Weaponizing State Constitutions With A Green Amendment- Shutting Off The Lights-Part III

 

"The economy and regulatory environment would look quite different if there were a constitutional obligation to charge a pollution fee for every permit"

David Mendelbaum 

2024 Greenberg Traurig, LLP

www.gtlaw.com

“We know that climate change is real and that it’s largely human-caused. So, it’s really nice, just from an emotional, psychological standpoint, to see this as a striking victory for the environment....”

Jim Goetz

 Montana Environmental Attorney

Proving once again that none of this Green Amendment malarky is about saving the planet but rather suing a Montana lower court upheld in the Held vs Montana case of August 2023 the plaintiff's request for 'declaratory relief' thus moving the case forward. The court stated:

 “. . . Youth Plaintiffs need not allege significant and physical manifestations of an infringement of their constitutional right to a clean and healthful environment to enforce their constitutional right. . .”

https://forthegenerations.org/wp-content/uploads/MT-Held-case-2021.pdf 

Soooo... You don't actually have to prove that you, or others have been specifically harmed by actions, or inactions to claim constitutional rights. The state of Montana will just back your claim... Just because..

    Montana youth activists banded together to sue the state of Montana over their permitting process to energy companies. It was the first case where proponents of the state's new Green Amendment were not only able to sue a company over policy but sue the government over policy. 

"Youth Plaintiffs have sufficiently raised a factual dispute as to whether the State Energy Policy was a substantial factor in causing Youth Plaintiffs’ injuries.” 

    Shutting down a power plant wasn't enough. Shutting down the entire permitting process and regulatory process was what Youth Plaintiffs were all about.

Here is a group photo of the parties involved outside the courthouse. They quickly went back inside to enjoy the air conditioning supplied by NorthWestern Energy. It was hot that day. I am sure the kids needed to charge their I-phones too.

 

    Within 24 hours of the ruling the future of NorthWestern Energy was in jeopardy. So, let us take a look at this evil company that cares so little about the environment that a bunch of kids spent taxpayer money to hold them accountable.
    NWE supplies power to most of Montana as well as parts of the Dakotas and parts of Nebraska. They even supply the power that runs Yellowstone National Park. Very important because Yellowstone has thousands of visitors a year who have absolutely ZERO problem hooking up their RV's and campers to the power supply so they can run AC and flat screen TV's while they cook smores on their gas grills.
Camping! Right?

Anyhoooo...

    Part of the complaint those crazy kids in Montana were upset about is how little NWE was concerned about climate change and how the Montana State House couldn't give a shit.

        https://northwesternenergy.com/about-us/our-company#

From the website:

"For more than 100 years, NorthWestern Energy has been committed to delivering safe, reliable and innovative energy solutions.

We serve gas and electric to customers in the western two-thirds of Montana and eastern South Dakota. We also have gas service in Nebraska, and serve electricity to Yellowstone National Park.

We own and operate a diverse generation fleet of wind, water, natural gas and coal-fired resources and the high-voltage electric transmission system and distribution system. We also own and operate natural gas production, transmission and distribution systems."

    They operate an array of power sources including wind and hydroelectric. They also operate natural gas and coal in case the windmills get frozen over (it is Montana after all).

    According to this map they serve a hell of a lot of communities. not just in Montana, but elsewhere outside the state. But what if NWE has to shutter gas and coal plants in Montana so the enviro-wackos calm down and South Dakota has brown outs? Does South Dakota get to sue somebody as well? What about their 'rights' to safe and reliable energy? Don't they pay for this service? What about the costs associated with 'renewable' sources? Many of these areas are not exactly bustling hubs of economic opportunity. A rise in energy costs can make the difference between staying warm in South Dakota in January or making a mortgage payment.

    This is why the Green Amendment is a very bad idea. If you 'manufacture' a 'right' then you compel someone to provide that service, right, obligation. They must comply with a law or face a legal battle. Other people end up getting hurt because of it.
    The Perilous Effect.
    This is the fly in the ointment of The Green Amendment.

    The process is designed to get simpler. Just sue. Fuck it! File a claim!
    In an article written shortly after the finding Jennifer Hijazi and Drew Hutchinson wrote in their piece:

    "lawyers don’t need to call on other statutory authorities to establish standing to sue, which helps cut down steps necessary for potential success in court."

      https://news.bloomberglaw.com/environment-and-energy/montana-climate-ruling-boosts-case-for-states-green-amendments

    Let us not let legal procedures and jurist-prudence get in the way to enforce The Green Amendment.
    Leftists: Ideas so good they have to be enforced. Regardless.

    The Youth Plaintiffs in the Montana case insisted that NWE was not addressing the impacts of 'climate change'. They also insisted (and were granted to proceed on those grounds) the permitting process was also affecting future generations to clean air, water, soil.
     However, that seems to go up against what NWE is already doing.

From the website:

      "Sustainability means meeting today’s needs while planning for tomorrow’s as well. It is not just a matter of good environmental practices, being a sustainable enterprise must also incorporate social and governance best practices."

        Compliance isn't the issue. Suing and shutting down these operations IS the issue.
    The Bloomberg article above concludes with a statement from Law Professor Sarah Everhart from Widener University:

 “.... makes that green amendment self-executing, meaning that the parties can challenge inaction without any other grant of authority,”

    .... And That Is The Diatribe....