Montana Legislature advances differing visions for MEPA's future
Speaker of the House Brandon Ler, R-Savage, speaks during a press conference on MEPA legislation on Feb. 12, 2025. (Nathaniel Bailey for the Daily Montanan)
The Montana Legislature on Wednesday advanced four Republican-introduced measures that will tweak and redefine environmental policies in the state.
Two of the measures that change the Montana Environmental Policy Act — one in each chamber — passed with bipartisan support, while a third bill brought by the Speaker of the House skirted through on party lines.
The suite of environmental bills are a response to district and Montana Supreme Court decisions in the constitutional climate change lawsuit Held v. Montana, which upheld Montanan's constitutional right to a 'clean and healthful' environment and said limitations on MEPA fly in the face of the framers' vision.
But that lawsuit 'ignored common sense and handed down an agenda-driven ruling,' according to Speaker of the House Brandon Ler, R-Savage.
'Let's be honest. This isn't about climate This is about control,' Ler said at a Republican press conference on Wednesday. 'It's about shifting decision-making power away from the people, away from their elected representatives, giving it to judges and activists who have no accountability to the voters.'
Ler is carrying House Bill 285, which he said would provide clarity and efficiency to MEPA.
'What was designed to be a procedural tool for transparency and information decision making process over the years has been twisted into something it was never meant to be,' Ler said on the House floor. 'This bill streamlines the MEPA process, eliminates unnecessary red tape, and reaffirms its true purpose — providing clear, accurate, balanced information about environmental impacts, not creating endless hurdles for responsible development.'
The Speaker said the bill would not weaken the statute, but opponents in the chamber pushed back on that notion.
'I know that every single person in this body knows that both jobs and the environment are important to Montana, but it's a hard, nasty conversation to have,' said Rep. Marilyn Marler, D-Missoula. 'Where do you put the balance between jobs and environment? Different people will put it in different places.'
MEPA, Marler said, provides a structured way, in law, to have the hard conversations and facilitate conflict resolution.
'Unfortunately House Bill 285 tries to take out the conflict by taking out half of the conversation,' she said.
Ler's bill clarifies that MEPA does not carry any regulatory weight, and prohibits a state agency from withholding, denying, or conditioning a permit due to any findings from an environmental analysis. It passed the House 58-42 on party lines.
Another MEPA bill that drew a broader coalition was House Bill 270, introduced by Rep. Katie Zolnikov, R-Billings. Her bill updates the language of MEPA to remove the parts invalidated by the Held decision, alters the process if someone fails to comply with the act, and prevents state agencies from acting beyond their purview.
HB 270 passed unanimously out of the chamber.
The House also passed House Bill 291, brought by Rep. Greg Oblander, R-Billings, with two Democrats joining all Republicans. The bill would prevent an agency from enacting stricter air quality standards at the local or state level than what is currently in place federally.
'If the federal government sets a standard, that's the bar. We're not going to let state agencies or local boards move the goal post,' Oblander said during the press conference. 'We've seen what happens when agencies are left unchecked. Businesses that meet every federal requirement are suddenly hit with additional layers of regulations from state or local entities, rules that do nothing to improve the environmental outcomes, but everything to drive up cost, delay projects and kill jobs.'
House Democrats vowed to keep fighting for Montana's environment, specifically against Ler's proposal.
'Montanans expect us to defend their Constitutional right to breathe clean air and drink clean water, and that's exactly what House Democrats did today. We supported a common-sense bill that upholds that right while providing clarity for businesses and workers under MEPA. But some Republican politicians are determined to erode what makes Montana the last best place,' said Democratic Whip Jonathan Karlen of Missoula. 'We will continue to fight those efforts every step of the way.'
On the Senate side, Sen. Wylie Galt, R-Martinsdale, got a 37-13 vote on his Senate Bill 221, which he described as a 'Goldilocks bill.'
SB 221 aligns MEPA with the Held ruling and directs the Department of Environmental Quality to develop guidance on greenhouse gas emission assessments, while not stymying industry and development.
During the floor debate on his bill, Galt's bill earned support from a handful of Democrats.
Sen. Derek Harvey, D-Butte, said that while MEPA can help protect the state's environment, litigation over MEPA can adversely impact workers and unions. He said SB 221 helps 'strike this balance.'
While the bill requires greenhouse gas emissions for fossil fuel projects, Galt said the bill contains a catch.
