PRIA Logo™
MontanaHB 27069th Legislature, Regular Session (2025)House

Revise remedies to MEPA

Sponsored By: Katie Zolnikov (Republican)

Signed by Governor

Environmental ProtectionCourts

Personalized for You

How does this bill affect your finances?

Personalize government policy and PRIA will tell you what this bill means for your household, plus every other piece of legislation we track. PRIA reads each provision against your financial profile to show you exactly what matters to your wallet.

Free to download

Bill Overview

Analyzed Economic Effects

16 provisions identified: 13 benefits, 1 costs, 2 mixed.

Faster reviews and fewer permit holds

An agency may extend a review deadline once, by up to 50% of the original time, with written reasons. A sponsor can ask the board to review that extension. If the review time runs out, the agency cannot withhold the permit just for delay. It can withhold only with a written finding that issuing it would likely break a law or rule. This limit does not cover permits under Title 75, chapter 2, or Title 82, chapter 4, parts 1 and 2.

Faster reviews and sponsor rights

The law sets firm clocks: 60 days for scoping, 90 days for an environmental review, and 180 days for a detailed statement after a complete application. A project sponsor can ask a board to review a significance finding, and the review time does not count against the deadlines. A sponsor may speak at an environmental quality council meeting (or the water policy committee for water concerns) with 30 days’ notice, and agency staff must attend. Agency directors must sign any significance determinations. Public scoping notices must be neutral and avoid speculation.

Harder to block permits in court

Courts face stricter rules before stopping a permit or license. A challenger must be more likely than not to win, show irreparable harm, and prove blocking the permit is in the public interest. The judge must make written findings that include local and state economic impacts and tailor any order as narrowly as possible. An injunction requires a written bond that covers costs, lost wages, and one year of lost project revenues, unless the challenger proves inability to pay.

Tighter rules to challenge reviews

Only people who filed formal comments before the final decision can sue, and only on issues they raised. Cases must be filed within 60 days of the action. Courts review only the certified agency record and usually cannot consider new evidence. Challengers must prove claims by clear and convincing evidence, and courts affirm unless the decision was arbitrary and capricious. If the agency erred, courts mainly send the case back to the agency to fix it. In joint state‑federal reviews, state rules govern the state‑prepared parts when they conflict with federal NEPA.

Tighter court rules for environmental cases

Only people who filed formal comments can sue, and only on issues they raised. You must file within 60 days after the final agency action; for state land actions, the clock starts on the later of the final review document or the board’s approval. Courts mainly review the certified agency record, and challengers must prove their case by clear and convincing evidence. A narrow path lets new, material evidence in, but only by sworn affidavit and first sending it back to the agency to consider. Courts usually send cases back to the agency to fix errors, do not award attorney fees, and can charge challengers the agency’s actual cost to compile the record. These cases get priority on court dockets. To get an injunction, you must post a bond large enough to cover one year of lost wages and project revenues and other damages if you were wrong; if you object to the amount, you must file a sworn statement of your income, assets, and debts. When state staff prepare part of a joint federal review under the National Environmental Policy Act, Montana’s rules control those state‑prepared parts. These rules apply to undecided cases and to new suits filed after the law’s effective date. Suits about equine slaughter or processing facilities must follow Montana statutes 81‑9‑240 and 81‑9‑241.

Simple permit transfers skip new review

Selling or transferring a permit, lease, or similar right does not trigger a new environmental review if the terms do not materially change. Routine ownership changes can go forward without extra review.

Limits on agency info and design demands

Agencies may ask sponsors only for information that is relevant to the environmental review. Agencies cannot require more engineering design detail than needed to fairly evaluate the project. A sponsor can ask the board to review an agency’s design-detail request. A sponsor may also escalate disputes by a written request for a meeting with the agency director and, if unresolved, ask to appear before the board.

Narrower review of future impacts and transfers

Agencies consider cumulative impacts, but only count future related actions that an agency is reviewing at the same time. A transfer of ownership in a lease, permit, license, or other entitlement does not trigger a new detailed statement when terms do not materially change, unless another law says so.

Broader analysis and local input in reviews

Agencies must consider environmental benefits that are hard to measure, not just costs and engineering. They must check how rules affect private property and look at options that reduce those impacts when property is regulated. The official must consult state agencies and affected local governments and share the statement and comments with the governor, the environmental quality council, and the public.

