By Anne Hedges
“The world is experiencing a fast rise in temperature that is unprecedented in the geologic record, with the average global temperature increasing by 2.2°F in the last 120 years. Montana is heating faster than the global average and the rate of warming is increasing.”
Montana Supreme Court, Held v. State of Montana
In December, the Montana Supreme Court issued a decision in favor of 16 young Montanans who sued the state for amending the Montana Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) in a way that prohibits state agencies’ from considering climate change when it permits polluting industries. Two weeks later, the Supreme Court relied on that youth climate case when it ruled in favor of MEIC and Sierra Club in a case challenging the State’s approval of NorthWestern Energy’s Yellowstone County Generating Station. Both successes build on an existing body of law regarding the meaning of Montanans’ Constitutional right to a clean and healthful environment by incorporating the right to a stable climate into that fundamental right.
In Held v. State of Montana, the Supreme Court recognized that a warming planet is leading to extreme weather, which is increasing the severity and frequency of droughts, heat waves, forest fires, and flooding. It acknowledged that climate change is harming the economy, Montana’s natural resources, the health of Montana’s youth, and the lives, culture, and livelihoods of people across the state. The findings of the court came as no surprise to those who watched the trial, where the State failed to provide a single credible expert witness in its defense, leaving the court with nothing but the extensive expert testimony of the youth plaintiffs. A court can only resolve a case based upon the evidence provided by the parties. The State’s failure to present any evidence or justification for a state law that required agencies to ignore climate science left the Montana Supreme Court with no way to rule against the youth. There is no serious case to be made that human-caused climate change isn’t a serious threat to the well-being of the planet, and so the court’s decision was fact-based and logical.
Shortly after the Held decision, the court issued a decision on MEIC‘s challenge to NorthWestern’s methane gas plant near Laurel. In a somewhat contorted decision, five judges ruled that the state Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) must conduct a MEPA analysis that considers the power plant’s climate pollution and impacts from annual emissions of three-quarters of a million tons of carbon dioxide. Unfortunately, three of those five judges said that the plant could continue to operate while DEQ conducted the climate analysis under MEPA. Two judges strongly disagreed with the plurality, dissenting that its decision would render the analysis meaningless and that the plant should not be allowed to operate while DEQ conducts an analysis of the plant’s climate impacts.
The fallout from these cases was immediate. The Legislature has introduced a host of bills to curtail any meaningful evaluation of climate change in a MEPA analysis (see article on pg. 10). It also introduced a bill to prevent the state from considering greenhouse gas emissions and the resulting impacts when it permits any facility under the Clean Air Act. These bills are intended to undermine the Supreme Court and the Montana Constitution. Whether their attempts are constitutional remains to be seen.
This article was published in the March 2025 issue of Down To Earth.
