Here’s Why MT Now Wants to Limit Air Quality Standards

A summary of the key information is provided at the bottom of the article.

BUTTE, MT - Montana lawmakers are advancing legislation that would restrict the state’s ability to impose air quality regulations stricter than those set by the federal government.

Get our free mobile app

The move is drawing sharp lines between industry leaders who say state-level restrictions create confusion and cost, and environmental and health advocates who fear the bill will limit Montana’s ability to protect public health.

House Bill 291, introduced by Rep. Greg Oblander (R-Billings), has passed out of the Senate Natural Resources Committee and is slated for debate on the Senate floor.

Why Limit Montana’s Air Quality Authority?

Supporters of HB 291 argue that Montana should follow federal standards to ensure regulatory consistency and economic viability—particularly for large industries like coal and petroleum.

In the eyes of industry leaders, when Montana gets ahead of federal rules, it creates uncertainty and drives up compliance costs—especially for facilities like the Colstrip power plant, which is among the highest mercury emitters in the country.

Operators of the plant have warned that meeting stricter Biden-era pollution rules could threaten its viability.

NorthWestern Energy, a co-owner of the plant, said rolling back those rules—as recently proposed by the Trump administration—will ease that burden and reduce energy costs.

Environmental Advocates: A Risk to Public Health

Environmental and pediatric health groups strongly oppose HB 291, saying it would tie the state’s hands in addressing pollution that federal rules either delay or ignore.

They point to Montana’s own track record as evidence that independent action can make a difference.

Before federal regulations targeted mercury emissions from coal plants, Montana implemented its own rules, cutting several thousand pounds of the toxic element from the air.

Mercury exposure is linked to serious neurological damage, especially in children.

According to Hedges and others, HB 291 would block Montana from taking such independent steps again, even if public health is at stake.

A Broader Shift in Environmental Policy

The timing of the bill also reflects larger shifts in national environmental policy.

The Trump administration recently announced plans to roll back Biden-era environmental rules—especially those affecting coal plants.

In one example reported by The New York Times, the Environmental Protection Agency created a direct email account for power plants and industry groups to request exemptions from the Clean Air Act.

For opponents of HB 291, this underscores their concern: if federal standards weaken, and Montana can’t set its own, protections for clean air—and human health—could erode significantly.

Health vs. Industry, Local vs. Federal

The debate over HB 291 spotlights a fundamental tension in environmental governance: should states have the freedom to go above and beyond federal standards, especially when public health is at stake? Or should uniformity take priority to prevent economic disruption?

As the bill heads to the Senate floor, lawmakers must weigh the short-term benefits for energy and industry against the long-term health of Montana’s people—and the state’s ability to act independently when national policy lags behind.

Summary:

Montana lawmakers are advancing a bill that would prevent the state from setting air quality regulations stricter than federal standards.

Supporters, including coal and petroleum industry groups, argue the move brings regulatory consistency and reduces costs.

Opponents, including environmental and health advocates, warn the bill would strip Montana of its ability to act independently to protect public health—pointing to past state-led efforts that successfully reduced mercury emissions.

The bill’s timing coincides with federal efforts to roll back pollution rules, raising concerns about weakening overall air protections.