Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Environmental Review topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bill requiring environmental-impact statements for CO2 pipeline permits fails after floor vote
Summary
House Bill 12 28, which would have required the Public Utilities Commission to prepare or require an environmental impact statement before issuing permits for carbon dioxide transmission facilities, failed to secure the two-thirds margin required for passage on Feb. 25, 2025.
A proposed law that would have required environmental impact statements for carbon dioxide transmission facility permits failed in the South Dakota House on Feb. 25.
Representative Linda Hughes, the bill sponsor, told the House the measure would make the preparation of an environmental impact statement mandatory before issuance of any permit for a CO2 transmission facility. "House Bill 12 28 is a due diligence bill," Hughes said, adding that the statements must comply with the state's chapter on environmental review and be made available on the commission website.
Hughes told colleagues the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) had not required such a statement in the 2023 permitting process for CO2 pipelines and argued the state should require the fuller, publicly available assessments. "An environmental impact statement ... would provide a statement of the adverse environmental effects that cannot be avoided," she said.
Opponents warned the measure would impose new mandates on the PUC and could require land surveys and other steps opponents described as burdensome. Representative Timothy Peters called the bill "big government overreach" and urged colleagues to rely on the PUC's existing discretion to require studies when necessary.
The House also considered whether the bill triggered an increased fee that would require a two-thirds vote. After discussion, the chamber recorded 37 ayes and 32 nays — short of the two-thirds margin needed. The clerk recorded the tally and declared House Bill 12 28 lost for lack of the required supermajority.
Representative Hughes said the request to make environmental-impact statements mandatory was driven by concerns about water and resource use, and she cited a Minnesota example where a short pipeline segment required significant water during operations. Opponents said the state's existing statutes and the PUC's authority provided adequate review.
Because the bill failed to secure the necessary two-thirds support in the House, it will not move forward from this session. The debate showed a division between members who sought a formalized, publicly posted environmental review and members who preferred to leave such determinations to PUC discretion.
Speakers quoted in this article are included in the speaker list below. The House vote occurred on Feb. 25, 2025.