'These assessments are information only. They cannot be twisted into tools to deny permits or slap on burdensome conditions,' Galt told the press. 'No activist lawsuits, no bureaucratic overreach, just facts.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Washington Post
7 minutes ago
- Washington Post
House Oversight Committee expands inquiry into Biden's mental condition and final acts in office
WASHINGTON — The House Oversight Committee is requesting interviews with members of former President Joe Biden's innermost circle as Republicans ramp up their investigation into the final moves of the Biden administration. Oversight Chairman James Comer of Kentucky, a Republican, requested transcribed interviews with five Biden aides, alleging they had participated in a 'cover-up' that amounted to 'one of the greatest scandals in our nation's history.'
Time Magazine
25 minutes ago
- Time Magazine
Trump's ‘Big Beautiful Bill' Stumbles in Senate as Musk Ramps Up Bid to ‘Kill' It
President Donald Trump's sprawling tax-and-spending proposal—touted as the centerpiece of his second-term agenda—is facing intensifying resistance in the Senate, as fresh concerns about its impact on the deficit and a ramped-up campaign by Elon Musk to torpedo the entire package threaten to derail the legislation's fragile path to passage. At the center of the turmoil on Trump's 'One Big Beautiful Bill' is a sobering new assessment from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, which reported Wednesday that the bill would add $2.4 trillion to federal deficits over the next decade while stripping health coverage from nearly 11 million Americans, largely through deep Medicaid cuts and the imposition of new work requirements. That analysis sparked alarm among some Senate Republicans, several of whom are demanding substantial changes. 'I think Congress is sort of like a bad behaving teenager when it comes to spending,' Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, one of the Republicans threatening to vote against the bill, told TIME on Wednesday. 'If you had a teenager that you were giving $100 a week and they wasted all of it on gambling or on booze, would you give them $200?' White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt and other prominent Republicans tried to dismiss the CBO's projections by arguing its analysis was flawed or biased. But fiscal hawks in the Senate remained dug in, buoyed by former Trump advisor Elon Musk, who extended his all-out offensive against the bill. A day after using his vast social media reach to brand the bill a 'disgusting abomination,' he posted more than two dozen messages on X on Wednesday attacking the legislation, as well as urging his followers to call Congress and 'KILL the BILL.' Musk's ire appears especially focused on how the bill's expansion of the deficit would erase the cost-cutting he hoped to accomplish with the Department of Government Efficiency, which he led under the Trump Administration. He has also expressed concerns with provisions in the House-passed bill that would terminate clean energy tax credits and electric vehicle subsidies established under the Inflation Reduction Act. Tesla Energy, Musk's solar and battery company, has warned that ending those credits 'would threaten America's energy independence and the reliability of our grid.' The sharp reversal has blindsided some Republicans, who were counting on Musk's tacit support. House Speaker Mike Johnson, who has spearheaded the bill's passage, tried to stem the fallout by reaching out to Musk directly. 'I hope he comes around,' Johnson said Wednesday, though he added that Musk has not returned his call. Inside the Senate, Johnson's broader strategy—pushing through House priorities quickly and with minimal changes—is beginning to unravel. Senate Majority Leader John Thune of South Dakota acknowledged that significant changes to the bill are now unavoidable. 'We'll make some modifications to it, strengthen and improve it,' Thune said Tuesday. 'But at the end of the day, the math is simple—51 in the Senate, 218 in the House. That's what we're working toward.' One potential modification Thune has expressed interest in is scaling back the $40,000 state and local tax (SALT) deduction cap in the House version of the bill, an increase from the current $10,000 cap that House Republicans from high-tax states secured as a concession. But not all Republicans agree with the additional spending: 'There really isn't a single Republican senator who cares much about the SALT issue,' Thune told reporters as he departed a meeting with Trump and Senate Republicans on Wednesday evening, saying that they discussed ways to dial that money back. It's a move that could alienate House Republicans from New York and New Jersey, who say their support is contingent on the SALT provision. "Let's be clear — no SALT, no deal," New York Republican Mike Lawler said Wednesday in a post on X. Additionally, the bill's sweeping changes to Medicaid, such as imposing new work requirements, are a sticking point. Republican Senators Josh Hawley of Missouri and Jim Justice of West Virginia have raised red flags over a provision that would eliminate provider taxes—mechanisms that states use to fund Medicaid—which they argue could shutter rural hospitals. Hawley is also opposed to a so-called 'sick tax' in the bill, which would impose new charges on low-income patients for medical visits. Other Republican Senators, including Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, may also put up roadblocks over potential cuts to Medicaid. Trump has personally intervened, holding calls with Sens. Hawley, Paul, and Scott. But there is little evidence he has swayed skeptics. Paul, a libertarian-leaning lawmaker who has vocally pushed back on many Trump Administration policies, told TIME that he plans to vote against the bill over its provision to raise the debt ceiling by trillions of dollars. 'Congress has been acting irresponsibly for decades,' he said. 'We spend $2 trillion more than to come in. They should have a very narrow leash. The only debt ceiling they get should be very, very narrow in time and very, very small in amount. And the more we vote on the debt ceiling, the better. I'd vote on it every three months.' Trump, meanwhile, renewed his calls on Wednesday for scrapping the debt ceiling altogether. The growing litany of disputes has created a daunting legislative gauntlet for Trump's signature bill. Senate committees are now beginning to draft their own version, starting with less controversial sections and leaving the most divisive elements—Medicaid, energy, taxes—for later. Should the Senate approve any amended version, it must still clear the House once again—no small task given the narrow margins and the emboldened dissent among House Republicans. The stakes are high not just for Trump, but for Republicans heading into a contentious midterm season. Failure to extend Trump's 2017 tax cuts would translate into a tax increase for many Americans. Trump's legislation would also boost spending on defense and border security, while reducing spending on Medicaid and food stamps.
