[{"_1":2,"_100":-5,"_101":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6329631,"mediaKeyId","2315872-a26c0b197dd1ca1e937968b4a0878209","parentId",2315872,"title","Votes at a glance: key House actions on Feb. 14 — PERS transfer, college appropriation, divestment, licensing and more","audioSeconds",783,"startMs",6917000,"endMs",7700000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2315872-a26c0b197dd1ca1e937968b4a0878209&start=6917&end=7700","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2315872-a26c0b197dd1ca1e937968b4a0878209/thumbnail_6917000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6329631/North-Dakota/Votes-at-a-glance-key-House-actions-on-Feb-14-PERS-transfer-college-appropriation-divestment-licensing-and-more","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6329631-075669e661a3c815c04f2879b38c94da/orig.mp4?Expires=1771153656&Signature=L-oYqS-YzlhomLbPhApzc~0cqgvrVE4KzBFimueSK0Ym3u1sVrBW1Jyy6DS2p34unaXlv-UILDYNAgWKRlokjny9oSn6ic8E--wwRT0pw18qAfuTy3lZXF9Zfj70BBy6OghX2V7pkHQsF11a-QA~EyNof66KTe3bVNHY16EeQrvlTjV4QVBWNyzMkvU0mwFmwi7ZdyPs41s~P4-IQuPy0zCvGS5jMCRzwbjSFQ-UPZg6FhX9633DrbcIrUE-aKwhHurXs~glrkF216SqT4NZa4htLFxhytinrO5HtNc-u~piK~mAItSQFYffd0TToPleiceoIAGpwP8XdXqmXOO3SQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","North Dakota State Legislature","date","2025-02-14T00:00:00Z","article","Bismarck — Alongside extended debates on custody and carbon policy, the House took votes on multiple other measures during its Feb. 14 session. Several bills involving appropriations, agency authority and licensing passed; a few other proposals failed on final consideration. The transcript lists the following floor outcomes and brief descriptions.

Passed on final consideration (transcript-recorded results):
- House Bill 12-34: Appropriation/transfer to North Dakota Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) — transcript shows “The final vote shows 76, 8, House Bill number 12 34 is declared passed.” The bill would transfer funds to address PERS unfunded liability per committee recommendation.
- House Bill 13-31: Appropriation to North Dakota State College of Science (turf playing field authorization) — transcript records final: “The final vote shows 79 3, house bill number 13 31 is declared passed, and the emergency clause carried.” Committee reported due pass.
- House Bill 13-30 (legacy fund divestment from Chinese companies, as amended): transcript shows the bill passed; committee recommended due pass when amended (text: “House Bill 13 30 is declared passed” in floor record).
- House Bill 12-67 (optometry licensure and telemedicine clarifications): transcript records final: “Record shows 81, yea, 2 nay. House Bill number 12 67 is declared passed.”
- House Bill 11-27 (department bill creating Financial Institution Data Security Program and related amendments): transcript records final: “Ye, 78, nay, 0. House bill number 11 27 is declared passed.”

Failed or declared failed on final consideration (transcript-recorded results):
- House Bill 11-83 (direct gold and silver investment authorization and study): the transcript shows a recorded final tally and that the bill failed: “The final vote shows 47 yea, 33 nay. House bill number 11 83 is declared failed.”
- House Bill 14-56 (school chaplains statute): final roll-call recorded as “The final vote shows 35 VA, 40 6 nay. House bill number 14 56 is declared failed.” (transcript formatting retained).

Other floor actions noted in the transcript: House Bill 16-10 (prohibiting certain lease provisions for landlords) and House Bill 11-27 (DFI data-security amendments) were reported by committees and placed on the calendar; HB16-10’s committee recommended due pass as amended and the bill was considered on the floor during the session (committee vote and floor discussion recorded).

Context and significance: The passed bills included an appropriation to reduce PERS unfunded liabilities, authorization for a college to expend previously designated local funds for a turf field, modernization of licensing and data-security rules for financial-service firms, an optometry licensure update for telemedicine, and a divestment measure on legacy funds. Failed measures included a high-profile proposal to direct the state treasurer to buy and hold physical gold and a proposed statute authorizing school chaplains (the latter proved divisive in committee and on the floor).

