MONTANA

Judge orders US officials to weigh coal mine’s climate costs

BILLINGS – A judge says U.S officials downplayed climate change impacts and other environmental costs from the expansion of a massive coal mine near the Montana-Wyoming border, in a case that could test how far the Biden administration is willing to go to unwind its predecessors’ decisions.

The lawsuit over Montana’s Spring Creek mine hinges in part on an issue central to President Joe Biden’s climate change agenda: Making decisions based on the full costs of fossil fuel extraction, including impacts on a warming planet that are being felt across society.

U.S. District Judge Susan Watters said that under former President Donald Trump, the Interior Department played up the economic benefits of the 2-square-mile expansion of Spring Creek, which opened up development of 85 million tons of coal.

But Watters said in her ruling Feb. 3 that officials failed to fully consider how burning the coal would contribute to climate change, known as the “social cost of carbon,” a concept that places a dollar value on every ton of greenhouse gasses emitted.

Trump in 2017 issued an order for agencies not to use social cost of carbon estimates developed at the end of the Obama administration. Watters said the executive order did not excuse the government from considering those costs if they represent the best science.

The strip mine – Montana’s largest – employs about 250 workers who mined more than 9 million tons of coal in 2020, according to government records.

Watters rejected a request from environmentalists to blocked mining at the site, giving the government until October to do a new analysis of the mine’s climate impacts and other environmental effects.

NEW MEXICO

Lawmakers eye curbing governor’s power in crisis

SANTA FE – Lawmakers from both parties in New Mexico are putting forward bills to curb the governor’s emergency powers during a public health crisis like the coronavirus pandemic.

On Feb. 3, a Senate committee considered a Republican proposal to limit emergency health orders to two weeks and bar unilateral renewals like those used by Democratic Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham during the pandemic.

Instead, renewals would have to get approval from the Legislature or if it’s not in session, a small group of legislative leaders.

In the House, a bill introduced by Democratic and Republican lawmakers would limit emergency health orders to 90 days. After that, the governor would have to convene a special session and get legislative approval.

The proposals come amid Lujan Grisham’s coronavirus-related emergency health order, which has been renewed multiple times over 11 months with no need for a vote by the House or Senate.

A Lujan Grisham spokeswoman said it’s important governors have “the flexibility and authority” to take immediate action to prevent loss of life in any public health emergency.

Lujan Grisham called two special sessions of the Legislature last year to pass funding bills related to the pandemic, once in June for about a week and again in November for one day.

GOP lawmaker changes affiliation after abortion vote

SANTA FE – A Republican lawmaker in New Mexico who voted in favor of a Democratic-backed abortion bill has left the GOP, officials said.

House Minority Leader Jim Townsend said on Feb. 5 that state Rep. Phelps Anderson of Roswell changed his voter registration to “declined to state” after voting to repeal a 1969 abortion law that bans and criminalizes the procedure.

Anderson, serving his fourth non-consecutive term, sided with seven Democrats in repealing the abortion ban, drawing criticism from his constituents as well as calls for his resignation.

The decision to change his party means Democrats now hold an advantage over Republicans in the House, the Albuquerque Journal reported.

John Block, who founded a conservative news website Piñon Post, said Anderson’s vote is why he was forced out of the Republican Party and called for Anderson’s resignation.

The current New Mexico statute is unenforceable because of Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 U.S. Supreme Court ruling. Supporters of the repeal legislation have expressed concern that the high court weaken or overturn the 1973 ruling.

WYOMING

Local courts struggling to keep up thanks to pandemic cuts

Courts in Natrona County are struggling to keep up with a heavy caseload and a backlog of jury trials while pandemic-era budget cuts continue to make adequate staffing impossible.

District Attorney Dan Itzen said his office is now down two staffers – a legal assistant and a receptionist. He also expected to have to cut an attorney when the state slashed budgets in the fall, but luckily avoided that blow.

Itzen’s office processes roughly 3,000 cases every year. Now, he said, the team of 10 attorneys and seven legal assistants is coming in early and working late to stay on top of that caseload.

As of Feb. 3 at the district level, Itzen said that just over 100 backlogged jury trials were waiting for their day in court.

The office has had to solicit help from other agencies, namely the municipal court in Casper, to make sure everything gets done. Casper Police Chief Keith McPheeters said the district attorney’s office sent him a memo in June detailing a list of misdemeanors that should be dealt with on the city level if possible, in an attempt to lighten the circuit and district courts’ loads.

Those include charges for shoplifting, assault, battery, first-time DUI or marijuana possession, drunk pedestrians, property destruction, check fraud, and defrauding an innkeeper, among others.

Usually, Itzen said, it’s up to the officers on the scene of an arrest to decide where to send a particular case. Now, according to McPheeters, if the crime is covered by a part of Casper’s municipal code, it should stay in municipal court.

IDAHO

Bill would require legislative OK to remove Confederate monument

BOISE – The Republican-dominated Idaho Legislature could have the final say before Idahoans can remove a Confederate monument if a newly proposed bill passes.

Republican state Rep. Doug Okuniewicz on Jan. 29 introduced a measure in committee that would require approval from lawmakers via a resolution for anyone who wants to remove a monument or rename something that mentions a figure or event from history.

Okuniewicz said House Bill 65 is intended to protect monuments and prevent local jurisdictions from making what he termed “rash” decisions.

The bill would seize local control from any individual, entity or jurisdiction – such as a school district or city – that wanted to remove a controversial monument or marker, or rename something that was dedicated to a historical figure.

Okuniewicz cited an example in San Francisco, where a school district voted to rename 42 schools that were dedicated and named after people some said were associated with slavery or colonization – Abraham Lincoln and George Washington among them.

Democratic state Rep. John Gannon said the bill could be burdensome on municipalities if a city wants to simply move a monument or needs to rebuild a school.

One of Boise’s largest churches, the Cathedral of the Rockies, removed a stained-glass window featuring Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee last summer, part of a wave of such action across the country after protests erupted over the death of George Floyd and other African-Americans at the hands of police.

State Rep. Chris Mathias, a Democrat and a U.S. Coast Guard veteran and the only Black Idaho House member, said during the committee meeting that he believes it’s a “good bill,” but pointed out that figures portrayed in some Idaho monuments might not even have local ties, possibly undermining an argument that the bill prevents anyone from “erasing” history.