Yahoo
34 minutes ago
- Yahoo
CT lawmakers OK $3.2 billion annual bond package of school construction, other projects
On the final day of the 2025 regular session, state lawmakers voted Wednesday to fund major construction and renovation projects ranging from colleges to state parks to local schools. The bipartisan bonding package includes $3.2 billion in the first year and $3.4 billion in the second year for projects for more than 30 state agencies, plus public schools across the state. In addition to brick and mortar projects, the legislature decided to allocate bond money to help pay for removing some of the controversial 'public benefits charges' on customers' electric bills. Those costs caused a firestorm of protest starting last July when the increased amounts appeared on electric bills and surprised some customers. Republicans called for switching those costs to the state's general fund, but lawmakers decided to pay for them by borrowing money. The 256-page bond package was approved by the House by 144-4 after less than one hour of debate with four conservative Republicans, Anne Dauphinais of Danielson, Doug Dubitsky of Chaplin, Joe Hoxha of Bristol, and Gale Mastrofrancesco of Wolcott, voting against the measure. The bill was then immediately sent to the Senate, which approved the package before 5:30 p.m. by 35-1. Sen. Rob Sampson, a fiscal conservative from Wolcott, voted against the bill after saying that the state borrows too much money through bonding. The multiple projects range from large to small, for example, including up to $113 million for a new Windham Technical High School to $1 million for renovating a building at Norwalk Community College. Aside from the two-year, $55.8 billion operating budget that is a separate entity, the bond package helps numerous cities and towns, said Senate majority leader Bob Duff of Norwalk. 'This is a crucial piece of the puzzle,' Duff said. 'In this bill, we are under the bond authorization cap in fiscal year 2026 and fiscal year 2027. … At the same time that the federal government is backing out of commitments, we are doubling down. … It is much-needed dollars back to our communities.' Sen. Ryan Fazio of Greenwich, a fiscally conservative Republican, questioned the state's spending on major projects. He said recently on the Senate floor that Gov. Ned Lamont's much-touted 'debt diet' was really like eating a half dozen donuts a day, rather than a full dozen, and feeling like you're still on a diet. Noting that his district is known for sending hundreds of millions of dollars in income taxes annually to the state, Fazio said the package would include money for the historic Old Greenwich School on Sound Beach Avenue and Roxbury Elementary School in the Westover section of Stamford. Traditionally, the bond package often gets approved in the final hours of the session as lawmakers fight to get their special projects into the document. That was the case again Wednesday as both chambers debated on the final day of the regular session. 'The cost of the final version is lower than the committee version,' said Rep. Ron Napoli, a Waterbury Democrat who co-chairs the bonding subcommittee and introduced the bill on the House floor. He added that money set aside in the 'Town Aid Road' category for paving and improving local streets had increased by nearly 33% in a category that he said would make mayors and first selectmen 'very happy.' Rep. John Piscopo, the longest-serving House Republican, noted that the package was crafted on a bipartisan basis. 'The major increases were for energy, getting those public benefits off our bills,' Piscopo said. 'All in all, I could accept this.' Piscopo recalled the early 1990s when an unlikely odd couple of legislators, a blunt, blue-collar Democrat from Enfield and an Ivy League stockbroker from New Canaan, were known for relentlessly traveling around the state and personally looking at leaking roofs and other problems in detailed, on-the-ground inspections. 'We brought back the old tradition of Fred Gelsi and Les Young,' said Piscopo, who has served in the legislature since 1989. 'It means a lot when you can visit the projects and see a day care center that is bursting at the seams … instead of looking at a spreadsheet. We were all over the state. … I'm glad we brought back that Gelsi and Les Young tradition of going out and seeing the projects.' Senate President Pro Tempore Martin Looney, a New Haven Democrat, also mentioned the pair, saying that Gelsi was a 'legendary' lawmaker who knew details down to a particular boiler in a state building. Gelsi died in 2005, long after Young died of cancer in 1996. Looney noted that $550 million will be allocated for school construction, plus $200 million for housing and $10 million in each of the next two years for municipal open space, among others. 'There is a lot to celebrate here,' Looney said. This year, House Speaker Matt Ritter of Hartford said the number of individual projects was reduced as larger sums of money would be set aside for a broad category of urban projects, for example, that would be named later. 