Montana · individual fact

Montana prices and inflation

Compare Montana’s price levels, category costs, and changes in its regional price deflator.

BLS does not publish a statewide Montana CPI or a complete 50-state CPI cohort. The statewide comparisons here use BEA regional price parities and its implicit regional price deflator. They are explicitly labeled and are not CPI.

All-items price level94.62024 · #29 of 50 · highest first
Goods price level962024 · #35 of 50 · highest first
Housing-rent price level84.62024 · #27 of 50 · highest first

Montana over time

Explore Montana readings, major events and reviewed actions on the same date scale. Montana officeholders appear in separate lanes. National event evidence describes national context; it does not measure a Montana effect.

Major events & context · A curated selection, including uncertain effects. Milestone dates do not establish that an event caused a Montana change.

Enacted / issuedDid not proceedPending / in progressStatus unclear

Colors show the latest recorded status. Passing one chamber is not enactment. A number groups actions with the same date, body and status.

All-items price level Montana · source units
MontanaPublished U.S. benchmark

Move across the chart to inspect the nearest observation. Click or tap to keep a reading selected, or focus the chart and use the arrow keys. Hover over or focus a marker to explore; click or tap to pin. Press Escape to clear.

All-items price level2024: 94.68995.1101.2Montana, 2014: 95.2Montana, 2015: 95Montana, 2016: 93.9Montana, 2017: 94.2Montana, 2018: 92.4Montana, 2019: 94.2Montana, 2020: 92Montana, 2021: 91.3Montana, 2022: 90.2Montana, 2023: 91Montana, 2024: 94.6201420192024
✦ Major events & context · 27National context · Hurricanes Katrina and Rita disrupt fuel supplies · 2005-08-29Katrina / RitaNational context · Global food and energy price surge · 2008-07-15Food / energy surgeNational context · Great Financial Crisis and Great Recession · 2008-09-15Great Financial CrisisNational context · Fed cuts rates near zero during the crisis · 2008-12-16Fed near-zero ratesNational context · American Recovery and Reinvestment Act · 2009-02-17Recovery ActNational context · Renewed global food and oil price pressures · 2011-04-11Commodity pressuresNational context · U.S. drought damages crops and raises food costs · 2012-08-10U.S. droughtNational context · Oil-price collapse lowers energy inflation · 2014-11-27Oil-price collapseNational context · Fed raises rates after the near-zero period · 2015-12-16Fed rate liftoffNational context · Hurricanes Harvey and Irma disrupt fuel markets · 2017-08-25Harvey / IrmaNational context · U.S.–China tariff escalation · 2018-07-06U.S.–China tariffsNational context · Fed cuts rates amid muted inflation · 2019-07-31Fed cuts rates in 2019National context · COVID-19 pandemic · 2020-03-11COVID-19 pandemicNational context · Fed emergency rate cut and asset purchases · 2020-03-15Fed emergency easingNational context · CARES Act pandemic relief · 2020-03-27CARES Act reliefNational context · American Rescue Plan expands pandemic support · 2021-03-11American Rescue PlanNational context · Reopening demand meets supply and chip shortages · 2021-07-09Reopening / shortagesNational context · Avian influenza disrupts egg supplies · 2022-02-09Bird flu / egg supplyNational context · Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine · 2022-02-24Russia invades UkraineNational context · Federal Reserve begins 2022 rate increases · 2022-03-16Fed rate increases beginNational context · Banking stress raises credit and inflation uncertainty · 2023-03-22Banking stressNational context · Supply recovery and slower rent growth ease inflation pressures · 2023-08-25Supply / rent easingNational context · Red Sea shipping disruption raises supply risks · 2024-02-22Red Sea shippingNational context · Federal Reserve cuts rates in September 2024 · 2024-09-18Fed rate cutNational context · Broad U.S. tariff announcement · 2025-04-02U.S. tariff announcementNational context · Federal shutdown interrupts CPI collection · 2025-10-01Shutdown / CPI data gapNational context · Iran conflict and Strait of Hormuz energy disruption · 2026-02-28Iran / Hormuz shock● Montana Legislature · 2● U.S. Congress · Montana delegation · 0No reviewed actions match these filters.◆ Governor · 1■ Montana agencies · 0No reviewed actions match these filters.2005-08-012026-02-28

3 of 3 reviewed Montana actions match · 3 date markers shown. 27 major events shown separately.

