Bill
HF 240
Requires a surety bond or insurance as a condition for hazardous liquid pipeline permits to cover third-party insurance cost increases, loss of coverage, and discharge costs.
Status: Withdrawn (as of March 31, 2025)
Introduction and context
- Bill HF 240 was introduced on February 6, 2025 in the Minnesota House of Representatives and referred to the Judiciary committee.
- The bill’s core aim is to require insurers or surety coverage as a condition for issuing a permit for hazardous liquid pipelines, with specific protections for third parties affected by the pipeline’s construction or presence.
- During committee action, the bill was renumbered to HF 639 (Committee report dated February 28, 2025) before ultimately being withdrawn on March 31, 2025.
Purpose and intent
- To ensure that the construction or presence of a hazardous liquid pipeline does not impose unmitigated financial risk on individuals or entities in the surrounding areas.
- Specifically, to require a surety bond or insurance policy that is sufficient to cover increases in insurance costs or the inability to obtain insurance caused by the pipeline.
Key provisions (as introduced)
- Insurance/surety requirement: The pipeline project must secure a surety bond or maintain an insurance policy as a condition for granting a hazardous liquid pipeline permit.
- Coverage scope: The policy must cover:
- Increased insurance costs faced by any person (e.g., residents, property owners, businesses) due to the construction or presence of the pipeline.
- The inability of any person to obtain insurance as a result of the pipeline.
- Potential costs associated with any discharge from the pipeline (the text references “any discharge of content from the pipeline” as part of the scope).
- Obligations of the pipeline entity: The pipeline company must either purchase the insurance on behalf of affected persons or reimburse those who incur increased premiums or lose access to insurance due to the pipeline.
Who would be affected
- Pipeline project applicants and companies seeking hazardous liquid pipeline permits.
- Affected property owners, residents, and local businesses along the pipeline route who might see changes in insurance availability or premiums.
- Insurance providers and surety providers involved in meeting the new coverage requirements.
- Local governments or jurisdictions overseeing permit approvals and responsible for implementing compliance.
Procedural and timeline aspects
- Introduced: February 6, 2025
- Subcommittee actions: February 11–20, 2025 (with subcommittee meetings and recommendations for passage)
- Committee action: February 25, 2025 (committee vote: Yeas 20, Nays 1; passage recommendation)
- Renumbering: February 28, 2025 (renumbered as HF 639 in committee)
- Withdrawn: March 31, 2025
Sponsors
- Primary sponsors include Henderson, Andrews, Cisneros, Gearhart, Smith, Golding, Thompson, Thomson, Stone, Holt, Hayes, Lawler, Wheeler, Fisher, Fett, Wengryn, Gerhold, Dieken (listing multiple primary sponsors).
Impact and implementation notes
- If enacted, the bill would create a tangible financial protection mechanism for non-pipeline stakeholders, ensuring compensation or coverage for insurance-related costs tied to pipeline activity.
- The withdrawal means the bill did not advance to enactment, but the concept could be revisited in future legislation.
Summary
HF 240 sought to condition hazardous liquid pipeline permits on robust third-party insurance/surety coverage to mitigate financial burdens from pipeline construction or presence, including potential discharge risks. The bill progressed through committee action, was renumbered to HF 639, and was ultimately withdrawn in March 2025.
Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.
Sign in to ask a question.
