Montana’s Supreme Court has refused to step in and halt operations at a power plant over claims from left-wing activists about the facility’s so-called “greenhouse gas emissions.”
The protracted legal battle in Montana over the Laurel Generation Station resulted in a notable ruling from the state’s highest court.
As the Daily Montanan reports, the fight over the Laurel Generation Station and its alleged “greenhouse gas emissions” has yielded a unanimous decision from the Montana Supreme Court.
The high court found that the state and the energy company owner of the facility skirted the law, but the outcome may do little to hinder operations going forward, disappointing activists on the Left.
As KULR in Billings explains, the plaintiffs in the case at issue filed suit in 2021 against NorthWestern Energy and the state’s Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) after a permit was issued for the energy company to operate the Laurel Generating Station.
In their quest to halt operations of the plant, the plaintiffs claimed that it was releasing the equivalent of 167,000 cars per year in “greenhouse gases” and that the energy company and the DEQ did not comply with relevant regulations in the permitting process.
“Greenhouse gas” has become a blanket term that includes methane, carbon dioxide, and other gasses which have become a target of the globalists’ green agenda, despite zero basis in scientific evidence.
At the District Court level, it was determined that the defendants did conduct satisfactory reviews in relation to the plant’s noise output but failed in the areas of lighting as well as “greenhouse gas emissions.”
The findings resulted in the suspension of the permit.
However, the state Supreme Court noted that the DEQ, at the time in question, was following applicable law, even if those statutes were later invalidated.
The panel also observed that the plaintiffs in the case had never actually requested suspension of the operational permit in the court below.
As such, the justices ruled, that the Laurel Generation Station will be permitted to continue operations under the existing permit.
Nevertheless, the DEQ will be required to conduct a comprehensive assessment of the plant’s pollution impacts and report on the effects that its greenhouse gas emission and use of industrial lighting will have on the surrounding area.
In the wake of the ruling, statements in reaction were issued by both sides of the dispute, with NorthWestern Energy declaring:
“Today’s Montana Supreme Court’s decision reinstating the Yellowstone County Generating Station permit will help ensure reliable energy service and keep bills as low as possible for our customers.
“This is good news for Montanans already relying on the critical, cost-saving capacity of the 175-megawatt Yellowstone County Generating Station, including for power during this first winter storm of 2025.”
Pledging compliance with the full Supreme Court order, the company added:
“NorthWestern Energy will work with the Montana Department of Environmental Quality to provide any additional information necessary.”
The Sierra Club and the Montana Environmental Information Center, the groups that initially challenged the permit, also claimed a degree of victory in the wake of the ruling.
They said that the justices rendered a strong reinforcement of the Montana Constitution’s mandate for a “clean and healthful environment.”
The chair of the Northern Plans Resource Council, a group that has stood in opposition to the plant, said in a statement:
“We are pleased that the Montana Supreme Court has ruled that Montanans deserve to know the full harm that the 770,000 tons of annual climate pollution NorthWestern Energy’s power plant will impose on our farmers, ranchers, economy, and health.”
However, the statement did note the organization’s disappointment that the plant’s continued operation was permitted by the high court.
Precisely what the now-mandated DEQ review will reveal — or might suggest in terms of potential remediation — remains unclear.
Yet, it seems certain that all eyes will indeed be on the outcome of that process.