Montana · 2024: 94.6 · Rank #29 of 50, highest first · U.S. benchmark: 100

BEA regional price parity, relative to the overall national price level. The U.S. all-items index equals 100 each year. Measures prices across places within the same year, rather than annual inflation. For all items, 103 means about 3% above the national level. Category benchmarks can differ from 100; compare Montana with the published U.S. category value shown. Annual observations use December 31; monthly observations use the first of the month. Lines connect consecutive readings and do not supply values between them. Missing observations break the lines.

View observations and export data
Montana All-items price level · source units
PeriodMontanaRankU.S. benchmark
202494.6#29 of 50100
202391#37 of 50100
202290.2#39 of 50100
202191.3#38 of 50100
202092#32 of 50100
201994.2#29 of 50100
201892.4#33 of 50100
201794.2#30 of 50100
201693.9#29 of 50100
201595#28 of 50100
201495.2#28 of 50100
How major events are selected

The timeline combines the corresponding national fact’s reviewed event catalog, labeled National context, with individually reviewed state milestones. State events use primary sources and distinguish signing, effective and filing dates. Each milestone keeps its source-check date, geographical limits and evidence limits. This curated selection is not a complete history.

Date ranges affect events and actions. Action type, status and official-name search affect government records only. Events remain separate from action counts. An event after the latest observation extends context without creating a new reading.

Montana · state comparison

How does Montana’s cost of living compare?

The U.S. all-items level is 100. Each category uses its own published U.S. benchmark. Compare the same category and year.

Montana · 202494.6
Montana rank#29among all 50 states
U.S. price level100Same measure and period when published

#1 is the highest value. Ties share a rank and leave gaps. D.C. and territories are excluded. Rank describes the measured value; it is not an overall score of the state.

All-items price level

BEA regional price parity, relative to the overall national price level. The U.S. all-items index equals 100 each year.

Measures prices across places within the same year, rather than annual inflation. For all items, 103 means about 3% above the national level. Category benchmarks can differ from 100; compare Montana with the published U.S. category value shown.

Hover to inspect. Click or tap to compare that period with every state. Focus the graph and use arrow keys, Home or End to select a period. Press Escape to return to the latest period.

Montana
All-items price level history in Montana88.795.1101.520142024
2024 · Montana: 94.6 · Rank #29 of 50, highest first · U.S. benchmark: 100 · Selected for state comparison
View history and select a period
Montana All-items price level history
PeriodMontanaCompare
201495.2
201595
201693.9
201794.2
201892.4
201994.2
202092
202191.3
202290.2
202391
202494.6

Compare states on the graph

Hover or focus a bar to inspect its value and rank. Use the up and down arrows, Home or End to explore states. Click, tap or press Enter to keep a state selected. Montana stays highlighted. Values use the same measure and period.

Explore the map: hover or focus a state to inspect it, then click or tap to select it. Arrow keys move between states alphabetically. Montana has a dark outline.

Lower value · 86.9Higher value · 110.7Striped: unavailable

Color shows this measure’s value, not an overall state score. Select a state on the map, graph or dropdown to read its value, rank and comparison limits below.

Montana · 94.62024 · Rank #29 of 50, highest firstSelected state

50 states shown · scroll to explore every state. Missing values have no bar and are excluded from ranks. Bars start at zero; #1 means the highest value.

