[{"_1":2,"_112":-5,"_113":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88,100],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6629879,"mediaKeyId","2702221-9eadfdeb2c6d199d4fdf169625ad6069","parentId",2702221,"title","Contested bill would narrow greenhouse‑gas analysis in MEPA; proponents and opponents spar over scope","audioSeconds",4020,"startMs",2955000,"endMs",6975000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2702221-9eadfdeb2c6d199d4fdf169625ad6069&start=2955&end=6975","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2702221-9eadfdeb2c6d199d4fdf169625ad6069/thumbnail_2955000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6629879/Montana/Contested-bill-would-narrow-greenhousegas-analysis-in-MEPA-proponents-and-opponents-spar-over-scope","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6629879-1e935230f765ca5858a72f08f7dc4608/orig.mp4?Expires=1775402160&Signature=ZHHUEMX6c24fHLvJ8VK4gY97b30GggSJslkjkr~rSXeU2ARmRNyvUBD6BZ3NMeDXFbMQaurN9qCxSZBVlhATL7BoCdngJ4AbyFgYdNbIBulmnm3HZP2GG5zjHitR1jFkS4QZMZGeaTTJainAPe0aJcJiFI0hQ-MQZ8sNx8AY2RSXO8rIDAyH6Q9rg~rBglMEj7KS3mo-iHcvKA7mZ~nPu-QeXn~dH9WpLOhIl1wpTsQF7tUb2DTQxQgCiLby-Lu8L~gu4v2zWS1Mf8Oll2xtLtMQJYMfQLLOAZmpl5l0qeyjjsIySGgSAPm1mTp5NaQvIRAUometV2tABDALmzM7pA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Montana Legislature","date","2025-03-19T00:00:00Z","article","Senate Bill 221 would establish statutory sideboards for greenhouse‑gas (GHG) assessments in Montana environmental review under the Montana Environmental Policy Act (MEPA), limit the kinds of activities that trigger those assessments and require the Department of Environmental Quality to draft guidance for agencies.

DEQ Director Sonya Nowakowski opened the hearing saying the agency supported the bill as a response to the Montana Supreme Court’s Held decision and described four changes the bill would make: define greenhouse gases, require GHG assessments for certain fossil‑fuel activities, limit the scope of the impacts agencies must assess to those \"approximately caused,\" and direct DEQ to prepare guidance for state agencies on methods and thresholds.

\"DEQ stands in full support,\" Nowakowski said, arguing the bill would provide predictability and clarify when an assessment is required. Industry, trade and labor groups — including representatives of the Montana Chamber of Commerce, the Montana Coal Council, the Montana Petroleum Association, the Montana Mining Association, utilities and construction trades — testified in favor, saying the bill would reduce litigation risk and provide a practical framework for permitting.

Proponents emphasized the need for workable sideboards rather than open‑ended litigation over how to account for upstream or downstream emissions. Beau Wilkins, DEQ’s Air Quality Bureau chief, told the committee that practical limits are needed because agencies lack reliable data about how Montana resources are ultimately used, processed or exported and that guidance should set defendable boundaries for analysis.

Opponents, including the Montana Environmental Information Center, Montana Conservation Voters, the Greater Yellowstone Coalition and other conservation and tribal witnesses, urged rejection or amendment. They argued the bill’s definition of \"proposed action\" and its exclusion of upstream, downstream and indirect actions would allow agencies to disregard significant emissions linked to Montana projects.

\"What they're trying to do here is to create a fence line analysis that artificially narrows and deflates the emissions that may result from any one state action,\" Derf Johnson of the Montana Environmental Information Center said. He pointed to a DEQ analysis that measured on‑site emissions in the thousands of metric tons while estimated downstream combustion could amount to millions of tons.

Several tribal representatives said the bill did not include adequate consultation language and warned reduced analysis of indirect impacts could harm treaty resources and tribal air quality programs. Public‑health and medical testimony raised concerns about cumulative air‑quality impacts on children and other vulnerable populations.

