[{"_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",6287746,"mediaKeyId","2547092-a58f8090a012340194993b7b9ee5b00c","parentId",2547092,"title","Committee hears competing views on regulating earned‑wage access; industry split over proposed real‑time database","audioSeconds",3936,"startMs",1194000,"endMs",5130000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2547092-a58f8090a012340194993b7b9ee5b00c&start=1194&end=5130","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2547092-a58f8090a012340194993b7b9ee5b00c/thumbnail_1194000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6287746/North-Dakota/Committee-hears-competing-views-on-regulating-earnedwage-access-industry-split-over-proposed-realtime-database","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6287746-f897baaf24379dd49ff6878146b1b662/orig.mp4?Expires=1771075577&Signature=HTphNneG-xZn4Mbt54R-Jc-Z4-VPFImMH9i16k5l0EnkWy6o9lZhMPEzqRKqOteMYcF6HrudBd7aD1CRNpy7DVhIxFgC~QNbFWwICiz01UwCsdTUWTazl1g4Yyw1USwOoQX6Fmz6Inl5VpubgRP~FbffcDrzW4fTLTEoGNfyLtrlZgSGO-Hak~JRGtZgeU64amjePHbLb9hul7DkLPGYtaAEz9merDZ7iwd-omQw1CysZwHA-ue-j-nVDkJrzCDFXyBhqkMjw37pZvZdSUSl7Mk93jkcgoEY-ITDcIlZV6dlzvgpqfgf03GbJ~BTCr9cuZU6NFWWe7vS-uKzfiW-0g__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","North Dakota State Legislature","date","2025-03-11T00:00:00Z","article","The Senate Industry and Business Committee heard testimony on House Bill 1393, a measure to regulate earned‑wage access (EWA) providers and to add penalties for noncompliance. Testimony laid out a clear industry split: vendors that provide direct‑to‑consumer advances and regulatory consultants pressed for a real‑time transaction database; employer‑integrated providers and fintech trade groups opposed a database requirement, saying it would raise costs, raise privacy concerns and may not address real harms seen in EWA.

Representative Jason Dockter introduced the bill as an effort to bring online EWA providers onto an \"even playing field\" with brick‑and‑mortar deferred‑presentment businesses that report to a statewide database. \"If they want to go brick and mortar, they can. If they want to do it on a phone app, they can. They just should follow the same requirements for giving their information,\" Dockter said.

Bill Kalanick, representing the North Dakota Pawnbrokers Association and Catalyst companies, urged an amendment to require direct‑to‑consumer providers to submit transaction data to a statewide database. He cited research showing frequent EWA use: a California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation (DFPI) analysis reported an average of nine advances per borrower per quarter (about 36 per year) and indicated some borrowers took dozens of advances; one provider told the committee it estimated about 250,000 advances in North Dakota in the prior year.

John Barnes of Catalyst Regulatory & Compliance and other proponents described two business models: employer‑integrated EWA (which integrates with payroll) and direct‑to‑consumer EWA (which advances funds independently). Barnes said direct‑to‑consumer providers have no reliable way to know whether a borrower already has advances from another platform and argued a centralized, real‑time compliance database is “critical for consumer protection.” He referenced Florida and other states that use centralized systems for short‑term credit products.

Opposition focused chiefly on the costs and practicality of a high‑speed, real‑time database. Alex Kelsh and Ryan Naples of DailyPay, an employer‑integrated provider, argued employer‑integrated models already use payroll data to limit advances and that a centralized database would not prevent problematic behavior in an employer‑integrated context. Naples noted California required transaction‑level reporting under MOUs for four years and ultimately did not adopt a mandatory database after review: \"After 4 years of this data, there was no database, required,\" he said.

Industry witnesses and trade groups warned that a database would introduce per‑transaction fees paid by consumers and could raise instant‑transfer costs above current low levels (DailyPay described a common flat‑fee instant transfer around $3.49 and a free ACH option). Catalyst and pawnbroker witnesses said a database paid by transaction fees could be structured so the consumer pays a small fee per transaction and that a database could be self‑funding. The Department of Financial Institutions, represented by Assistant Commissioner Corey Krebs, said no state has yet implemented an EWA database; he estimated roughly 16 companies in the market, projected revenue from licensing/exam fees of about $43,000 and baseline DFI expenses of roughly $15,000, but cautioned a database would increase fiscal impact and could require additional FTEs and higher costs (a prior payday‑lending database estimate had been about $250,000 over a biennium).

Committee members asked about potential caps and limits. Some proponents suggested a dollar limit (for example, $1,000), while others discussed pay‑period limits. Proponents of a dollar cap said it could be simpler to enforce than a pay‑period limit.

