HB 877 would create the “Montana Data Center Development Act” and is aimed at attracting and serving large data center loads in Montana. The bill states legislative findings that Montana has advantages for data center development, including climate, land, and electricity, and declares an intent to provide a stable regulatory climate for energy investment and long-term planning. It also clarifies that the Public Service Commission (PSC) has a role in regulating service to large electric customers, but should not be able to block a regulated public utility from serving new large customers.
The bill amends 69-8-201, MCA, to specify when certain large retail customers may or may not obtain electricity supply service from a public utility, including a new rule that the PSC may not prohibit a public utility from serving a retail customer that came into existence after October 1, 2007, and has an average monthly demand of at least 5,000 kilowatts. It preserves existing provisions for some pre-2007 customers, keeps intact rights related to net metering, cogeneration, self-generation, and ancillary sales, and leaves the PSC authority to establish tariffs and regulatory processes consistent with utility regulation. The bill also includes a $25,000 general fund appropriation to the Department of Commerce to market Montana as a data center location and $25,000 to the state energy office to help developers acquire generation resources for added load.
In practical terms, the bill would affect regulated electric utilities, the PSC, data center developers, and other very large electricity users by making it easier for new large customers to obtain utility service and by supporting state-level recruitment of data center investment. It would also modify the statutory framework governing electric service choice and utility obligations in Title 69, chapter 8, while preserving some existing customer rights and exemptions.
The overall sentiment reflected in the bill text is strongly supportive of data center development and of expanding Montana’s role in serving large electric loads. However, the committee vote history suggests the proposal was controversial: it was first moved to table in committee by an 8-6 vote, and a later motion to take it from the table failed 5-6. The bill ultimately died in process, indicating that while there was some support for the economic-development and energy-policy goals, enough members opposed the regulatory changes or the policy direction to stop the bill.
The main point of contention appears to have been the balance between encouraging large-load development and preserving PSC oversight and existing utility/customer protections. Supporters likely viewed the bill as a way to attract investment, create certainty, and ensure utilities can serve new data centers, while opponents likely worried about limiting the commission’s authority, the impact on other ratepayers, and the broader implications of changing Montana’s post-deregulation electric service rules.
The bill would amend section 69-8-201, MCA, within Montana’s electric utility statutes to limit the Public Service Commission’s ability to block regulated utilities from serving new large customers, especially data centers and other high-load users. It would also preserve certain existing customer-choice and self-generation provisions, clarify PSC tariff-setting authority, and create two small general fund appropriations for data center marketing and energy-resource assistance.
The bill’s tone and findings are strongly pro-development and pro-investment, emphasizing Montana’s advantages for data centers and the need for regulatory certainty. But the committee votes show mixed to negative sentiment in practice, with the bill failing to advance after a successful motion to table and an unsuccessful attempt to revive it. That pattern suggests meaningful support existed, but not enough to overcome concerns about the policy changes.
The central controversy was whether the PSC should be restricted from preventing utilities from serving new large customers. Supporters appeared to favor making Montana more attractive to data centers by ensuring access to utility service and by streamlining regulatory barriers. Opponents likely focused on the PSC’s role, the potential effects on ratepayers and utility planning, and whether the bill would alter the state’s electric-service framework too aggressively. The failed committee votes indicate those concerns were sufficient to stall the bill.