Compare Montana with every state · 50 ranked
All-items price level · 2024 · highest value ranked #1
RankStateValueComparison notes
#1California110.7—
#2Hawaii110—
#3New Jersey108.8—
#4New York107.9—
#5Washington107—
#6Massachusetts105.8—
#7Maryland105—
#8New Hampshire104.2—
#9Connecticut103.6—
#10Florida103.4—
#11Oregon103.4—
#12Colorado103.1—
#13Alaska102.4—
#14Rhode Island102.3—
#15Virginia101.1—
#16Arizona100.7—
#17Nevada100—
#18Illinois100—
#19Delaware99.8—
#20Utah98.9—
#21Minnesota98.6—
#22Vermont98—
#23Pennsylvania97.6—
#24Texas97.1—
#25Maine97.1—
#26Georgia96.3—
#27Michigan96.2—
#28Idaho95.5—
#29Montana · your comparison94.6—
#30North Carolina94.3—
#31Wisconsin94.1—
#32South Carolina93.7—
#33Indiana93.3—
#34Ohio92.8—
#35Wyoming92.7—
#36New Mexico92.2—
#37Tennessee91.9—
#38Missouri90.8—
#39Kentucky90.2—
#40Nebraska90.1—
#41Kansas90.1—
#42West Virginia89.5—
#43North Dakota89—
#44Alabama88.8—
#45South Dakota88.6—
#46Louisiana88.2—
#47Oklahoma87.8—
#48Iowa87.8—
#49Mississippi87—
#50Arkansas86.9—

All 50 states are listed, including states without a comparable observation. Ranks use stored source precision; displayed values may round to the same number.

Montana · state comparison

How much have prices changed?

This is BEA’s implicit regional price deflator, derived from regional price parities and the national PCE price index.

Montana · 20246.7%
Montana rank#1among all 50 states
U.S. benchmark2.6%Same measure and period when published

#1 is the highest value. Ties share a rank and leave gaps. D.C. and territories are excluded. Rank describes the measured value; it is not an overall score of the state.

Annual change in regional price deflator

Year-over-year change in the BEA implicit regional price deflator.

An annual regional inflation measure; different from BLS CPI-U. Changes can reflect regional price parity estimates and revisions as well as national inflation.

Hover to inspect. Click or tap to compare that period with every state. Focus the graph and use arrow keys, Home or End to select a period. Press Escape to return to the latest period.

Montana
Annual change in regional price deflator history in Montana-2.5%2.7%7.9%20152024
2024 · Montana: 6.7% · Rank #1 of 50, highest first · U.S. benchmark: 2.6% · Selected for state comparison
View history and select a period
Montana Annual change in regional price deflator history
PeriodMontanaCompare
2015-0%
2016-0.2%
20172.1%
20180.1%
20193.5%
2020-1.3%
20213.4%
20225.2%
20234.8%
20246.7%

Compare states on the graph

Hover or focus a bar to inspect its value and rank. Use the up and down arrows, Home or End to explore states. Click, tap or press Enter to keep a state selected. Montana stays highlighted. Values use the same measure and period.

Explore the map: hover or focus a state to inspect it, then click or tap to select it. Arrow keys move between states alphabetically. Montana has a dark outline.

Lower value · 0.8%Higher value · 6.7%Striped: unavailable

Color shows this measure’s value, not an overall state score. Select a state on the map, graph or dropdown to read its value, rank and comparison limits below.

Montana · 6.7%2024 · Rank #1 of 50, highest firstSelected state

50 states shown · scroll to explore every state. Missing values have no bar and are excluded from ranks. Bars start at zero; #1 means the highest value.

Compare Montana with every state · 50 ranked
Annual change in regional price deflator · 2024 · highest value ranked #1
RankStateValueComparison notes
#1Montana · your comparison6.7%—
#2Idaho6.2%—
#3Utah6%—
#4Nevada4.8%—
#5Michigan4.7%—
#6New Mexico4%—
#7Indiana4%—
#8Wyoming3.9%—
#9Illinois3.9%—
#10Colorado3.8%—
#11Delaware3.7%—
#12Ohio3.6%—
#13Wisconsin3.6%—
#14North Dakota3.5%—
#15Vermont3.5%—
#16South Dakota3.1%—
#17Maryland3%—
#18Minnesota3%—
#19Kentucky2.9%—
#20South Carolina2.9%—
#21Hawaii2.9%—
#22Rhode Island2.8%—
#23Mississippi2.8%—
#24Kansas2.8%—
#25Pennsylvania2.8%—
#26Arkansas2.8%—
#27New York2.7%—
#28Arizona2.6%—
#29North Carolina2.5%—
#30Texas2.5%—
#31New Jersey2.5%—
#32West Virginia2.5%—
#33Nebraska2.4%—
#34Georgia2.4%—
#35Florida2.4%—
#36Virginia2.4%—
#37Tennessee2.4%—
#38Alabama2.3%—
#39Missouri2.3%—
#40Louisiana2%—
#41Connecticut2%—
#42Alaska1.7%—
#43Maine1.7%—
#44Oklahoma1.6%—
#45Iowa1.5%—
#46New Hampshire1.4%—
#47Washington1.3%—
#48California1.3%—
#49Oregon1.2%—
#50Massachusetts0.8%—

