Montana Repeals State Energy Policy as Climate Trial Nears

Sixteen Montana children and teens have sued the state, saying Montanaโ€™s promotion of oil, coal, and gas despite the climate emergency violates their state constitutional rights.
image_50427649
on
In Montana, a train engine hauling an enormous number of cars filled with coal along a curve in the track.
A Montana coal train travels west, towards Bozeman. Credit: Schnitzel_bank/flickr CC BY-ND 2.0

Montana has repealed its 30-year-old energy policy โ€“ including a 2011 amendment that prioritized fossil-fuel development. The move comes as a June trial date approaches for a youth-led climate lawsuit against the state.

In the lawsuit, Held v. State of Montana, sixteen Montana children and teenagers say that by actively promoting a fossil-fuel based energy system that is dangerous to the climate, state officials are violating the โ€œright to a clean and healthful environmentโ€ for present and future generations under the state Constitution. It is the first constitutional climate case to go to trial in the United States.

Montana first enacted a state energy policy in 1993. Since then, it has periodically revised and updated the statute. In 2011 the state legislature amended the policy to add provisions calling for increased fossil fuel development, along with references to developing other energy resources and technologies like wind, green hydrogen, and batteries.

Additionally, the 2011 legislature added a provision to the Montana Environmental Policy Act that prohibited environmental reviews of state-sponsored projects, including energy development, from considering impacts beyond state borders.

The youth-led lawsuit against the state challenges both provisions, claiming they explicitly promote fossil fuels while restricting the state from considering how coal, oil, or gas development contribute to the global climate crisis.

For now, the legislature has left standing the 2011 provision to the Montana Environmental Policy Act that limits environmental reviews of major actions, such as energy project permits, to considering impacts only within Montanaโ€™s borders. The youth lawsuit charges that this provision amounts to a โ€œclimate change exception.โ€

โ€œThe state relies on that provision to ignore the climate impacts of fossil fuel projects,โ€ said Nate Bellinger, an attorney for the youth plaintiffs. โ€œYou have these two things working together โ€“ an explicit or implicit policy of approving fossil fuel projects while at the same time ignoring the climate impacts of those projects. So thatโ€™s the state system weโ€™re challenging as unconstitutional.โ€

A Convenient Repeal

In early January, Montana Republican Rep. Steve Gunderson introduced legislation to repeal the state energy policy. The bill easily passed the Republican-controlled House and Senate, with no Democratic support. Republican Gov. Greg Gianforte signed it into law on March 16.

At a House committee hearing on the bill in January, Michael Freeman, a natural resources policy advisor to Gianforte, told lawmakers that the state would still have an energy policy after the repeal.

โ€œThe proposed legislation here does not conflict with the energy policy and in fact it helps clarify Montanaโ€™s energy policy,โ€ Freeman told the Montana House Energy, Technology, and Federal Relations Committee. โ€œFrom the governorโ€™s perspective we do have an energy policy, it is an all of the above energy policy.โ€

Gunderson claimed that the repeal was intended to โ€œ[follow] the governorโ€™s red tape reduction plan in that it removes a bloated bag of air that only takes up spaceโ€ in state law. โ€œIt says nothing, it does nothing, and it has no teeth.โ€

Neither Freeman nor Gunderson responded to DeSmogโ€™s requests for comment on the intent behind the bill.

Bellinger thinks the repeal of the state’s energy policy was a response to the youth climate case.

โ€œThe state has fought this lawsuit for three years now and tried to get it dismissed multiple times,โ€ said Bellinger, the senior staff attorney with Our Childrenโ€™s Trust, a non-profit law firm that has represented children in a number of climate cases around the country. โ€œI think theyโ€™re concerned about the evidence that will come out,โ€ he said, referring to Montanaโ€™s proactive support for fossil fuels.

In a recent court filing, an expert witness for the youth plaintiffs stated that she also suspected that the repeal was an attempt to take a swipe at the lawsuit.

โ€œMy immediate reaction was, this is being done to undermine Held v. State of Montana,โ€ Anne Hedges, director of policy and legislative affairs at the nonprofit advocacy organization Montana Environmental Information Center, wrote in a declaration filed with the court in February.

โ€œI believe that the reason Governor Gianforte is pushing the repeal of [the stateโ€™s energy policy] is to try and undermine this case so that Defendants can continue their conduct without any constitutional oversight. I do not believe that it will result in less fossil fuel permitting in Montana,โ€ Hedges further stated in her declaration.

Pat Parenteau, emeritus professor of law and senior fellow for climate policy at the Vermont Law and Graduate Schoolโ€™s Environmental Law Center, told DeSmog he expects the Montana attorney general will argue at trial that the repeal โ€œmootsโ€ or nullifies the caseโ€™s challenge to the state energy policy.

Montanaโ€™s Alliance with Fossil Fuels

The youth plaintiffs and their expert witnesses contend that Montana has a long history of permitting and prioritizing coal, oil and gas development. Montana is home to part of the Bakken oil and gas shale formation and contains the largest recoverable coal reserves in the U.S. Coal still accounts for almost half of the stateโ€™s electricity, and there are six coal mines that continue to operate in the state.

