A BILL for an Act to provide an appropriation to the industrial commission for a natural gas distribution infrastructure grant program.
HB 1275 would appropriate $5 million from North Dakota’s strategic investment and improvements fund to the Industrial Commission for a one-time natural gas supply and distribution infrastructure grant program for the 2025-2027 biennium. The bill directs the commission to create program guidelines, including eligibility criteria and maximum grant amounts, and limits use of the grants to costs associated with installing natural gas supply/distribution infrastructure.
The grant program would be available to political subdivisions, Public Service Commission-regulated gas distribution entities, and individuals in cities with populations of 10,000 or less. Applicants would be required to provide at least 50% matching funds, with preference given to projects offering a larger match. The bill is an appropriation measure and does not itself create a new regulatory scheme beyond authorizing and directing the grant program.
If enacted, HB 1275 would amend state spending by dedicating $5 million in one-time funding from the strategic investment and improvements fund to the Industrial Commission. It would also require the commission to administer a new natural gas infrastructure grant program and establish eligibility and award rules. The bill would primarily affect local governments, small-town residents, and regulated gas utilities seeking funding for natural gas supply and distribution projects, while leaving the underlying utility regulatory framework unchanged.
The available record shows no committee transcript or recorded vote details, so there is limited direct evidence of debate. The bill’s introduction by a bipartisan group of House and Senate members suggests some cross-party interest in supporting rural and small-community energy infrastructure. However, the bill ultimately failed on February 24, 2025, indicating that it did not secure enough support to advance.
The main likely points of contention are the use of state strategic investment funds for natural gas infrastructure, the size of the appropriation, and whether public dollars should support fossil-fuel-related projects. Supporters would likely emphasize reliability, affordability, and benefits to small communities and local utilities, while critics may question the state subsidy, the 50% match requirement’s accessibility, and whether the program favors certain communities or energy sources over alternatives.