No committee action was taken; the committee closed the hearing on House Bill 1393 and did not record a vote. Sponsors indicated they planned to circulate an amendment addressing the database concept and fiscal impacts.

Why it matters: EWA products alter how workers access earned pay and have both supporters who say they reduce late fees and opponents who warn of repeat borrowing. The committee heard technical testimony on enforcement mechanisms, privacy and implementation costs that lawmakers will weigh if they pursue statutory regulation.

What’s next: Committee staff and proponents signaled an amendment was forthcoming; regulators said reporting provisions in the bill would give them data to evaluate whether further changes are needed.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Senate Industry and Business Tuesday, Mar 11, 2025 9:24 AM - 11:18 AM","oneSentenceSummary","The Senate Industry and Business Committee heard competing testimony on House Bill 1393, which would regulate earned‑wage access providers; witnesses split over whether to require a real‑time transaction database.","taxTitle","Industry and Business, Senate, Legislative, North Dakota","taxId",28906,"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},6287750,"Senate Industry and Business committee gives do-pass recommendation to bill clarifying 1-Call excavator exemption",804,333000,1137000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2547092-a58f8090a012340194993b7b9ee5b00c&start=333&end=1137","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2547092-a58f8090a012340194993b7b9ee5b00c/thumbnail_333000.jpg","/articles/6287750/North-Dakota/Senate-Industry-and-Business-committee-gives-do-pass-recommendation-to-bill-clarifying-1-Call-excavator-exemption","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6287750-c7260931b2e9d133c80995ccc5aa3b5b/orig.mp4?Expires=1771075577&Signature=kF2~IeT8KBLRnsllnzUcnmCE2gnrCYmvDDOVO82N8BN7b-iC6fJLBtRhoBPrGGYiVGotmatqCEH7u1AjGlErIDu2jKfkwcpi0twWHBpzbxClDOjCUevfG39z9QSdtsacxgeoeh5keAkewo6zIkcDvFAYTwgldMoPjL3rzY62sPUZp24m9jlRNAcXQfp7Yk7ilJiw~HnQ4ffrkq9vXcry5PX0CQ~3R2uX4DsOSTFtxJHGWJEleZbntTicXsNsarnf78tLTh5JUoj7nARfBcRHbXBIUMKEuskbszcm2iLMyB7gCUGeSxG6E~QcdDdTA5l5CiIvOkIKNz~fFZ7UGcGaxA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Senate Industry and Business Committee on Monday recommended a do-pass on House Bill 1153, a measure clarifying an exemption in Century Code §40‑09‑23 for excavators performing road maintenance. The committee vote was 5‑0.

Representative Jason Dockter, R‑District 7, told the committee the measure was developed by a coalition of 1‑Call stakeholders, including excavators, utilities and the Public Service Commission, to remove ambiguity in the phrase “normal maintenance” and the reference to “original grade.”

Nate Sandberg, vice president and safety manager for Northern Improvement Company, said the bill replaces vague language with a test tied to pavement depth and ditches. \"The proposed verbiage would state normal maintenance of paved roads and streets if the maintenance does not extend deeper than the depth of the existing pavement and does not involve the road ditch,\" Sandberg said. He added, \"This language will help prevent costly damages to underground utilities and most importantly, injuries to our valued employees. We encourage you to vote due pass.\"

Supporters who testified included Russ Hanson of the Associated General Contractors, Tom Schimmelfinck (excavation contractor), Zach Smith of the North Dakota Association of Rural Electric Cooperatives and Carissa Swenson of the Broadband Association of North Dakota. Testimony described a years‑long process in which industry groups and regulators negotiated the clarifying language to reduce differing interpretations of “normal maintenance” and of whether erosion affects “original grade.”

Representative Dockter said the Public Service Commission, as the enforcement agency for the 1‑Call system, endorsed the clarified wording developed by the coalition.

Formal action: Senator Engott moved a due‑pass recommendation on House Bill 1153; the motion was seconded by Senator Bamm. A roll call recorded Senators Klein, Kessel, Chairman Barta, Vice Chairman Behm and Senator Ingot voting aye; the committee recorded a 5‑0 do‑pass recommendation.

The measure will be carried to the floor by an identified sponsor. Committee members did not take additional amendments at the hearing.

Why it matters: Committee testimony tied the change to worker safety and to avoiding costly strikes of underground utilities by providing clearer, narrower criteria for when excavators must request locates. Supporters said unified language will reduce disputes and project delays tied to inconsistent interpretation of the current statute.

