NDP Tortoise Energy Independence Fund Inc

PROPOSAL ONE

ELECTION OF ONE DIRECTOR

The Board of Directors of each Company unanimously nominated Conrad S. Ciccotello following a recommendation by the Nominating and Governance Committee of each of TYG, TPZ, NTG, TTP, NDP and TEAF for election as director at the combined annual meeting of stockholders of the Companies. Mr. Ciccotello is currently a director of each Company. Mr. Ciccotello has consented to be named in this proxy statement and has agreed to serve if elected. The Companies have no reason to believe that Mr. Ciccotello will be unavailable to serve.

The persons named on the accompanying proxy card intend to vote at the meeting (unless otherwise directed) “FOR” the election of Mr. Ciccotello as a director of each Company. Currently, each Company has five directors. In accordance with each Company’s Articles of Incorporation (or in the case of TEAF, its Declaration of Trust), its Board of Directors is divided into three classes of approximately equal size. The terms of the directors of the different classes are staggered. The term of each of Rand Berney and Jennifer Paquette expires on the date of the 2024 annual meeting of stockholders of each Company, and the term of each of H. Kevin Birzer and Alexandra A. Herger expires on the date of the 2025 annual meeting of stockholders of each Company. Pursuant to the terms of each of TYG’s, NTG’s and TTP’s preferred shares, the preferred stockholders of each of those Companies have the exclusive right to elect two directors to their Company’s Board. The Board of each of TYG, NTG and TTP has designated Mr. Birzer and Ms. Paquette as the directors the preferred stockholders of that Company shall have the right to elect.

Holders of common shares and preferred shares of each of TYG, NTG and TTP will vote as a single class on the election of Mr. Ciccotello as a director of each Company. Holders of common shares of each of TPZ, NDP and TEAF will vote as a class on the election of Mr. Ciccotello as a director of each Company. Stockholders do not have cumulative voting rights.

With respect to each Company, if elected, Mr. Ciccotello will hold office until the 2026 annual meeting of stockholders of each Company and until his successor is duly elected and qualified. If Mr. Ciccotello is unable to serve because of an event not now anticipated, the persons named as proxies may vote for another person designated by the Company’s Board of Directors.

The following table sets forth each Board member’s name, age and address; position(s) with the Companies and length of time served; principal occupation during the past five years; the number of companies in the Fund Complex that each Board member oversees and other public company directorships held by each Board member. Unless otherwise indicated, the address of each director is 6363 College Boulevard, Suite 100A, Overland Park, Kansas 66211. The Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”) requires the

8

term “Fund Complex” to be defined to include registered investment companies advised by the Company’s investment adviser, Tortoise Capital Advisors, L.L.C. (the “Adviser”). As of May 31, 2023, for each Director, the Fund Complex included TYG, TPZ, NTG, TTP, NDP, TEAF and for Mr. Ciccotello, the Fund Complex also includes Ecofin Tax-Exempt Private Credit Fund, Inc. (“TSIFX”) whose investment adviser is the Adviser and on whose board Mr. Ciccotello serves. The Adviser also serves as the investment adviser to four open end mutual funds.

9

10

11

In addition to the experience provided in the table above, each director possesses the following qualifications, attributes and skills, each of which factored into the conclusion to invite them to join the Company’s Board of Directors: Mr. Ciccotello, experience as a college professor, a Ph.D. in finance and expertise in energy infrastructure MLPs; Mr. Berney, experience as a college professor, executive leadership and business experience; Ms. Herger, executive leadership and business experience; Ms. Paquette, investment management experience as a chief investment officer of a state public employees’ retirement association; and Mr. Birzer, investment management experience as an executive, portfolio manager and leadership roles with the Adviser.

Other attributes and qualifications considered for each director in connection with their selection to join the Board of Directors of each Company were their character and integrity and their willingness and ability to serve and commit

12

the time necessary to perform the duties of a director for all of the Companies. In addition, as to each director other than Mr. Birzer, his or her status as an Independent Director; and, as to Mr. Birzer, his roles with the Adviser were an important factor in his selection as a director. No experience, qualification, attribute or skill was by itself controlling.

