GCM Grosvenor outlines in‑state infrastructure pipeline, says early projects include long‑haul pipeline and gathering assets

GCM Grosvenor representatives told the Legacy Fund Advisory Committee they have launched an in‑state infrastructure program for North Dakota and are building a pipeline of opportunities they expect to present for due diligence through 2026.

Steven Brewster, client relationship lead, and managing directors Scott Littman and Michael Rose described the firm’s history with the Legacy Fund and the new North Dakota program. Scott Littman said the firm has sourced thousands of deals and typically invests via funds and direct assets; Michael Rose said the firm’s regional, state‑focused programs have ranged across private equity and infrastructure in other states.

Grosvenor outlined several early targets for North Dakota. Littman described two energy‑sector opportunities sourced by an infrastructure manager in the firm’s network that he said are likely 2026 events: a long‑haul pipeline concept (code‑named “Project Lion”) and a gathering‑asset transaction (“Project Speaker”). He said both are being sourced by an experienced manager and that the intended structure would allow the Legacy Fund to be a minority co‑investor alongside larger commercial capital.

Grosvenor emphasized typical timeline and structure for such projects: often large, multihundred‑million‑dollar financings in which the Legacy Fund would be one of many investors rather than controlling owner. Michael Rose said the firm’s regional in‑state programs have deployed capital by combining fund investments and direct asset commitments and cited past programs in Colorado, North Carolina, Michigan, New York and California.

Committee members raised policy constraints and risk considerations. Representative Bosch highlighted the Legacy Fund’s investment policy statement limits—direct in‑state investments are generally capped at $10 million with two exceptions up to $25 million—and asked whether that would limit viable infrastructure participation. Grosvenor said the firm can work within the limits but indicated greater flexibility would let them pursue some larger, investable projects more easily. RIO staff and legislators pressed on concentration, valuation and liquidity risks for single large assets: Lance Zitlow, portfolio manager at RIO, noted that a single large position can be harder to value and harder to sell on the secondary market and could push the in‑state sleeve above its policy target if successful.

Grosvenor described its diligence and governance: investment committee approval, independent valuation practices, and the preference to co‑invest with other institutional capital rather than have the state be the majority owner. Michael Rose and Littman said the in‑state program will target a diversified set of smaller exposures initially (they suggested a first‑phase target of roughly $50 million deployed over three years) and that larger opportunities could be scaled with additional outside capital.

No committee action was taken on a large direct infrastructure investment during the meeting. Members asked RIO staff to review the investment policy statement and return recommendations on whether IPS modifications or carve‑outs are needed before authorizing larger, single‑asset in‑state investments.