All 50 states are listed, including states without a comparable observation. Ranks use stored source precision; displayed values may round to the same number.

Montana · state comparison

Are incomes keeping up with prices?

Real personal income accounts for national inflation and regional price differences.

Montana · 2024$59,203
Montana rank#19among all 50 states
U.S. benchmark$59,195Same measure and period when published

#1 is the highest value. Ties share a rank and leave gaps. D.C. and territories are excluded. Rank describes the measured value; it is not an overall score of the state.

Real personal income per person

Regional price-adjusted and inflation-adjusted personal income per resident.

Constant 2017 dollars. This differs from household wages, disposable income, and the national real-hourly-earnings measure.

Hover to inspect. Click or tap to compare that period with every state. Focus the graph and use arrow keys, Home or End to select a period. Press Escape to return to the latest period.

Montana
Real personal income per person history in Montana$43.09K$52.87K$62.64K20142024
2024 · Montana: $59,203 · Rank #19 of 50, highest first · U.S. benchmark: $59,195 · Selected for state comparison
View history and select a period
Montana Real personal income per person history
PeriodMontanaCompare
2014$45,344
2015$46,713
2016$47,039
2017$48,274
2018$50,168
2019$50,997
2020$55,801
2021$59,635
2022$59,372
2023$60,386
2024$59,203

Compare states on the graph

Hover or focus a bar to inspect its value and rank. Use the up and down arrows, Home or End to explore states. Click, tap or press Enter to keep a state selected. Montana stays highlighted. Values use the same measure and period.

Explore the map: hover or focus a state to inspect it, then click or tap to select it. Arrow keys move between states alphabetically. Montana has a dark outline.

Lower value · $48.47KHigher value · $75.5KStriped: unavailable

Color shows this measure’s value, not an overall state score. Select a state on the map, graph or dropdown to read its value, rank and comparison limits below.

Montana · $59,2032024 · Rank #19 of 50, highest firstSelected state

50 states shown · scroll to explore every state. Missing values have no bar and are excluded from ranks. Bars start at zero; #1 means the highest value.

Compare Montana with every state · 50 ranked
Real personal income per person · 2024 · highest value ranked #1
RankStateValueComparison notes
#1Wyoming$75,501—
#2Connecticut$74,254—
#3Massachusetts$71,629—
#4South Dakota$69,153—
#5Nebraska$65,297—
#6North Dakota$65,271—
#7Colorado$65,223—
#8New Hampshire$64,632—
#9Washington$64,421—
#10New York$64,153—
#11New Jersey$63,142—
#12California$63,028—
#13Minnesota$62,039—
#14Virginia$61,914—
#15Maryland$61,111—
#16Illinois$60,333—
#17Alaska$60,272—
#18Iowa$60,144—
#19Montana · your comparison$59,203—
#20Kansas$59,172—
#21Vermont$58,893—
#22Oklahoma$58,692—
#23Pennsylvania$58,620—
#24Tennessee$58,582—
#25Wisconsin$58,273—
#26Texas$58,219—
#27Missouri$57,850—
#28Maine$57,480—
#29Florida$57,131—
#30Louisiana$56,789—
#31Nevada$56,503—
#32North Carolina$56,310—
#33Ohio$56,232—
#34Rhode Island$55,878—
#35Indiana$55,562—
#36Oregon$55,451—
#37Arkansas$55,219—
#38Delaware$55,185—
#39Utah$55,116—
#40Michigan$53,569—
#41Georgia$52,952—
#42Arizona$52,890—
#43Idaho$52,816—
#44South Carolina$52,463—
#45Kentucky$52,290—
#46Hawaii$52,272—
#47Alabama$52,216—
#48New Mexico$51,121—
#49West Virginia$50,051—
#50Mississippi$48,465—

All 50 states are listed, including states without a comparable observation. Ranks use stored source precision; displayed values may round to the same number.

