PRIA Logo™
MontanaHB 28569th Legislature, Regular Session (2025)House

Generally revise Montana environmental policy act

Sponsored By: Brandon Ler (Republican)

Signed by Governor

Environmental Protection

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

10 provisions identified: 4 benefits, 0 costs, 6 mixed.

Environmental review is advisory, not permitting

The law makes Montana’s environmental review a disclosure tool. Agencies cannot deny or add permit conditions based on MEPA parts 1–3. Your constitutional property rights do not change, and agencies still must meet other environmental standards. For private projects, an alternatives analysis cannot force you to use a recommended option; you may choose one voluntarily and ask to add agreed measures to your permit. If an agency sponsors a project, it cannot use MEPA parts 1–3 to change its own project. Transferring a permit or lease normally does not trigger a new review unless terms materially change. Older MEPA policy and venue sections are repealed.

Faster environmental reviews with clearer rules

Agencies must finish scoping in 60 days, most reviews in 90 days, and detailed statements in 180 days. They can extend once by up to 50%; more time needs the sponsor’s okay. If they miss the deadline, they cannot withhold a permit unless issuing it would likely break a law or rule. Agencies can only ask for information relevant to the review and cannot demand extra engineering detail; scoping notices must be neutral. Reviews must use realistic, current-technology alternatives, judge economic feasibility by similar projects, consult the sponsor, and fully analyze a no‑action option. Reviews must also assess effects on private property rights when property is regulated, and agencies must ask state and local governments for comments. Sponsors can ask a board to review significance calls and pause the review clock, and may bring issues to the environmental council with 30 days’ notice.

Harder to block permits in court

A court can block a permit only if you are likely to win, will suffer irreparable harm, and the public interest supports it. The court must write how the relief affects local and state economies and tailor any order as narrowly as possible. To vacate or delay a permit, you must also show a violation of an established law or rule and post a bond unless you prove inability to pay. The bond can cover costs and up to one year of lost wages and project revenues. If you dispute the bond amount, you must file a sworn statement of your income, assets, and debts.

New court rules for environmental lawsuits

The law gives environmental cases priority on district court dockets. If you challenge an agency decision, the agency charges a fee to cover the actual cost to compile the certified record. To get an injunction, you must post a bond big enough to cover costs, including one year of lost wages and project revenue if the order is wrongful. If you offer new evidence, you must swear it is new and significant. The court then sends it back to the agency to consider before it reviews it.

Tighter rules to sue over reviews

Only people who filed formal comments before the final decision can sue, and only on the issues they raised. You must sue within 60 days, and in the county where the activity will occur. Courts stick to the certified record; challengers must prove claims by clear and convincing evidence. New information counts only if sworn as new, material, and significant, and then it goes back to the agency. Agencies can charge challengers the actual cost to compile the record. Courts cannot award attorney fees or costs to the winner in these MEPA cases. Applicants for permits can join such lawsuits as of right if not already named. For some permit- or license-related constitutional claims, the plaintiff must first show the underlying statute is unconstitutional. In joint reviews, courts apply state rules to state‑prepared parts, but federal NEPA rules control where they are inconsistent.

No environmental review for utility rates

The Department of Public Service Regulation does not use the state's environmental review steps when it sets rates and charges. This applies to railroads, motor carriers, and public utilities. The exemption covers only these rate and charge decisions.

State reviews can assess climate impacts

Agencies may include greenhouse gas emissions and climate impacts in environmental reviews. They can consider effects inside and outside Montana. This adds information for the public and decision‑makers.

Stronger Environmental Quality Council oversight

The Environmental Quality Council takes on interim committee duties for DEQ, Fish, Wildlife & Parks, and DNRC. At least half of certain appointees must come from legislative committees that handle these issues. This tightens oversight and clarifies who serves.

Agency directors must sign significance findings

An agency director must sign in writing any decision that a project is significant or any recommendation to make that finding. This makes directors formally responsible for those significance calls.

Narrower reviews and new climate guidance

Agencies must look at cumulative impacts, but they may count future actions only if another agency is considering them at the same time. Environmental reviews may include a greenhouse gas assessment as limited by SB 221. The Department of Environmental Quality must publish draft guidance on when and how to do these assessments and take public comment before finalizing it.

Sponsors & Cosponsors

Sponsor

  • Brandon Ler

    Republican • House

Cosponsors

There are no cosponsors for this bill.

Roll Call Votes

All Roll Calls

Yes: 305 • No: 190

House vote • 4/15/2025

Do Concur

Yes: 63 • No: 34

House vote • 4/14/2025

Do Concur

Yes: 65 • No: 35

Senate vote • 4/4/2025

Do Concur

Yes: 31 • No: 18

Senate vote • 4/3/2025

Do Concur

Yes: 31 • No: 19

House vote • 2/13/2025

Do Pass

Yes: 57 • No: 42

House vote • 2/12/2025

Do Pass

Yes: 58 • No: 42

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. Hearing

    3/21/2025Senate

  17. Referred to Committee

    2/21/2025Senate

  18. 1st Reading

    2/14/2025Senate

  19. Transmitted to Senate

    2/14/2025House

  20. 3rd Reading

    2/13/2025House

  21. 2nd Reading

    2/12/2025House

  22. Committee Report

    2/10/2025House

  23. Committee Executive Action

    2/7/2025House

  24. Hearing

    1/27/2025House

  25. 1st Reading

    1/23/2025House

Bill Text

  • Enrolled

    4/15/2025

    PDF

  • As Amended (Version 2)

    3/31/2025

    PDF

  • Introduced

    1/22/2025

    PDF

Related Bills

Back to State Legislation