HB 5792 would create a new felony offense in the Michigan penal code for knowingly and maliciously interfering with the operational technology of certain critical infrastructure facilities. The bill covers conduct directed at systems that control physical devices or processes, and it applies to facilities such as electric substations and grid control centers, battery energy storage systems, water and wastewater facilities, large data centers, and natural gas storage or compression facilities.
The base penalty under the bill is up to 20 years in prison, a fine of up to $250,000, or both. If the interference disrupts an emergency service, hospital, or water system, or causes more than $1 million in damage, the penalty increases to up to 30 years in prison, a fine of up to $300,000, or both. The bill takes effect 90 days after enactment.
The bill would add a new section 383b to the Michigan penal code, expanding criminal law to specifically address cyber or physical interference with operational technology at defined critical infrastructure sites. It would create new felony exposure for individuals who intentionally and unlawfully disrupt these systems, while expressly excluding lawful protest, labor activity, authorized research, and law enforcement activity from its reach. The measure would affect operators and users of electric, water, energy storage, data center, and natural gas infrastructure, as well as prosecutors and courts handling infrastructure-related sabotage or cybercrime cases.
No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no direct evidence of debate or formal support/opposition in the available record. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears to reflect a strong public-safety and infrastructure-protection posture, with heightened penalties for disruptions that affect emergency services, hospitals, water systems, or cause major damage. The explicit carve-outs for protest, labor activity, research, and law enforcement suggest an effort to narrow the bill to malicious interference rather than broader expressive or legitimate activity.
The main potential points of contention are likely to be the breadth of the critical infrastructure definitions, the severity of the penalties, and how the terms "knowingly and maliciously" and "operational technology" would be applied in practice. Stakeholders in labor, protest, and research communities may be attentive to whether the exemptions are sufficient to protect lawful activity, while infrastructure operators and public-safety advocates would likely favor the bill's deterrent approach. Data center and energy-sector interests may also be interested because the bill extends beyond traditional utilities to include battery storage and large data centers.