What candidates are saying

Explore statements about inflation, consumer prices and the cost of living from FactVote’s Montana candidate profiles. Compare candidates within each recorded race, with each person’s matching statements kept together. These are candidate and campaign statements, not verified outcomes.

7 statements from 3 candidates

2026 Montana U.S. House — District 2 — General Election

1 candidate with matching statements · 3 statements

Independent · U.S. House District 2 · MT

CPI / inflation mention

Tariffs will not make America rich again. Instead, tariffs are an indirect tax on Americans that will inevitably be passed along in the form of higher prices for imported goods and business inputs; this leads to higher inflation and pressures companies to cut jobs or delay growth. We’ve already seen…

Read exact statement & source

Source topic or question: Taxes, economy, workers, agriculture, and affordability

Candidate campaign source

Tariffs will not make America rich again. Instead, tariffs are an indirect tax on Americans that will inevitably be passed along in the form of higher prices for imported goods and business inputs; this leads to higher inflation and pressures companies to cut jobs or delay growth. We’ve already seen the administration begin to reduce those tariffs in certain sectors in an effort to stem losses and falling popular support.

Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 15, 2026

Michael D. Eisenhauer — candidate-owned primary source 4 ↗
View 2 more statements from Michael D. Eisenhauer
Consumer prices & cost-of-living context

As your Representative in Congress, I will work in a bipartisan and fiscally responsible manner to protect Social Security and Medicare, and to deliver effective cost-of-living increases, without the need to raise the retirement age.

Read exact statement & source

Source topic or question: Retirement security and Social Security

Candidate campaign source

As your Representative in Congress, I will work in a bipartisan and fiscally responsible manner to protect Social Security and Medicare, and to deliver effective cost-of-living increases, without the need to raise the retirement age.

Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 15, 2026

Michael D. Eisenhauer — candidate-owned primary source 4 ↗
Consumer prices & cost-of-living context

Solution #1: Conventional bailouts do not benefit the Farmer substantially, and will not fix the underlaying problem. We need long-term solutions, while providing a safety-net in the short term in some form of farm-aid in order to prevent a further acute rise in farm/ranch bankruptcies. However, it …

Read exact statement & source

Source topic or question: Taxes, economy, workers, agriculture, and affordability

Candidate campaign source

Solution #1: Conventional bailouts do not benefit the Farmer substantially, and will not fix the underlaying problem. We need long-term solutions, while providing a safety-net in the short term in some form of farm-aid in order to prevent a further acute rise in farm/ranch bankruptcies. However, it is also recognized that most of the money received from the federal government in the form of a conventional bailout will simply pass through to those few very large corporations who control both the inputs for farming (high prices for seed, fertilizer and equipment) and the outputs (low grain prices at harvest). So essentially, those bailouts may pad the profit margin of the corporations and not the farmer – who is merely a conduit that passes most of the stipend on to large corporations and financial institutions at taxpayer expense.

Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 15, 2026

Michael D. Eisenhauer — candidate-owned primary source 4 ↗

2026 Montana U.S. Senate — General Election

2 candidates with matching statements · 4 statements

Alani Bankhead

3 statements

Democratic · U.S. Senate · MT

CPI / inflation mention

✓ Back the More Homes on the Market Act, bipartisan legislation that raises the home-sale capital-gains exclusion to $500k for single filers and $1M for couples, and indexes it to inflation, and expand the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit to build the affordable homes Montana needs.