Committee members pressed DEQ and proponents on specifics: how downstream emissions would be handled, whether DEQ has the tools to calculate downstream combustion if needed, and how public and tribal notice and consultation would be incorporated into any guidance. DEQ said the guidance process would include public outreach and noted the purpose of the bill is to provide a practical, legally defensible approach to GHG assessment rather than an open‑ended or global accounting of every downstream use.

Why it matters: The Held decision requires Montana agencies to consider greenhouse gases as part of MEPA but left open how agencies should do that. SB 221 attempts to set statutory limits on the scope and method of those analyses; the outcome could affect permitting for mines, power plants, pipelines and other fossil-fuel–related projects and influence litigation risk.

What’s next: The hearing attracted extensive pro and con testimony and detailed committee questioning. The bill sponsor indicated a willingness to work with agencies on specific language such as tribal consultation; DEQ said it would develop guidance through a public process if the bill passes. The committee did not record a final vote at the hearing.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","House Natural Resources - Mar 19, 2025 15:00 - 18:00","oneSentenceSummary","Senate Bill 221 would require greenhouse‑gas assessments for certain fossil‑fuel activities and direct DEQ to write guidance setting scope and methods for those analyses, a response to the Montana Supreme Court’s Held decision.","taxTitle","2025 Legislature MT, Montana","taxId",77694,"location","Montana","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6629884,"Committee hears bill to reinstate voluntary \"waiver of adverse effect\" for water-right applications",1052,1921000,2973000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2702221-9eadfdeb2c6d199d4fdf169625ad6069&start=1921&end=2973","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2702221-9eadfdeb2c6d199d4fdf169625ad6069/thumbnail_1921000.jpg","/articles/6629884/Montana/Committee-hears-bill-to-reinstate-voluntary-waiver-of-adverse-effect-for-water-right-applications","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6629884-a65418c55206f2cfb32cd5c42c36aaef/orig.mp4?Expires=1775402161&Signature=GqQlHBy81dRyLmqrOMisHA277zktKrfAEvguddpgi12Yq8dIn8WX1K~adXPFyOf5mu3V3U-1ljY4~4Tm90eAFVTcsl6xXIl7vQWC3msT5b8hmWAQ2lUAdnM5ElO6Ot2zOuKBE~AP6gDzKi4ahW62Un-gzNWxoq-kSWJXY5ALI4flwcLwf3FgOypw-MVXThecm5vSHwRIlTj1PnVQxv-xYRQ7yIH7PO688TeAuQzHZnejgMY-me53kKJWy~UzM79rzSZpPveAaO~BoycivL-gK8K4tOlrh-CHOa7y1pSqaOTunOXz583DzxZtjfmotkWxwpoVadO4z6izq04aD6VGEw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Senate Bill 190 would reinstate a statutory waiver of adverse effect for water-right permit and change applications, allowing a water-right holder to voluntarily exclude their right from the DNRC's adverse‑effect assessment during an application review.

Senator (sponsor) introduced the bill as a reinstatement of a provision that existed from Oct. 1, 2017, through Sept. 30, 2023, and that was removed by a sunset. Anna Pakenham Stevenson, water division administrator at the Department of Natural Resources and Conservation, said the bill was developed by a multi‑stakeholder working group and would simplify the application process when the waiver is provided.

\"This bill allows a water user to voluntarily, right from consideration in that adverse effect assessment,\" Pakenham Stevenson said, and she added that DNRC would still be required to evaluate legal availability for permits under existing statutes.

Clayton Elliott of Montana Trout Unlimited, a member of the stakeholder group, said the waiver has been used in prior cases to help craft mitigation and creative solutions for constrained water supplies and that reinstating it would provide flexibility to applicants and affected users.

Committee members asked whether the waiver could be rescinded after it had been granted; proponents and DNRC staff said it could not be rescinded later. Clayton Elliott said the waiver applies at the moment a permit or change application is considered and cannot be taken back after the decision is made. DNRC staff noted that statutory responsibilities to evaluate legal availability and to protect priority water rights remain in place even when a waiver is provided.

Proponents included municipal, agricultural and water-rights organizations that had served on the working group; no opponents testified at the hearing. Several committee members asked technical questions about potential downstream effects, transfers, and protections for future water-right holders; DNRC staff recommended consulting a water-rights attorney for specific legal questions about long-term consequences.