Mr. Birzer serves as Chairman of the Board of Directors of each Company. Mr. Birzer is an “interested person” of the Companies within the meaning of the 1940 Act. The appointment of Mr. Birzer as Chairman reflects each Board of Directors’ belief that his experience, familiarity with each Company’s day-to-day operations and access to individuals with responsibility for each Company’s management and operations provides the Board of Directors with insight into each Company’s business and activities and, with his access to appropriate administrative support, facilitates the efficient development of meeting agendas that address each Company’s business, legal and other needs and the orderly conduct of meetings of the Board of Directors. Mr. Ciccotello serves as Lead Independent Director. The Lead Independent Director will, among other things, chair executive sessions of the four directors who are Independent Directors, serve as a spokesperson for the Independent Directors and serve as a liaison between the Independent Directors and each Company’s management. The Independent Directors will regularly meet outside the presence of management and are advised by independent legal counsel. The Board of Directors also has determined that its leadership structure, as described above, is appropriate in light of each Company’s size and complexity, the number of Independent Directors and the Board of Directors’ general oversight responsibility. The Board of Directors also believes that its leadership structure not only facilitates the orderly and efficient flow of information to the Independent Directors from management, but also enhances the independent and orderly exercise of its responsibilities.

Information About Executive Officers

Mr. Birzer is the Chairman of the Board of each Company. The preceding tables give more information about Mr. Birzer. The following table sets forth each other executive officer’s name, age and address; position(s) held with the Company and length of time served; principal occupation during the past five years; the number of portfolios in the Fund Complex overseen by each officer and other public company directorships held by each officer. Unless otherwise indicated, the address of each officer is 6363 College Boulevard, Suite 100A, Overland Park, Kansas 66211. Each officer serves until his or her successor is

13

elected and qualified or until his or her resignation or removal. As employees of the Adviser, each of the following officers are “interested persons” of the Company, as that term is defined in Section 2(a)(19) of the 1940 Act.

14

15

16

17

Committees of the Board of Directors of each Company

Each Company’s Board of Directors currently has four standing committees: (i) the Executive Committee; (ii) the Audit and Valuation Committee; (iii) the Nominating and Governance Committee; and (iv) the Compliance Committee. Currently, all of the non-interested directors, Messrs. Ciccotello and Berney and Mses. Herger and Paquette, are the only members of each of these committees, except for the Executive Committee, for each Company. Each Company’s Executive Committee currently consists of Mr. Birzer and Mr. Ciccotello.

Executive Committee. The Executive Committee of each Company has authority to exercise the powers of the Board (i) to address emergency matters where assembling the full Board in a timely manner is impracticable, or (ii) to address matters of an administrative or ministerial nature. Mr. Birzer is an “interested person” of each Company as defined by Section 2(a)(19) of the 1940 Act. In the absence of either member of the Executive Committee, the remaining member is authorized to act alone.

18

compensation, retention or termination and oversight of the independent registered public accounting firm (“auditors”); (ii) approves services to be rendered by the auditors and monitors the auditors’ performance; (iii) reviews the results of each Company’s audit; (iv) determines whether to recommend to the Board that the Company’s audited financial statements be included in the Company’s Annual Report; and (v) responds to other matters as outlined in the Committee Charter. Each Committee member is “independent” as defined under the applicable New York Stock Exchange listing standards, and none are “interested persons” of the Company as defined in the 1940 Act. The Board of Directors of each company has determined that Conrad S. Ciccotello and Rand C. Berney are each an “audit committee financial expert.” In addition to his experience overseeing or assessing the performance of companies or public accountants with respect to the preparation, auditing or evaluation of financial statements, Mr. Ciccotello has a Ph.D. in Finance.

19

nominees and matters for consideration at a meeting of the Company’s stockholders. The Bylaws of each Company (not including TEAF) require all nominees for directors, at the time of nomination, (1) to be at least 21 and less than 75 years of age and have substantial expertise, experience or relationships relevant to the business of the Company, or (2) to be a current director of the Company that has not reached 75 years of age. The Committee has the sole discretion to determine if an individual satisfies the foregoing qualifications. The Committee also considers the broad background of each individual nominee for director, including how such individual would impact the diversity of the Board, but does not have a formal policy regarding consideration of diversity in identifying nominees for director.