Read exact statement & source

Source topic or question: Housing

Candidate campaign source

✓ Back the More Homes on the Market Act, bipartisan legislation that raises the home-sale capital-gains exclusion to $500k for single filers and $1M for couples, and indexes it to inflation, and expand the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit to build the affordable homes Montana needs.

Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 15, 2026

Alani Bankhead — candidate-owned primary source 2 ↗
View 2 more statements from Alani Bankhead
CPI / inflation mention

✓ Raise the federal minimum wage so a full-time job keeps a worker and their family out of poverty, and index it to inflation the way Montana already does, so the floor never sits frozen for fifteen years again.

Read exact statement & source

Source topic or question: Taxes, economy, workers, agriculture, and affordability

Candidate campaign source

✓ Raise the federal minimum wage so a full-time job keeps a worker and their family out of poverty, and index it to inflation the way Montana already does, so the floor never sits frozen for fifteen years again.

Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 15, 2026

Alani Bankhead — candidate-owned primary source 2 ↗
Consumer prices & cost-of-living context

✓ End the costly, unnecessary war with Iran that’s pushing gas prices higher.

Read exact statement & source

Source topic or question: National security, foreign policy, technology, and veterans

Candidate campaign source

✓ End the costly, unnecessary war with Iran that’s pushing gas prices higher.

Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 15, 2026

Alani Bankhead — candidate-owned primary source 2 ↗

Seth Bodnar

1 statement

Independent · U.S. Senate · MT

Consumer prices & cost-of-living context

America needs to produce more energy, and Montana deserves an energy plan that's genuinely all-of-the-above. In the military, we were taught that you should never depend on one supply line. Our energy policy shouldn’t either. Unfortunately, we've let ideology creep too far into this conversation, an…

Read exact statement & source

Source topic or question: Pillar Two — Invest in American Competitiveness and Security Right Here in Montana

Candidate campaign source

America needs to produce more energy, and Montana deserves an energy plan that's genuinely all-of-the-above. In the military, we were taught that you should never depend on one supply line. Our energy policy shouldn’t either. Unfortunately, we've let ideology creep too far into this conversation, and Montanans are the ones paying higher costs because of it. Utility bills are through the roof. Some believe we can simply turn off our reliance on fossil fuels. That's not realistic. Others believe we must halt development of renewables because it's become a convenient culture-war target. That's not serious, either.

Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 18, 2026

Seth Bodnar campaign source 2 ↗
How statements are selected

This section matches specific inflation, consumer prices and the cost of living terms in retained, attributed source text from published Montana candidate profiles. A profile heading or biography alone does not qualify. The Florida geography is fixed; saved state preferences cannot change these results. A mention can concern a community or group rather than Florida’s statewide measure.

Matching is automatic and does not establish a candidate’s stance, the accuracy of a claim, or an effect on the measured result. Results are grouped by recorded race, then by candidate name. Within each candidate, the matching issue mentions appear first. Only candidates with matching retained statements are shown; this is not a complete race roster. Repeated identical text for the same candidate is shown once. Coverage follows the existing state profiles and is not a complete record of all candidates or everything they have said. Review dates are not statement dates.

Montana incumbents

What incumbents are proposing

Explore reviewed bills sponsored by current Montana legislators and Montana’s congressional delegation, plus retained proposals from Montana’s governor and agencies. Each record keeps its latest recorded status and official evidence.

2 matching sponsorships or proposals · 2 Montana incumbents. These filters apply only to this section.

Rep. Courtenay Sprunger

Montana House of Representatives, District 7 · R–MT

1 proposal
View proposals from Rep. Courtenay Sprunger
Montana Legislature · HB 351

AN ACT CLARIFYING THE POINT OF TAXATION FOR GASOLINE AND SPECIAL FUELS TAXES TO THE FIRST LICENSED DISTRIBUTOR WHO OWNS THE GASOLINE OR SPECIAL FUEL AS IT IS WITHDRAWN FROM A TERMINAL OR REFINERY IN THIS STATE OR IMPORTED INTO THIS STATE; REVISING DEFINITIONS; AMENDING SECTIONS 15-70-401, 15-70-402, 15-70-403, 15-70-404, AND 15-70-441, MCA; AND PROVIDING A DELAYED EFFECTIVE DATE

