Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Energy Permitting topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Montana committee hears opposition and industry support for resolution urging federal rollback of environmental rules
Summary
Lawmakers heard hours of testimony on House Joint Resolution 17, which asks federal leaders to streamline permitting and prioritize critical minerals and national‑security authorities; industry witnesses warned of plant retirements and high compliance costs, while tribes and conservation groups urged a no vote citing public‑health, wildlife and tribal consultation concerns.
Representative Steve Fitzpatrick introduced House Joint Resolution 17, saying the legislature should urge Congress and the president to promote energy development and streamline federal permitting to meet rising demand driven by data centers and other modern industries. Fitzpatrick framed the measure as an "all‑of‑the‑above" approach that includes fossil fuels, renewable energy and newer technologies, and cited national‑security tools such as the Defense Production Act and the National Emergencies Act.
Environmental and tribal groups urged lawmakers to reject HJ 17. Catherine Sauer of the Northern Plains Resource Council said weakening safeguards would harm Montanans and rural livelihoods and urged a "no" vote. Patrick Yawaki, representing the Blackfeet Tribe, Chippewa Cree, Rocky Boy and Fort Belknap Indian Community, said the resolution fails to account for tribal consultation and risks violating Montana's constitution. Natalie Wright of the Montana Conservation Voters Education Fund and Shannon James of the Montana Environmental Information Center told the committee that the resolution’s characterizations of federal laws such as the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act are false and that broad repeal or bypass of those laws would damage public health and the economy.
Industry witnesses and trade groups urged support. Gordon Criswell, director of environmental compliance at the Colstrip power plant, said EPA rules finalized in May 2024 (notably the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards, MATS, and a greenhouse‑gas rule) could force expensive retrofits or early retirement for Colstrip’s Units 3 and 4; Criswell testified that a bag‑house retrofit could cost "over $500,000,000" and would produce only a marginal particulate‑control improvement on plants that already remove roughly 99.6 percent of particulates. Matt Vincent of the Montana Mining Association urged streamlined permitting for critical‑minerals projects, citing long global permitting timelines and projections of substantial future mineral demand tied to electric vehicles, wind farms and AI data centers.
Committee members pressed witnesses on specific claims, including whether streamlining would imperil state conservation laws (for example, sage‑grouse protections) and whether regulated facilities could remain economically viable under proposed federal rules. Fitzpatrick said he favored permitting reforms that could attract investment while maintaining grid reliability.
The committee closed the hearing on HJ 17 without taking immediate action. Staff noted that additional energy‑related bills are on future agendas.
