompany large projects. Lawmakers are often eager to revise MEPA, and this session lawmakers are especially eager to take a swing at changing MEPA. That's a result of the Held v. Montana youth climate ruling that received a district court order in 2023 and that the Montana Supreme Court upheld just a couple of months ago.
And in that ruling, the Montana Supreme Court found that Montana's constitution gives Montanans an inalienable right to a clean and healthful environment and that that right includes the right to a stable climate system. So, there are some changes for MEPA coming out of that recent ruling.
Shaylee Ragar: So what did the court order the state to do differently?
Amanda Eggert: The court basically directed lawmakers to develop a framework for inventorying and disclosing greenhouse gas emissions for large energy projects. Things like coal mines, gas plants, that kind of thing. And that's where the legislature comes in. So there are a couple of bills that were drafted in response to the ruling, but the bill that addresses the ruling most directly is Senate Bill 221.
“Which responds to the held decision by the Supreme Court and once again puts the legislatures in the driver's seat in determining how the state moves forward.”
Wylie Galt, a Republican from Martinsdale, is sponsoring that bill which also has a long list of co sponsors who are also Republican.
“This bill provides a common sense approach to a court ruling that has been plagued by anything but common sense.”
Ellis Juhlin: I feel like, when we start talking about MEPA code gets really complicated and it's really easy to get lost in the weeds of policy but something that I think about that makes Wylie Galt's bill a little bit more tangible for understanding how they're assessing those greenhouse gas emissions is something like a coal mine.
Under Galt's bill, environmental regulators for the state would have to look at the impacts of the construction of the mine and and the on-the-ground impacts, but it wouldn't track that the lifespan of the coal coming out of that mine and all of the planet warming emissions that happen when we light that coal on fire.
“Montana has an outside influence on the world's greenhouse gas emissions.”
“Senate Bill 221 significantly limits environmental reviews under MEPA by preventing consideration of indirect effects of fossil fuel operations and also adopting a decidedly narrow and incomplete definition of fossil fuel activity.”
So, there's a lot of concerns from environmental groups that this bill is really only looking at a very small fraction of the actual emissions of something like a coal plant.
Shaylee Ragar: What does the support look like for this bill?
Amanda Eggert: Right, I mentioned that there's a long list of Republican co-sponsors for Senate Bill 221, but there's also a long list of industry supporters.
“This bill is hopefully a useful step forward in de weaponizing the MEPA process to be used as a litigation tool.”
Amanda Eggert: So these are folks from the mining industry, from Northwestern Energy, from unions, from construction groups. A lot of these organizations say that it provides clarity and consistency.
“Mr. Chair, I'd like to consider SB 221 as the Goldilocks Bill. It doesn't do too little. It doesn't do too much. It's just right. “
Something else interesting about this bill is that it opens with a whole bunch of ‘whereas clauses’ and one of those whereas clauses specifies that this bill is only meant to disclose impacts it's not meant in any way to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. It's kind of a study only sort of a thing, not a regulatory framework for climate emissions.
Ellis Juhlin: There is so much outrage from lawmakers about the held ruling.
“For generations, Montanans have thrived because we struck a balance.”
And I think that this really gets at this kind of underlying thread throughout the whole session that Republicans aren't happy with many of the decisions that have come out of the courts.
“That balance has been disrupted. Not by the people of Montana, but by a court.”
And the Held ruling is one more cut in the death by a thousand cuts from the courts that Republican lawmakers are feeling.
Amanda Eggert: Yeah, and one of the things that I think was most interesting about the debate surrounding Senate Bill 221 and some of these other MEPA bills, is that everyone seems to acknowledge that it'll probably land back before the courts again and that there's going to be at least one more round of litigation around this question of climate impacts and disclosures.
Shaylee Ragar: You mentioned there are other bills that would regulate this policy, MEPA, what are those? What else are we seeing?
Amanda Eggert: Yeah, so there are a number of them, but the one that I think is most interesting and also advanced is House Bill 291. Greg Oblander from Billings is bringing this bill, and it essentially says that Montana cannot adopt air quality standards that are stricter than the federal standards outlined in the Clean Air Act. So the reason that this is important is that if this bill passes, Montana will only be able to adopt greenhouse gas emission regulations if the federal government also does.
And right now, of course, with President Trump in the White House, who has a very different view towards climate change than his predecessor, it's looking unlikely that the federal government is going to regulate things like carbon dioxide anytime soon.
Shaylee Ragar: So where are these proposals in the process now? And what comes next for them?
Amanda Eggert: Well, Senate Bill 221, that's Wylie Galt's proposal, passed third reading so it's now off to the house. And the other bill that we just talked about, ‘Air quality, stricter than federal standards’ as of Friday morning, it has not yet received a third reading vote, but it's anticipated to easily clear its vote in the House and then move on to the Senate.
So these are just two of the bills that address MEPA, but there are others out there that have received hearings and some probably that will still be introduced. We'll continue tracking those measures as they work through the process, but just note that there are other attempts to revise MEPA that are very much alive at the Capitol.
Shaylee Ragar: Got it. So, lots to keep an eye out for. Before we leave and close out for the week, I'd love to hear from both of you. What was your favorite moment from last week?
Ellis Juhlin: Well, I spend a lot of time sitting at my desk watching committee hearings, reading complicated policy, but this week I was able to enjoy some post work snow times, and I'm very thankful for that.
So, whether I had a headlamp on or had to wear 15 layers to brave the cold weather we're having right now, I was able to get outside and enjoy some of this great snow, and I'm just super thankful for that.
Amanda Eggert: I guess this is a little bit nerdy, but one thing that I thought was really interesting over the past week was this press conference that Republican lawmakers held in response to the passage of some of these MEPA bills.
“The Held vs. State of Montana decision didn't just make headlines. It sent shockwaves through Montana's economy.”
And part of the reason I think it was so interesting was because the Republican lawmakers were joined by DEQ's director Sonja Nowakowski.
“I stand here very proud of the great work that the House and Senate are both doing with the Montana Environmental Policy Act, or MEPA.”
You know, endorsing and touting those bills and I just thought that was a fascinating dynamic to see the state regulator standing in support.
Shaylee Ragar: I'll briefly say my favorite moment last week was on Friday. We normally have a press availability, an informal meeting with Representative Llew Jones, who is kind of the budget guru of the Capitol.
I got a text Friday morning that the availability would be canceled on Friday because Llew Jones had gone to Billings for the day for a wrestling tournament, and we had some fun wondering whether he was a participant or a spectator but, you know, lawmakers, they're just like us. They also need to take days off sometimes.
This has been The Session, a look at the policy and politics inside the Montana State House. Thank you both for joining.
Ellis Juhlin: Thanks, Shaylee.
Amanda Eggert: Thanks for having us on.