May 5, 2025 · Enacted · Chapter 445

Rep. Courtenay Sprunger · Sponsored / Rep. Ed Byrne · Co-sponsored / Rep. Frank Smith · Co-sponsored / Sen. Denley Loge · Co-sponsored / Sen. Mike Yakawich · Co-sponsored / Rep. Steve Fitzpatrick · Co-sponsored / Rep. Denise Baum · Co-sponsored / Rep. Bob Carter · Co-sponsored / Rep. Julie Darling · Co-sponsored

FactVote reviewed summary

HB 351 clarifies who is treated as distributing fuel for Montana fuel-tax purposes. For withdrawal from an in-state refinery or pipeline terminal, it generally identifies the owner immediately before withdrawal; if shipped or delivered to a licensed distributor, it identifies the first licensed distributor taking possession as shown by the bill of lading. Imports are generally attributed to the owner when unloaded after arrival and coming to rest in Montana, excluding refinery or pipeline-terminal storage. If that owner is unlicensed and a licensed distributor ships or delivers the fuel, the licensed distributor is responsible. Fuel may not be exchanged tax-free between licensed distributors more than once. The law specifies July 1, 2026 and retains the existing gasoline tax rate. This concerns collection responsibility in one state within the Rocky Mountain price region, not a rate increase, tax holiday or demonstrated consumer savings.

The legislative docket records “Signed by Governor” and chapter 445. The displayed date is the docket timestamp, not an independently verified original execution date. Enactment does not prove implementation or current enforceability.

Why this record is included

The EIA fact is a five-state Rocky Mountain regional proxy covering Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Utah and Wyoming, not a Montana-only price. Rules identifying the distributor liable for gasoline tax concern a price component in one of those states. They do not establish a tax-rate change or consumer savings. This relationship does not establish causation. Actions after the measurement period cannot explain its earlier value.

Retained Montana evidence context: Rocky Mountain regular gasoline price. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.

(4) (a) Except as provided in subsection (4)(b), when gasoline, special fuel, or aviation fuel is withdrawn from a refinery or pipeline terminal in this state, the gasoline, special fuel, or aviation fuel is considered to be distributed by the distributor who is the owner of the gasoline, special fuel, or aviation fuel prior to the time of withdrawal. (b) If gasoline, special fuel, or aviation fuel is withdrawn for shipment or delivery to a licensed distributor, it is considered to be distributed by the first licensed distributor to take possession of the gasoline, special fuel, or aviation fuel as shown by the bill of lading issued by the terminal or refinery. (5) Imported gasoline, special fuel, or aviation fuel, except for gasoline, special fuel, or aviation fuel placed in storage at a refinery or pipeline terminal, is considered to be distributed after it arrives and is brought to rest in this state by the person who is the owner of the gasoline, special fuel, or aviation fuel at the time the gasoline, special fuel, or aviation fuel is unloaded from its shipping vessel. If the owner is not licensed as a Montana distributor and if the gasoline, special fuel, or aviation fuel is shipped or delivered in this state by a person who is licensed as a distributor, then the gasoline, special fuel, or aviation fuel is considered to be distributed by the licensed distributor. (6) For the purposes of the tax provided for in this section, gasoline, special fuel, and aviation fuel may not be exchanged tax-free between licensed distributors more than one time.
Review official supporting evidence ↗