","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","House Floor Session Friday, Feb 14, 2025 12:26 PM - 3:28 PM","oneSentenceSummary","During the Feb. 14 House session the chamber recorded final actions on several non-CO2 bills: pension-fund transfer and other appropriations and regulatory bills passed, while some measures (including a proposal to invest in gold and a school-chaplain statute) failed.","taxTitle","House of Representatives, Legislative, North Dakota","taxId",28308,"location","North Dakota","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6329636,"Multiple carbon dioxide pipeline and storage bills fail after extended House debate",2288,1845000,4133000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2315872-a26c0b197dd1ca1e937968b4a0878209&start=1845&end=4133","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2315872-a26c0b197dd1ca1e937968b4a0878209/thumbnail_1845000.jpg","/articles/6329636/North-Dakota/Multiple-carbon-dioxide-pipeline-and-storage-bills-fail-after-extended-House-debate","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6329636-c685289a813e17e37ec259cae1926336/orig.mp4?Expires=1771153656&Signature=U79dBrAsnyM6uF-dj05cq4Ab2HZiWkPvfj~QQLoRcjl3BPcQIvTqkCic0aqRmL3lm~5xam-STDxbnYRNJrTQrOBPiov0PZn0b8kD-uwOzvWPfu~0Ljbr-wV1a~84UUVYGksgfqQzFvoDXAM7OqRMh5jTf0L3LRh3IQBPNOxM97ZcbELVMcTlJDA1HOoUTRs2amGhwSSIC3UWQd1XT~XjcwD5yW1FbHb0M9xflucc-UatexM~w1BK605rKm3A7hpvo71buTRXzJjq7-84FHPFgowEcPESB4XVFYmTYttvQRimObnkoxys7vdUfNh2H6rHMwkdZXTKV7~hk4oFfjCelQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Bismarck — Lawmakers spent a large portion of the Feb. 14 House session debating a series of bills that would have altered how carbon dioxide pipelines, sequestration projects and related tax incentives are treated under state law. Several measures were considered, amended or read on the floor; floor debate included producers, agriculture advocates and lawmakers urging both caution and economic opportunity. The House ultimately recorded failures on multiple CO2-related measures during the session.

Representative Dee Anderson, speaking for the Energy and Natural Resources Committee at multiple points, described the industry’s history in North Dakota and the role CO2 storage and pipelines can play for ethanol plants, enhanced oil recovery and continuing operations at some coal plants. “Without CO2 storage and sequestration, it'd be very difficult for the coal plants to stay in business,” Anderson said on the floor while describing committee testimony and the state's existing storage projects. Other members emphasized economic opportunity for agriculture and energy if CO2 infrastructure is available, while others stressed landowner property rights and the risks of allowing out-of-state companies to exercise eminent-domain authority.

Key themes: Supporters of retaining tax treatment and common-carrier status argued pipelines and storage create jobs, tax revenue and value for agriculture and energy. Opponents argued special exemptions allow out-of-state interests to profit at the expense of property owners and that the state should apply general tax rules to pore-space use and pipeline property. Representative Jay Olson and others called for taxation or compensation tied to use of state “pore space,” while Representative Porter and committee members cautioned that the state already has a carbon-dioxide trust fund and existing financial-responsibility and insurance requirements.

Bills considered and floor outcomes (as recorded in the transcript provided):
- House Bill 12-92 (revise common-carrier status for CO2 pipelines): final floor notation: “The final vote shows 15 17 House bill number 12 92 is declared failed.”
- House Bill 12-95 (tax and exemption changes for CO2 capture/equipment and pipeline PILOTs): final roll call recorded as “Final vote shows 24 yea, 60 nay, House Bill number 12 95 is declared failed.”
- House Bill 14-14 (revocation of common-carrier status language): the clerk recorded that HB14-14 “is declared, failed.”
- House Bill 15-74 (prohibit direct-air carbon-capture projects): the clerk recorded the final tally as “20 a, 64 nay” and declared the bill failed.
- House Bill 15-73 (pore-space/utilization fee to create a disaster fund / impose fee on substances injected into pore space): the clerk recorded the final tally as “23 a 61 nay” and declared the bill failed.
- House Bill 12-10 (carbon dioxide pipeline damages and lien rights proposal): the bill was debated on the floor with extended testimony and a range of safety and financial-responsibility arguments; the transcript does not record a completed roll call on final disposition in the excerpt provided.

What speakers said: Representative Van Winkle, a sponsor on at least one pipeline status bill, argued the common-carrier designation in statute wrongly permitted condemnation and that the designation should be removed for CO2 lines. Representative Porter, chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, repeatedly highlighted committee recommendations and technical details of the existing statutory trust fund and insurance and said the committee had recommended “do not pass” for several measures. Representative S. Olson argued that pore-space use should be monetized and that companies using finite pore space should pay a fee; Representative DeE Anderson and others described project economic impacts and the role of enhanced oil recovery.

Safety and liability topics: Floor speakers referenced pipeline incidents elsewhere and described dispersion analyses in hearings. Representative Essa Wilson and others flagged that CO2 can expand when released and travels low to the ground; proponents responded that modern pipelines include automatic shutoffs, leak detection and high insurance requirements placed by the Public Service Commission.

