Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Utility Rights Of Way Pipelines topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bill to clarify pipeline access to public rights‑of‑way draws opposition from tribes and environmental groups
Summary
The Senate Energy Committee heard testimony Feb. 18 on House Bill 122, which would allow natural gas distribution lines to be placed in public rights‑of‑way; supporters said the change would reduce costs, while tribes and environmental groups warned it could weaken local oversight and consultation.
The Senate Energy Committee on Feb. 18 heard testimony on House Bill 122, which would explicitly permit natural gas distribution pipelines and related facilities to be installed in public rights‑of‑way.
Sponsor Representative Brewster said the change is a cleanup to modernize an 1895 statute so natural gas distribution is treated the same as other utilities for placement in public rights‑of‑way, which the sponsor and proponents said will lower costs and speed project planning.
Northwest Energy and MDU testified in support, describing the bill as a technical update that puts natural gas pipelines on equivalent footing with other utility lines. Alan Olson, representing Northwest Energy, framed the bill as a straightforward way to allow efficient installation of natural gas pipelines in public rights‑of‑way.
Opponents included the Northern Plains Resource Council, tribal representatives, and the Montana Environmental Information Center. Gusty Catherine Sauer of Northern Plains Resource Council warned that the bill would reduce local governments’ ability to negotiate franchise agreements that address pipeline safety, maintenance, relocation and bonding. Patrick Yawaki, representing tribal communities, said the tribes want explicit consultation requirements and asked for exemptions for rights‑of‑way located within reservation boundaries unless tribes consent.
Nick Fitzmaurice of the Montana Environmental Information Center called the bill unnecessary and said it could diminish local oversight and revenue that sometimes accompanies franchise agreements. Several witnesses urged the committee to preserve local permitting and franchise processes and to clarify bonding, inspection and environmental protections.
Representative Brewster said he expects existing safety and construction regulations to remain in force and that the bill does not aim to remove city or town oversight; he said the text retains a provision that utilities must not “inconvenience or endanger” public use of roads and that local authorities retain powers under other statutes.
The committee took testimony and closed the hearing without a vote; opponents asked for amendments to add tribal notification and to preserve franchise‑level protections and environmental review.