'They've gone away from the line items,' Ritter told reporters. 'You won't see a ton of projects listed.' While lawmakers are highly interested in the bond package, no projects can move forward unless they receive final approval from the 10-member, Democratic-dominated State Bond Commission. Lamont chairs the commission, controls the agenda, and decides which projects get funded. Sen. John Fonfara, a longtime Hartford Democrat, said he wished that legislators had more influence on the final projects that need approval from the bond commission. 'Bonding matters to legislators,' Fonfara said on the Senate floor. 'Parks, recreation, you name it, that are unable to be funded' by local municipalities. The huge, 256-page bill still listed multiple projects, including the maximum amount that could be spent on each one. That includes up to $75 million for the governor's budget office to oversee upgrading computers through an information technology capital investment program, $50 million for designing and planning a replacement for state-owned Whiting Forensic Hospital in Middletown, $40 million for improvements at state parks so that they will comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act, and $15 million for relocating the Department of Motor Vehicles headquarters in Wethersfield, which has been under discussion. 'We are currently looking for a new location in the area that can accommodate our branch and back-office staff with sufficient space,' said state motor vehicles commissioner Tony Guerrera, a well-known former legislator who headed the transportation committee. 'We are collaborating with the Department of Administrative Services to facilitate this process, carefully considering factors such as parking, ADA accessibility and access to public transportation.' The bill also includes up to $40 million for installing solar systems on state properties, $30 million for deferred maintenance at the state's 12 community colleges, $28 million for the UConn Health center in Farmington for equipment, library collections, and telecommunications infrastructure upgrades, $17 million for renovations and improvements at Rentschler Field in East Hartford and the convention center in Hartford, and $30 million for deferred maintenance at the four regional public universities in Danbury, New Britain, New Haven, and Willimantic. Despite plaudits from colleagues about the depth and breadth of the proposals, Sampson said the package was too big. 'Overall, the state of Connecticut bonds too much and probably always has,' Sampson said, adding the bill is 'more giant that it has to be.' But House Republican leader Vincent Candelora of North Branford, who voted for the bill, said the package was affordable. 'The bonding is still under the debt cap,' Candelora told reporters outside the Hall of the House. 'So I think the bonding levels have stayed appropriate. But when you continue to give state employees raises, it puts pressure on the pension fund. So now that you're slowing down the amount of money you're going to put into the pensions, we are going to see our unfunded liabilities potentially now increase. They're no longer going to decrease.' The bond bill also included various 'fixes' from multiple pieces of legislation that had already passed, including mistakes and errors that could be corrected before the legislative session's adjournment at midnight Wednesday. 'I know it's a shock to people that we make mistakes in bills that we have to fix, but that's what happens,' Ritter told reporters Wednesday. A key aspect concerns the future of the State Elections Enforcement Commission, which oversees the elections of the state legislators and others. Both the House and the Senate had passed a controversial bill that would have allowed the legislature to approve the commission's executive director. But Lamont had been lobbied on the issue to veto the bill in order to preserve the commission's independence, and his administration requested the change. Groups like the League of Women Voters, Connecticut Citizen Action Group, and Common Cause had opposed the controversial bill, but the measure had moved quickly through both chambers. While the bipartisan measure passed by 34-1 in the state Senate, numerous House Democrats voted against the measure that still passed in the chamber by 92-46. But the resolution is that the legislature will not have veto power over the choice of the executive director. 'There will be a public hearing before the exec noms committee, but not a vote of the exec noms committee,' Ritter said, referring the executive and legislative nominations committee. 'That is something the governor did ask us to look at. That's a big one. He didn't like the appointment by the legislature.' So the tradition will continue in which the five-member, bipartisan commission will still hire its own executive director. 'That provision was a double-edged sword,' Candelora said. 'At the same time, it doesn't need a full vote of the legislature. … That is a provision that impacts democracy. Christopher Keating can be reached at ckeating@