The committee closed the hearing after the roll call and assigned a carrier for the bill.","The Senate Industry and Business Committee voted 5-0 to recommend a do-pass on House Bill 1153, which clarifies when excavators must request utility locates under Century Code §40‑09‑23. Proponents said the change aligns stakeholders and reduces risk to workers and buried infrastructure.",{"_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},6287742,"Committee considers higher proof‑gallon limits and new ready‑to‑drink definition for distilleries",4859,1957000,6816000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2547092-a58f8090a012340194993b7b9ee5b00c&start=1957&end=6816","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2547092-a58f8090a012340194993b7b9ee5b00c/thumbnail_1957000.jpg","/articles/6287742/North-Dakota/Committee-considers-higher-proofgallon-limits-and-new-readytodrink-definition-for-distilleries","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6287742-949c69234efaa6831aeb3122d119e673/orig.mp4?Expires=1771075577&Signature=fnVpvHpDChLj4bCaISPAyxPOEbWJVyG13YVHpvBHb8lnEijIf5D7vA39~xtmG0KhsqHYOjso-MBc~nxUPm9FTF0qSZ1KNyrrJyzdiCAhgSVtq8o1aAwipJYoONmLM1xeOHMfTcoUBzfmnx6~pHQGvukyPvM1K3QA1UZ7PnxKcA8qMLKl3tlNhze1-wQoPuC~cHwbNItx5z8aJsRQTPL0i6~AtClAiOnfRn-tpAp7G9iptPOM45A44CohF7zi2YhOiOklpxRYAmcylr--nPSwSN3hFbWuN2nN6KbSoi-h2AEE6vxjqadiZqBDy~ZZ1xNIDpdkNaabrDK1DGddVaIbyw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Senate Industry and Business Committee heard House Bill 1466, which modifies definitions and production limits for distilleries. Proponents told the committee the amendments would convert volume limits to proof‑gallon measures, add a definition for diluted or ready‑to‑drink (RTD) canned cocktails, and raise production thresholds for certain manufacturing distilleries.

Representative Jason Dockter said the changes respond to practical problems distillers face under current law, particularly where aging and inventory can count against a statutory gallon cap. \"Once you start growing your product, then you'd run into where you'd have to stop production because you reached the 50,000 gallon limit,\" he told the committee.

John Ward of the North Dakota Wine and Liquor Wholesalers Association supported the amendment, calling it cleanup language and saying it was negotiated with the bill proponents. He explained the draft adds a definition for \"diluted beverages\" — ready‑to‑drink canned cocktails that contain a small amount of distilled spirit blended with other nonalcoholic ingredients — and moves an existing \"proof gallon\" definition into the general definitions section. Ward said the manufacturing‑distillery production ceiling in the amendment increases from 25,000 gallons to 40,000 proof gallons for the category that produces from raw North Dakota ingredients.

Shiloh Perry, marketing director and production coordinator for Big Dog Distillery, described the RTD market and gave concrete production impacts. \"With the distilled ready‑to‑drink canned cocktails, we would have, at least for our ready‑to‑drink canned cocktail out of Big Dog Distillery, we have 1.76 ounces of alcohol in there...Under the current century code, it was 25,000 gallons; our first run of ready to drink canned cocktail for this year would account for 5,000 gallons of our yearly allotment,\" Perry said. She added that converting to proof gallons would reduce the RTD product's impact on an annual cap (for her example, the same production would represent roughly 700 proof gallons under the amended measurement rather than 5,000 gallons), allowing more runs and stronger market participation.

Wholesalers and distillery proponents said the change would help small manufacturers scale production, support the agricultural supply chain and avoid having firms abruptly stop production after hitting a volume cap. Witnesses noted that North Dakota has multiple small distilleries and that at least one regional distiller is already above the current cap.

Committee members asked whether the bill applied to product actually distilled in‑state and whether off‑site event sales would be preserved; proponents said the amendment was crafted to preserve existing event‑sales authority (on‑ and off‑premises) and to align definitions across the code.

No committee vote was taken; the committee closed the hearing. Proponents said the amendment being presented reconciles competing stakeholder concerns and was intended as the text to be considered by the committee.

Why it matters: Converting to proof gallons and clarifying how RTD canned cocktails are measured affects how much product a small distillery can legally manufacture and sell in a year. Supporters said the changes protect farm‑to‑distillery businesses and community economic development.

What’s next: Sponsors signaled readiness to proceed with the negotiated amendment; the committee did not record a final vote at the hearing.","House Bill 1466, as amended, would shift distillery production limits from gallon counts to proof gallons and add a definition for diluted/ready‑to‑drink canned cocktails; proponents argued the change supports industry growth and agricultural markets.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Committee hears competing views on regulating earned‑wage access; industry split over proposed real‑time database

Senate Industry and Business committee gives do-pass recommendation to bill clarifying 1-Call excavator exemption

Committee considers higher proof‑gallon limits and new ready‑to‑drink definition for distilleries