Why it matters: The measures would have altered the tax and regulatory framework for carbon management, affected potential enhanced-oil-recovery operations and pore-space uses, and touched on eminent-domain and property-rights questions. Committee reports and floor debate repeatedly connected the bills to broader questions about North Dakota’s energy economy, the fiscal role of fossil-fuel tax receipts, and county and landowner protections.

Next steps: Multiple bills were declared failed on the House floor in the transcript excerpt provided. Sponsors noted differing priorities—some sought to target only sequestration projects, others wanted to preserve incentives for enhanced-oil-recovery—and indicated further work could continue in committee or the Senate if members pursue amendments.

","A package of bills addressing carbon dioxide pipeline status, tax incentives, pore-space use and related taxes drew extensive floor debate and ultimately failed in the House on Feb. 14; sponsors and opponents disagreed over economic benefits, property rights and risk.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6329640,"North Dakota House rejects bill creating rebuttable presumption for shared parenting",1197,742000,1939000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2315872-a26c0b197dd1ca1e937968b4a0878209&start=742&end=1939","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2315872-a26c0b197dd1ca1e937968b4a0878209/thumbnail_742000.jpg","/articles/6329640/North-Dakota/North-Dakota-House-rejects-bill-creating-rebuttable-presumption-for-shared-parenting","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6329640-88e270dc78990b0a2a5f1b52a3ff60b7/orig.mp4?Expires=1771153656&Signature=ldAVFesxCcXQWo65kdThreV7gx0uuaLtF321r9swwxUfxe-cyRa8uy5PK7gNhe0iGQb4kKreLzi1DyPWParGApRjmXMq75kCSs83g4EPoc3UhU8x2Vq2rRlPOyDWKKijI0-FTf7Ci04qks4piJzwo-uenNFSZAU5m~9uNkdQN61NtaY~atQG5StS70kTR3CPbLdDvLftqCQ9nxs4S2lwR-yYtX4lc1dBEckemlw2X0F2rHPjY3QxI59gC8FzCcleh9eU~R1ZpbhaXH2A8o91F3LzvuuiG~ENOSld~UguLyvjyHRiTqoFppscAhNqilZpBGVlCIYckLZu1MzDOc1D2g__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Bismarck — The North Dakota House voted on final consideration of House Bill 12-42 on Feb. 14, a measure that would have added a rebuttable presumption in state law favoring shared residential responsibility, equal parenting time and shared decision-making in custody cases. The clerk recorded the vote and the bill was declared failed.

Proponents said the bill would provide a default starting point for courts and parents at the outset of separations. Representative Twight, the substitute carrier, said, “This is not a perfect bill,” but argued judges should be given an option to start custody decisions with a posture of shared parenting. Representative Frehlich, a chief floor proponent, defended the bill’s standard for deviation, saying “The child's well-being trumps the expectation of the presumption,” and stressing the bill retained judge discretion where evidence showed shared parenting would harm a child.

Opponents raised concerns that the measure would change the statutory focus from the child’s best interest to a parent-preference default and that the bill’s application clause might allow reopening of settled custody cases. Representative Hansen asked about the potential retroactive effect and whether the bill could increase filings in already-burdened family courts. Representative Lausser argued the existing statutory factors place the child first and said reopening prior decisions could be disruptive for families.

The Judiciary Committee had recommended a do-pass by an 11–3 vote. Sponsors and committee members told colleagues the bill included a rebuttable presumption and an explicit exception for domestic violence or abuse. Several speakers urged that the presumption is rebuttable by a judge who finds by a preponderance of the evidence that shared parenting would harm a child or is infeasible.

The House roll call was recorded on the chamber record as: “Record shows 47, 30 7,” and the clerk declared House Bill 12-42 failed.

Why it matters: Supporters framed the proposal as a change to reduce litigation-driven outcomes in custody fights and to encourage both parents’ involvement; critics warned it could compel reopening of cases and shift emphasis away from best-interest findings. The debate highlighted competing priorities about judicial discretion, court capacity and how statutes direct family-court decision-making.

Votes and next steps: The bill failed on final consideration on Feb. 14. No subsequent motion to reconsider appeared in the floor transcript provided.

","After several hours of debate, the North Dakota House declined to adopt House Bill 12-42, which would have added a rebuttable presumption favoring shared residential responsibility and joint decision-making in custody disputes; the final roll call was recorded in the chamber.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Votes at a glance: key House actions on Feb. 14 — PERS transfer, college appropriation, divestment, licensing and more

Multiple carbon dioxide pipeline and storage bills fail after extended House debate

North Dakota House rejects bill creating rebuttable presumption for shared parenting