Rep. Kelly Kortum

Montana House of Representatives, District 64 · D–MT

1 proposal
View proposals from Rep. Kelly Kortum
Montana Legislature · HB 484

Revise minimum wage laws to provide increases

May 20, 2025 · Not enacted

Rep. Kelly Kortum · Sponsored / Sen. Sara Novak · Co-sponsored / Rep. James Reavis · Co-sponsored / Rep. Luke Muszkiewicz · Co-sponsored / Rep. Becky Edwards · Co-sponsored / Rep. Jamie Isaly · Co-sponsored / Rep. Marc Lee · Co-sponsored / Rep. Peter Strand · Co-sponsored / Rep. Brian Close · Co-sponsored / Rep. Pete Elverum · Co-sponsored / Sen. Cora Neumann · Co-sponsored / Rep. Jane Weber · Co-sponsored / Rep. Jade Sooktis · Co-sponsored / Rep. Scott Rosenzweig · Co-sponsored / Sen. Willis Curdy · Co-sponsored / Sen. Mary Ann Dunwell · Co-sponsored / Sen. Janet Ellis · Co-sponsored / Rep. Eric Matthews · Co-sponsored / Sen. Susan Webber · Co-sponsored / Sen. Dave Fern · Co-sponsored / Sen. Derek Harvey · Co-sponsored / Sen. Laura Smith · Co-sponsored / Sen. Jonathan Windy Boy · Co-sponsored / Rep. Denise Baum · Co-sponsored / Rep. Bob Carter · Co-sponsored / Sen. Pat Flowers · Co-sponsored / Rep. Donavon Hawk · Co-sponsored / Sen. Denise Hayman · Co-sponsored / Sen. Emma Kerr-Carpenter · Co-sponsored / Sen. Shane Morigeau · Co-sponsored / Sen. Andrea Olsen · Co-sponsored / Sen. Christopher Pope · Co-sponsored / Rep. Denise Joy · Co-sponsored

FactVote reviewed summary

As introduced, HB 484 proposed a $12.06 hourly minimum, or the federal minimum if higher, retaining annual cost-of-living adjustments and excluding tips and a training wage from the calculation. It proposed removing the $4 rate for businesses with annual gross sales of $110,000 or less, with a July 1, 2025 effective date. It died in process and did not become law. These were proposed wage rules, not a change to actual Montana pay or median household income.

The legislative docket records “Died in Process.” The displayed date is the docket timestamp. This proposal did not become law.

Why this record is included

Household money income includes wages before taxes. Minimum-wage proposals and settlement of unpaid wages concern that income component, without establishing a change in statewide median household income. This relationship does not establish causation. Actions after the measurement period cannot explain its earlier value.

Retained Montana evidence context: Median household income. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.

Section 1. Section 39-3-409, MCA, is amended to read: "39-3-409. Adoption of minimum wage rates -- exception. (1) The minimum wage, except as provided in subsection (3), must be the greater of either: (a) the minimum hourly wage rate as provided under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 206(a)(1)), excluding the value of tips received by the employee and the special provisions for a training wage; or (b) $12.06 an hour, excluding the value of tips received by the employee and the special provisions for a training wage. (2) (a) The minimum wage is subject to a cost-of-living adjustment, as provided in subsection (2)(b). (b) No later than September 30 of each year, an adjustment of the wage amount specified in subsection (1) must be made based upon the increase, if any, from August of the preceding year to August of the year in which the calculation is made in the consumer price index, U.S. city average, all urban consumers, for all items, as published by the bureau of labor statistics of the United States department of labor. (c) The wage amount established under this subsection (2): (i) must be rounded to the nearest 5 cents; and (ii) becomes effective as the new minimum wage, replacing the dollar figure specified in subsection (1), on January 1 of the following year. " NEW SECTION. Section 2. Effective date. [This act] is effective July 1, 2025.
Review official supporting evidence ↗
What sponsorship and proposal counts tell us

Only current Montana officeholders retained in the reviewed collection qualify. Bills require a recorded primary sponsorship; cosponsors and signing officials are excluded from sponsorship counts. An official introducer recorded as acting by request is labeled “Introduced by request”; that procedural role does not establish personal policy endorsement. Governor and agency records qualify when recorded as proposed. A separately verified governor transmittal can also establish an original proposal whose latest status reflects its later outcome. Signing an enacted law alone does not establish a proposal. A record appearing under several facts is counted once per officeholder. A bill with multiple primary sponsors appears under each recorded sponsor.

Enacted bills, adopted resolutions and unsuccessful measures remain visible as proposal history. Passing one chamber is not enactment. These counts do not measure effectiveness or prove that an action changed a Montana statistic. Collection reviewed Sep 16, 2026.