Crimes and offenses; critical infrastructure facilities, further provided; crimes of unauthorized entry of a critical infrastructure facility and criminal tampering, further provided
HB290 would expand Alabama’s criminal code provisions governing critical infrastructure and utility-related offenses. The bill adds communications service infrastructure or facilities to the definition of “critical infrastructure facility,” alongside existing categories such as power generation, pipelines, refineries, water and wastewater systems, natural gas facilities, transportation facilities, and other listed industrial and utility sites. It also updates the offenses of unauthorized entry of a critical infrastructure facility and criminal tampering in the first and second degrees.
Under the bill, unauthorized entry would cover intentional entry without authority into enclosed or posted critical infrastructure property, use of fraudulent identification to gain entry, remaining after being told to leave, or entering restricted areas without authorization. The bill also creates felony exposure when a person, during unauthorized entry, intentionally, recklessly, or with criminal negligence damages or interferes with critical infrastructure operations, or when the person enters while possessing or operating an unmanned aircraft system with certain weapons or explosives attached. The bill preserves protections for lawful assembly, peaceful petitioning, labor disputes, and lawful government action on rights-of-way, and it states that acts within the scope of employment are not covered by certain provisions.
HB290 also revises criminal tampering laws. First-degree criminal tampering would include intentionally or recklessly causing a substantial interruption of utility service, or threatening a utility worker with a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument to obstruct utility operations. Second-degree criminal tampering would continue to cover tampering with another’s property to cause substantial inconvenience and tampering with utility property or connections. The bill would take effect October 1, 2025, if enacted.
The bill’s practical impact would be to broaden protection for communications infrastructure and strengthen criminal penalties for trespass, sabotage, and interference involving utilities and other critical infrastructure assets. It would affect property owners, utilities, communications providers, industrial facilities, and individuals who enter or interfere with these sites, while also clarifying that ordinary lawful work activity, public rights-of-way activity, and peaceful protest are not intended to be criminalized.
The overall sentiment in the available record appears limited but generally aligned with infrastructure protection and public safety concerns, since the bill was introduced by a group of Republican representatives and framed as a public-safety and security measure. However, the inclusion of protest-related carveouts and labor-dispute language suggests awareness of potential civil-liberties concerns. No committee debate or recorded votes are provided, and the bill’s current status as indefinitely postponed indicates it did not advance, though the record does not show the specific reason for that outcome.
HB290 would amend Sections 13A-7-4.3, 13A-7-25, and 13A-7-26 of the Code of Alabama 1975 to expand the definition of critical infrastructure facility and to revise the elements and penalties for unauthorized entry and criminal tampering offenses. It would specifically bring communications service infrastructure and facilities within the critical infrastructure framework and add felony treatment for certain damage, interference, and drone-related conduct. The bill would also preserve express exceptions for lawful assembly, labor disputes, and governmental rights-of-way activity.
The available materials suggest a generally pro-security, pro-infrastructure sentiment behind the bill, with the sponsors seeking stronger criminal protections for utilities and communications systems. At the same time, the bill’s text reflects an effort to avoid sweeping in lawful protest, labor activity, or government maintenance work, indicating sensitivity to civil-rights and operational concerns. Because there are no committee transcripts or votes in the record, there is no direct evidence of broader support or opposition, and the bill’s indefinite postponement leaves its ultimate reception unclear.
The main points of potential contention are the breadth of the expanded critical infrastructure definition, the new felony exposure for interference or damage during unauthorized entry, and the inclusion of communications infrastructure in the protected category. Civil liberties advocates, labor interests, or protest groups could be concerned about overbroad enforcement or chilling effects, while utilities, communications providers, and public-safety proponents would likely support the added protections. The bill attempts to address some of these concerns by expressly preserving peaceful assembly, labor disputes, and lawful rights-of-way activity, as well as excluding conduct within the scope of employment.