Why it matters: The waiver is designed to make certain permitting and change processes more flexible and to encourage voluntary mitigation arrangements among water-right holders in areas where water supply is constrained. Restoring the waiver could affect how mitigation and water-right negotiations occur in Montana.

What’s next: The hearing closed with several members expressing support; no final committee vote was recorded during the hearing.","Senate Bill 190 would reinstate a previously expired option allowing a water-right holder to voluntarily waive consideration of their right in an adverse-effect review for certain permit and change applications; proponents said it provides flexibility, opponents were not present.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6629888,"DEQ-backed bill would raise cap on underground storage tank fees; industry says it can work with department",382,1312000,1694000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2702221-9eadfdeb2c6d199d4fdf169625ad6069&start=1312&end=1694","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2702221-9eadfdeb2c6d199d4fdf169625ad6069/thumbnail_1312000.jpg","/articles/6629888/Montana/DEQ-backed-bill-would-raise-cap-on-underground-storage-tank-fees-industry-says-it-can-work-with-department","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6629888-38952a8ffede933617978bf508d60bf3/orig.mp4?Expires=1775402161&Signature=W~d9FDW9RAMvkNgcyx6-DG3Bjw29Ezz2HU65G~eFu3JmeiNvefjFGEl-uVATiJv2PPKjEEbXlFSF1pfOZ8o91rAn29ylfewI8YjYSG2nZ4yazHUcw5~q6ffJG8rotPAVSnBcYGoEftzEle7OyGrIVsG2QSeOC5Zv5thToLhKgZ8QwGz0gON2FPe1iUvGtDxCOIQucC0w73LdObZoOZG00GQJmoezpyRYcSEJSbAD~GufN4a~HcWi37BIbYThHtL8pFxoBcp5r855QIq3WBV1QkeU3vLSVu4-Atsw2auDScTH9650J8pRc-YXKCwS9YbhevmlqSlIDrq0acKEGWqVGQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Senate Bill 46 would raise the statutory cap for Montana's underground storage tank (UST) annual registration fees, allowing the Department of Environmental Quality to pursue rulemaking to increase fees and cover rising operating costs.

Senator (sponsor) opened the hearing on behalf of DEQ and DEQ's Waste Management and Remediation Division Administrator, Amy Steinmetz, testified that inflation and added federal regulatory requirements have stretched the UST program’s budget. \"In fiscal year 24, the program operated at a loss of $233,000,\" Steinmetz said, adding that the program had funded operations for two decades through a combination of the annual registration fee, construction fees and federal grants.

Steinmetz told the committee that the statute already authorizes DEQ to set annual registration fees in rule and sets a statutory cap. The bill would increase the cap for small tank registration fees from $36 to $100 and for large tanks from $108 to $300; she emphasized the bill itself does not immediately raise fees but would enable DEQ to work with stakeholders in rulemaking to set an appropriate fee.

\"This bill on its own does not raise fees,\" Steinmetz said. \"It simply raises the cap so that DEQ can work with stakeholders on rulemaking to set a reasonable fee.\"

Brad Longcake, representing the Montana Petroleum Marketers and Convenience Store Association, testified the group's members operate the tanks regulated by the program and said the association had worked closely with DEQ over the interim. Longcake said his members were prepared to collaborate in rulemaking and supported the bill as a way to preserve program operations.

No opponents appeared at the hearing. Committee members asked technical questions about billing and timing; Steinmetz replied that fees are billed on an annual cycle and that DEQ has been working to streamline permitting and inspection processes to reduce program costs.

Why it matters: Montana’s UST program regulates permitting, inspections and leak‑prevention for more than a thousand facilities statewide. DEQ officials said fee revenues and federal grants no longer fully cover program costs and the change would allow the agency to pursue a fee increase in rule to maintain operations and protect public health.