Clearer rules for project alternatives

Agencies may study only realistic alternatives that work with current technology and are economically feasible based on similar projects, not a sponsor’s finances. Agencies must consult sponsors and give weight to sponsor comments. Reviews must include a meaningful no‑action alternative and check regulatory impacts on private property, looking for options that reduce or remove property restrictions. An alternatives study does not force a sponsor to follow a recommendation. Reviews may also consider reasonably foreseeable impacts.

Environmental review cannot block permits

Agencies may not deny, withhold, or add conditions to a permit based on the state environmental review parts 1–3. A sponsor may still ask the agency to add agreed measures to a permit.

Guidance for greenhouse gas reviews

Environmental reviews may include a greenhouse gas assessment when allowed under Senate Bill 221. The Department of Environmental Quality must publish guidance on when to do one and what methods to use. The department must post a draft and take public comments before finalizing the guidance.

Project sponsors can join lawsuits

If you are seeking a permit, license, lease, or similar approval and are not a named defendant, you can intervene as of right in a case that challenges the decision. This lets sponsors defend their projects directly in court.

Utility rate cases exempt from MEPA

The Department of Public Service Regulation does not do MEPA Parts 1–3 reviews when setting rates and charges for railroads, motor carriers, and public utilities. Rate cases can move without environmental review under those parts.

Challengers face higher court costs

Agencies may charge challengers the actual cost to compile and submit the certified record to the court. Courts cannot award attorney fees or costs to the winner in these review cases. You cannot base a lawsuit only on a customer fiscal impact analysis or claim it was inadequate.

Mixed rules on greenhouse gas reviews

Agencies may include greenhouse gas and climate impacts in environmental reviews. However, they may not include a greenhouse gas assessment when it falls under section 1 of Senate Bill 221.

Sponsors & Cosponsors

Sponsor

  • Katie Zolnikov

    Republican • House

Cosponsors

  • Steve Fitzpatrick

    Republican • House

  • Wylie Galt

    Republican • Senate

Roll Call Votes

All Roll Calls

Yes: 463 • No: 81

House vote • 4/15/2025

Do Concur

Yes: 64 • No: 33

House vote • 4/14/2025

Do Concur

Yes: 61 • No: 39

Senate vote • 4/4/2025

Do Concur

Yes: 44 • No: 5

Senate vote • 4/3/2025

Do Concur

Yes: 47 • No: 2

Senate vote • 3/26/2025

Rerefer to Natural Resources-Galt

Yes: 48 • No: 2

House vote • 2/13/2025

Do Pass

Yes: 99 • No: 0

House vote • 2/12/2025

Do Pass

Yes: 100 • No: 0

Actions Timeline

  1. Chapter Number Assigned

    5/5/2025House

  2. Signed by Governor

    5/1/2025House

  3. Transmitted to Governor

    4/22/2025House

  4. Signed by President

    4/21/2025Senate

  5. Signed by Speaker

    4/18/2025House

  6. Returned from Enrolling

    4/15/2025House

  7. Sent to Enrolling

    4/15/2025House

  8. 3rd Reading Senate Amendments

    4/15/2025House

  9. 2nd Reading Senate Amendments

    4/14/2025House

  10. Returned to House with Amendments

    4/4/2025Senate

  11. 3rd Reading

    4/4/2025Senate

  12. 2nd Reading

    4/3/2025Senate

  13. 2nd Reading Pass Consideration

    4/2/2025Senate

  14. Committee Report

    3/31/2025Senate

  15. Committee Executive Action

    3/28/2025Senate

  16. Rereferred to Committee

    3/26/2025Senate

  17. Committee Report

    3/24/2025Senate

  18. Committee Executive Action

    3/21/2025Senate

  19. Hearing

    3/12/2025Senate

  20. Referred to Committee

    2/21/2025Senate

  21. 1st Reading

    2/14/2025Senate

  22. Transmitted to Senate

    2/14/2025House

  23. 3rd Reading

    2/13/2025House

  24. 2nd Reading

    2/12/2025House

  25. Committee Report

    2/10/2025House

Bill Text

  • Enrolled

    4/15/2025

    PDF

  • As Amended (Version 2)

    3/31/2025

    PDF

  • Introduced

    1/21/2025

    PDF

Related Bills

Back to State Legislation