Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Critical Infrastructure Worker Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lawmakers consider tougher penalties, first‑responder status for assaulted utility workers
Summary
House Bill 4 52 would raise penalties for assaults on utility workers and designate them as first responders for purposes of enhanced punishment, sponsor Gary Parry told the committee.
Get email alerts on the Critical Infrastructure Worker Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Representative Gary Parry introduced House Bill 4 52, describing it as a response to rising threats and assaults on utility workers who repair power lines, gas lines, broadband infrastructure and other public‑service facilities. Parry said incidents — including a shooting at a Missoula gas crew — demonstrate a need for stronger penalties.
Proponents included utility companies and unions. Alan Olson of Northwestern Energy, Amy Grimales of MDU, and multiple union and construction trade witnesses urged passage, citing national incidents and a series of Montana encounters in which crews were threatened or shot at while performing routine work. Union linemen and safety supervisors described everyday exposure to intimidation, violent threats, dogs set on crews, and weapons drawn. Testimony emphasized both worker safety and public‑safety consequences when essential services are disrupted.
Witnesses urged amendments to the draft: the Montana Electric Cooperatives Association asked to add cooperative employees explicitly; sponsor agreed to an amendment to include co‑ops and to ensure the offense applies when workers are harmed “during performance of their duties.” Committee members discussed aligning penalty levels so new offenses are not inadvertently less severe than existing assault‑with‑a‑weapon statutes; Representative Parry said he would work with drafters to correct any drafting errors and to raise penalties where intended.
Opponents were limited and procedural: Broadband Montana asked for an amendment to ensure cooperative broadband providers are covered. The Public Defender Division appeared as an informational witness to note fiscal‑note calculations; county attorneys’ and sheriffs’ associations later opposed a different bill in the panel (HB 4 60) but did not register organized opposition to HB 4 52 at the hearing.
No committee vote or final action was recorded at the hearing.