What’s next: The hearing concluded with the committee closing testimony; no committee vote to advance Senate Bill 46 was recorded at the hearing.","Senate Bill 46 would increase statutory caps on annual underground storage tank registration fees so DEQ can pursue a rule change to cover growing program costs; DEQ and petroleum marketers said they have worked together on a path forward.",{"_33":101,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":102,"_41":103,"_43":104,"_45":105,"_47":106,"_49":107,"_51":108,"_53":109,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":110,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":111,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6629892,"House committee reopens debate on Brownfields Revitalization Act, asks for fiscal note",914,240000,1154000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2702221-9eadfdeb2c6d199d4fdf169625ad6069&start=240&end=1154","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2702221-9eadfdeb2c6d199d4fdf169625ad6069/thumbnail_240000.jpg","/articles/6629892/Montana/House-committee-reopens-debate-on-Brownfields-Revitalization-Act-asks-for-fiscal-note","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6629892-cd71ad449bb63c3e5f38bd2a954d30a4/orig.mp4?Expires=1775402161&Signature=QihkqRwRxCvGuSbpPSeYfcat6ru4pb~hOBx37EfWAvRNsCTlAgKrk6L4fdC7X3z57selhWZ~bR3-6MVAH~RhHtgSLx8JkkhSdFTThEH0vg2YpZWIseCIddV5RcDouHxq7ecxIHNip1MCxagCORDqiuRUQsLhrEf2inrJpR7HjrCVBj9Fo~W~~0V4it0qeI9PHL3kdbxZJZ1XvyUM90capOxkLW71Bxpj-yZfE2Ob5vYDQHIReWNLKxoA4LO4nR6ex7cb4X2l0~qpOMIMN-aCDYG70XrcbXHVAZ9dld2jBxwjvmvYm6VsFIzQuUpMj54xI-iuWv1WYkpcOzsruBoKUw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The House Natural Resources Committee voted to take House Bill 808 off the table and considered an amendment that would transfer state money into a new Montana Brownfields Revitalization Act fund to support cleanup of petroleum and hazardous-substance sites.

The committee's executive staff, Jason (staff), summarized the bill as establishing a brownfields program to enable cleanup of petroleum and hazardous-substance sites and noted the bill as drafted included a statutory appropriation and an existing fund. Amy Steinmetz, Waste Management and Remediation Division administrator at the Department of Environmental Quality, told the committee that federal brownfields funds have been the program’s primary revenue source.

\"Brownfields federal funds have been the sole source of funding for the Brownfields program in the state,\" Steinmetz said, and added that the department receives about $700,000 per year in federal support while larger supplemental awards have come at times through the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act.

Committee members debated the amendment, which would transfer specified amounts from the general fund into the brownfields fund (the amendment document referenced a $1,000,000 figure). Representative Maness expressed budget concerns, saying the Legislature is working under tight fiscal limits and \"we don't need to be adding more to that.\" Representative Konar described the measure as a stopgap to let appropriations review funding choices and said she would support it so appropriators can weigh it against other priorities.

Representatives asked whether an updated fiscal note had been prepared for the amendment. Committee staff said the fiscal note on file covered the original bill language but not the amendment's fund transfer; Representative Henkel said that lack of a fiscal note made it difficult to evaluate the appropriation. After additional procedural motions and a voice vote on the amendment, committee members agreed to request another fiscal note. Representative Engel moved to table the bill at one point, then rescinded the motion.

At the end of the discussion the chair directed staff to add the bill back into members' packets and to request the updated fiscal note; the committee took no final action to advance the bill to the next stage during the hearing.

Why it matters: Brownfields cleanup programs enable redevelopment of contaminated properties and can affect public health, environmental cleanup priorities and local economic development. Lawmakers and DEQ staff agreed the program needs funding certainty, but several members said a clear fiscal analysis is necessary before committing limited state dollars.

What’s next: The committee requested a fiscal note that reflects the amendment's transfers and returned HB 808 to members' packets for further review before any final vote.","Lawmakers took House Bill 808 off the table, considered an amendment to transfer state funds into a new brownfields cleanup account and asked for an updated fiscal note before moving ahead.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Contested bill would narrow greenhouse‑gas analysis in MEPA; proponents and opponents spar over scope

Committee hears bill to reinstate voluntary "waiver of adverse effect" for water-right applications

DEQ-backed bill would raise cap on underground storage tank fees; industry says it can work with department

House committee reopens debate on Brownfields Revitalization Act, asks for fiscal note