“The state has fought this lawsuit for three years now and tried to get it dismissed multiple times. I think theyโ€™re concerned about the evidence that will come out.โ€

Nate Bellinger, senior staff attorney at Our Children’s Trust

In her February filing, Hedges referenced her own expert report to the court in September 2022, in which she noted that no Montana state agency has ever denied an environmental permit to a fossil fuel company. Her report included evidence of what she described as the stateโ€™s โ€œlongstanding practice of collaborating with the fossil fuel industry to permit fossil fuel projects.โ€

Montana also has an established record of promoting and defending fossil fuels. In 2012, the stateโ€™s Department of Environmental Quality authorized the Montana portion of the Keystone XL crude oil pipeline. And in 2019, Montana along with North Dakota sent a petition to federal regulators seeking to invalidate a Washington law regulating volatile crude oil by rail.

The latest example is a lawsuit filed in February by Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen against the city of Portland, Oregon for its ban on expansion of fossil fuel storage facilities as well as new fuel transport infrastructure, such as gas export terminals. Montana alleges that the ban has restricted the stateโ€™s ability to access international markets for its fossil fuel products. Several oil and gas groups, such as the Western Energy Alliance, have joined Montana in the suit.

Some state lawmakers have close ties to the fossil fuel industry. State Rep. Gary Parry, a current member of the House Natural Resources Committee, used to work in the coal industry, as did recently retired state senator Duane Ankney. Ryan Zinke, the U.S. representative for Montanaโ€™s 1st congressional district, facilitated oil and gas development on federal public lands while Secretary of the Interior during the Trump administration. Zinke was also on the board of oil pipeline company QS Energy from 2012 to 2015.

The current head of the Montana Petroleum Association, Alan Olson, served in the state legislature for 14 years as a representative and senator. In late January, Olson testified to the State Senate in support of the energy policy repeal.

First Constitutional Climate Trial in US History

The Held v. State of Montana case is scheduled for trial June 12 โ€“ 23 at the First Judicial District Court in Helena, Montana. The youth plaintiffs seek a court declaration that the stateโ€™s promotion of fossil fuels is unconstitutional.

The case was initially filed in March 2020 on behalf of sixteen Montana youths ranging in age from 2 to 18 years. Defendants include the state of Montana, then-Gov. Steve Bullock, and several agencies including the Montana Department of Environmental Quality, the Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation, the Montana Department of Transportation, and the Montana Public Service Commission.

In response to DeSmogโ€™s request for comment, representatives of the Department of Environmental Quality, the Department of Natural Resources and Conservation, and the Public Service Commission said that they do not comment on pending or ongoing litigation. The governor’s office did not respond.

The case is the first climate-related constitutional challenge to government conduct to make it to trial in the U.S. State courts have so far dismissed other youth climate cases during pre-trial proceedings.

In January 2020, a federal youth climate lawsuit targeting the federal government, Juliana v. U.S., was ultimately dismissed before the trial could take place. That case is currently awaiting a decision on a revised complaint that could put it back on the path to trial.

The Montana case could be a game changer in terms of setting a legal precedent that government support of fossil fuels is unconstitutional. At a December webinar, Mat dos Santos, general counsel at Our Childrenโ€™s Trust, said that the lawsuit โ€œis not just about Montana. Itโ€™s really about the climate here in the United States and around the world.โ€

A victory in Montana would be a โ€œwatershed momentโ€ leading to a โ€œcascade of legal victories around the country,โ€ dos Santos claimed, and would likely have global implications.

The upcoming trial may expose Montanaโ€™s preferential treatment of fossil fuels during a time of climate emergency, when the worldโ€™s top climate scientists warn that reigning in dangerous greenhouse gas emissions requires a โ€œsubstantial reduction in overall fossil fuel use.โ€

โ€œThis is a case about protecting plaintiffsโ€™ constitutional rights, and those rights donโ€™t depend upon any elections or actions the legislature takes,โ€ said attorney Bellinger. โ€œThatโ€™s why itโ€™s so important that this case is going to trial and it doesnโ€™t really matter what the legislature does between now and then.โ€

image_50427649
Dana is an environmental journalist focusing on climate change and climate accountability reporting. She writes regularly for DeSmog covering topics such as fossil fuel industry opposition to climate action, climate change lawsuits, greenwashing and false climate solutions, and clean transportation.

Related Posts

Analysis
on

Experts accuse Farageโ€™s party of a โ€˜deliberate campaign of misinformation about climate changeโ€™ in the House of Commons.

Experts accuse Farageโ€™s party of a โ€˜deliberate campaign of misinformation about climate changeโ€™ in the House of Commons.
on

A Conservative peer and former UK trade advisor were among those who spoke at the summit.

A Conservative peer and former UK trade advisor were among those who spoke at the summit.
on

All Conservative appointees to the Board of Trade have been binned by the new Labour government.

All Conservative appointees to the Board of Trade have been binned by the new Labour government.
on

Multnomah County, Oregon, says NW Natural โ€œengaged in an enterprise of misrepresentationโ€ about its productsโ€™ harm to the climate.

Multnomah County, Oregon, says NW Natural โ€œengaged in an enterprise of misrepresentationโ€ about its productsโ€™ harm to the climate.