The Board of Directors’ role in the Company’s risk oversight reflects its responsibility under applicable state law to oversee generally, rather than to manage, the Company’s operations. In line with this oversight responsibility, the Board of Directors will receive reports and make inquiry at its regular meetings and as needed regarding the nature and extent of significant risks (including investment, compliance and valuation risks) that potentially could have a materially adverse impact on the Company’s business operations, investment performance or reputation, but relies upon the Company’s management to assist it in identifying and understanding the nature and extent of such risks and determining whether, and to what extent, such risks may be eliminated or mitigated. In addition to reports and other information received from the Company’s management regarding its investment program and activities, the Board of Directors as part of its risk oversight efforts will meet at its regular meetings and as needed with the Adviser’s Chief Compliance Officer to discuss, among other things, risk issues and issues regarding the Company’s policies, procedures and controls. The Board of Directors may be assisted in performing aspects of its role in risk oversight by the Audit and Valuation Committee and such other standing or special committees as may be established from time to time. For example, the Audit and Valuation Committee will regularly meet with the Company’s independent public accounting firm to review, among other things, reports on internal controls for financial reporting.

20

The Board of Directors believes that not all risks that may affect the Company can be identified, that it may not be practical or cost-effective to eliminate or mitigate certain risks, that it may be necessary to bear certain risks (such as investment-related risks) to achieve the Company’s goals and objectives, and that the processes, procedures and controls employed to address certain risks may be limited in their effectiveness. Moreover, reports received by the directors as to risk management matters are typically summaries of relevant information and may be inaccurate or incomplete. As a result of the foregoing and other factors, the risk management oversight of the Board of Directors is subject to substantial limitations.

None of the Companies currently has a standing compensation committee. None of the Companies has any employees and the New York Stock Exchange does not require boards of directors of registered closed-end funds to have a standing compensation committee.

The following table shows the number of Board and committee meetings held during the fiscal year ended November 30, 2022 for each of the Companies:

During the 2022 fiscal year, for each of the Companies, all directors who were directors during the 2022 fiscal year attended at least 75% of the aggregate of (1) the total number of meetings of the Board and (2) the total number of meetings held by all committees of the Board on which they served. None of the Companies has a policy with respect to Board member attendance at annual meetings. All of the directors of each of TYG, TPZ, NTG, TTP, NDP and TEAF attended the Company’s 2022 annual meeting virtually.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

On May 12, 2023, plaintiffs Howard Nathanson and Gus Gordon, derivatively and on behalf of TYG and NTG, filed a suit against H. Kevin Birzer, Conrad S. Ciccotello, Rand C. Berney, Jennifer Paquette, and Alexandra Herger, and against the Adviser, in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland. TYG and NTG also were named in the suit as Nominal Defendants. The complaint, among other things, alleges derivative claims for breach of fiduciary duty related to the Adviser’s management of TYG and NTG and the Director Defendants’ oversight thereof and

21

for the adoption of amendments to the Bylaws of TYG and NTG in October 2020 which the complaint alleges were illegal under the 1940 Act. The complaint seeks unspecified damages related to the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty, rescission of the Adviser’s investment advisory contract for TYG and NTG pursuant to an alleged violation of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, and, on behalf of the plaintiffs in their individual capacities as shareholders of TYG and NTG, recission of the allegedly illegal Bylaws provisions pursuant to the 1940 Act. The case is Howard Nathanson and Gus Gordon, derivatively on behalf of Tortoise Energy Infrastructure Corp. and Midstream Energy Fund v. Tortoise Capital Advisors, L.L.C. et al., Baltimore City Circuit Court, Maryland. Plaintiffs had filed a similar action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas in August 2022, which was dismissed without prejudice as a result of the forum selection clause in the Bylaws of TYG and NTG. While management of the Adviser and the Director Defendants are unable to predict the outcome of this matter, they believe that this case is without merit and intend to defend against it vigorously, and do not believe the outcome would result in the payment of any monetary damages by TYG or NTG.