North Dakota House Bill HB1008

North Dakota 2026 1st Special Session

Caption

AN ACT to provide an appropriation for defraying the expenses of the public service commission; to amend and reenact sections 49-01-05 and 57-43.2-19 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to the salaries of the public service commissioners and deposits of special fuels excise taxes; and to provide loan authorization.

Summary

HB1008 is the biennial appropriations and policy bill for the North Dakota Public Service Commission (PSC) for the 2025-27 biennium. It provides a total appropriation of $23.46 million from all funds, including $9.22 million from the general fund, to cover PSC salaries and wages, operating costs, capital assets, grants, abandoned mined lands contractual services, rail rate complaint case expenses, railroad safety program costs, and specialized legal services. The bill also includes one-time funding for drone imaging technology and federal intervention funding, and it creates a new-and-vacant FTE pool that the PSC may not spend directly but may request to transfer into salaries and the railroad safety program under specified budget rules. In addition to funding, the bill makes two statutory changes. First, it updates the salary schedule for public service commissioners, increasing commissioner pay effective July 1, 2026. Second, it amends the special fuels excise tax distribution statute so that a capped amount of diesel fuel tax revenue collected from railroads is deposited into the rail safety fund instead of the highway tax distribution fund. The bill also authorizes the PSC to borrow up to $900,000 from the Bank of North Dakota to finance costs associated with a rail rate complaint case, with repayment expected from any damages or proceeds recovered, or through a deficiency appropriation if needed. The overall sentiment around the bill appears strongly favorable and routine for an appropriations measure. It passed the House 80-10 and the Senate 45-1, indicating broad bipartisan support for the PSC budget, rail safety funding, and the loan authority tied to rail litigation. The lack of recorded committee transcript debate suggests there was no major public controversy documented in the available materials. The main points of potential contention are the commissioner salary increase, the use of tax revenue for the rail safety fund, and the risk associated with the rail rate complaint loan authorization. Those issues could draw scrutiny from lawmakers concerned about executive compensation, the diversion of fuel tax receipts, or the state’s exposure if the rail complaint case does not generate enough recovery to repay the loan. However, the recorded votes suggest those concerns did not prevent passage.

Impact

HB1008 increases and directs funding for the Public Service Commission and amends North Dakota Century Code sections governing commissioner salaries and the deposit of special fuels excise taxes. It raises the PSC’s general fund appropriation for the 2025-27 biennium, authorizes one-time spending items, and permits a contingent transfer of funds from a new-and-vacant FTE pool. The bill also changes the statutory salary for commissioners and redirects a capped portion of diesel fuel excise taxes paid by railroads into the rail safety fund, while authorizing a state loan for rail rate complaint litigation costs.

Sentiment

The bill appears to have been viewed positively overall, with overwhelming support in both chambers and no recorded committee testimony indicating significant opposition. The vote totals suggest broad agreement on funding the PSC’s operations, rail safety activities, and related legal and infrastructure needs. Any reservations were limited and did not materially affect passage.

Contention

The most notable areas of contention are the commissioner pay increase, the redirection of a portion of special fuels excise taxes to the rail safety fund, and the $900,000 loan authorization for rail rate complaint litigation. Critics could object to higher salaries for commissioners, to shifting tax receipts away from the highway tax distribution fund, or to the state assuming repayment risk if litigation proceeds are insufficient. The available vote record, however, shows these concerns were not enough to generate substantial opposition.