Highlights

• North Dakota lawmakers passed controversial House Bill 1459 to incentivize rare earth element development in coal mining.
• The bill proposes a 2.5% royalty for mineral rights owners.
• The bill faces potential constitutional challenges.
• There is skepticism about technological and commercial feasibility.
• The bill targets national security goals of reducing reliance on Chinese rare earth processing.
• The legislation may create more investor hesitation and legal complexity than actual industrial development.

---

In a sharply divided vote, North Dakota lawmakers passed House Bill 1459—legislation designed to kickstart rare earth element (REE) development tied to coal mining—sending it to the governor's approval. The bill marks an aggressive policy shift to position the state as a future hub for REE processing, potentially funded in part by federal dollars. But the legal, economic, and industrial foundations of the bill remain shaky—and critics warn the legislation may trigger more lawsuits than investment.

A Bold Policy with Constitutional Risks

A royalty clause at the heart of the controversy is: HB 1459 mandates a 2.5% royalty payment to mineral rights owners for rare earths found within coal seams, on top of existing coal lease royalties. While touted by supporters as a mechanism to ensure mineral owners benefit from REE development, opponents—including the Northwest Landowners Association—call it an unconstitutional infringement on private contract rights. The bill, they argue, imposes retroactive terms on existing leases and undermines the ability of property owners to negotiate future deals with coal operators, reports Jeff Beach at the North Dakota Monitor (opens in a new tab).

Sen. Brad Bekkedahl (R-Williston) echoed that sentiment, stating, “I would want to be able to negotiate another lease.” Even supporters like Rep. Lawrence Klemin (R-Bismarck), an attorney, warned that while new language allows renegotiation, the bill still disturbs foundational legal principles.

Is There an Industry to Incentivize?

Proponents, including Rep. Dick Anderson (R-Willow City), argue that REEs embedded in coal and fly ash represent an untapped economic boon—if the right regulatory environment is in place. Yet key questions remain unanswered: Who will build the processing facility? Can a domestic REE supply chain be anchored in a state with no existing extraction or separation infrastructure? And can North Dakota compete with better-positioned states like Texas, Wyoming, or California?

Critically, the bill presumes rare earths can be extracted at scale from coal ash—a technology still in early-stage development and largely unproven at commercial scale in the U.S. With no downstream refining capacity and no identified anchor customer or financier, the bill’s economic engine is still theoretical.

Litigation Likely, Investors Wary

While Rep. Todd Porter (R-Mandan) claimed that litigation is “inevitable” but worthwhile in creating legal clarity for the industry, the more immediate result may be investor hesitation. Rare earth investors, especially from private equity and strategic metals funds, tend to avoid jurisdictions embroiled in royalty disputes or regulatory retroactivity. The bill’s passage may muddy the legal waters more than it clears them.

Geopolitics vs. Ground Reality

Supporters point to the broader national security imperative to reduce U.S. reliance on China, which currently controls over 85% of global REE processing. However, critics warn that vague policy signaling and contested lease structures are not enough. Without firm offtake agreements, midstream partnerships, or vertically integrated plans, HB 1459 may remain more political theater than industrial strategy.

Conclusion

HB 1459 reflects growing urgency among U.S. states to claim a foothold in the critical minerals economy. Yet North Dakota’s rush to legislate ahead of legal, technological, and commercial realities may create more risk than reward. Until real partners, projects, and processing capabilities emerge, the bill’s impact will be judged not by rhetoric—but by courts, investors, and the global market.

North Dakota