In the first ruling of its kind nationwide, a Montana state court decided Monday in favor of young people who alleged the state violated their right to a “clean and healthful environment” by...
In the first ruling of its kind nationwide, a Montana state court decided Monday in favor of young people who alleged the state violated their right to a “clean and healthful environment” by promoting the use of fossil fuels.
The court determined that a provision in the Montana Environmental Policy Act has harmed the state’s environment and the young plaintiffs, by preventing Montana from considering the climate impacts of energy projects. The provision is accordingly unconstitutional, the court said.
Here are the two key laws they were challenging (emphasis mine): Mont. Code Ann. § 75-1-201(2)(a) – General directions -- environmental impact statements Context: Subsection (1) just defines the...
Exemplary
Here are the two key laws they were challenging (emphasis mine):
Except as provided in subsection (2)(b), an environmental review conducted pursuant to subsection (1) may not include an evaluation of greenhouse gas emissions and corresponding impacts to the climate in the state or beyond the state's borders.
Context: Subsection (1) just defines the general "what" and "why" of an EIS. Subsection (2)(b) gives only two exceptions: If the project is being done jointly with a federal agency and the federal agency requires it, or if congress amends the Clean Air Act to define carbon dioxide as a regulated pollutant.
This section was amended earlier this year to also prohibit evaluating impact to the state's own environment. Prior to that change, only evaluating impact outside the state was prohibited. (Here's the change)
(1) It is the policy of the state of Montana to:
...
(c) promote development of projects using advanced technologies that convert coal into electricity, synthetic petroleum products, hydrogen, methane, natural gas, and chemical feedstocks;
(d) increase utilization of Montana's vast coal reserves in an environmentally sound manner that includes the mitigation of greenhouse gas and other emissions;
(e) increase local oil and gas exploration and development to provide high-paying jobs and to strengthen Montana's economy;
(f) expand exploration and technological innovation, including using carbon dioxide for enhanced oil recovery in declining oil fields to increase output;
(g) expand Montana's petroleum refining industry as a significant contributor to Montana's manufacturing sector in supplying the transportation energy needs of Montana and the region;
Those were quite the gift to the fossil fuel industries.
As costs of renewable energy generation goes down (expedited in large part by the Inflation Reduction Act and Bipartisan Infrastructure Law), I hope that the cost of business lobbying for...
As costs of renewable energy generation goes down (expedited in large part by the Inflation Reduction Act and Bipartisan Infrastructure Law), I hope that the cost of business lobbying for non-renewables weakens to the point these sorts of cases find more traction in the courts to legally bite back.
In the first ruling of its kind nationwide, a Montana state court decided Monday in favor of young people who alleged the state violated their right to a “clean and healthful environment” by promoting the use of fossil fuels.
The court determined that a provision in the Montana Environmental Policy Act has harmed the state’s environment and the young plaintiffs, by preventing Montana from considering the climate impacts of energy projects. The provision is accordingly unconstitutional, the court said.
See also https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/14/us/montana-kids-win-climate-trial/index.html
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/aug/14/montana-climate-trial-young-activists-judge-order
Here are the two key laws they were challenging (emphasis mine):
Mont. Code Ann. § 75-1-201(2)(a) – General directions -- environmental impact statements
Context: Subsection (1) just defines the general "what" and "why" of an EIS. Subsection (2)(b) gives only two exceptions: If the project is being done jointly with a federal agency and the federal agency requires it, or if congress amends the Clean Air Act to define carbon dioxide as a regulated pollutant.
This section was amended earlier this year to also prohibit evaluating impact to the state's own environment. Prior to that change, only evaluating impact outside the state was prohibited. (Here's the change)
Mont. Code Ann. § 90-4-l00l(l)(c)-(g) – State energy policy goal statements.
Those were quite the gift to the fossil fuel industries.
As costs of renewable energy generation goes down (expedited in large part by the Inflation Reduction Act and Bipartisan Infrastructure Law), I hope that the cost of business lobbying for non-renewables weakens to the point these sorts of cases find more traction in the courts to legally bite back.