South Dakota House passes moratorium on carbon dioxide pipelines; easement-protection law clears; environmental-impact mandate fails

The South Dakota House on Feb. 25 approved a temporary moratorium on construction of carbon dioxide transmission pipelines and separately passed a bill intended to curb deceptive tactics in acquiring easements, while rejecting a separate measure that would have required the Public Utilities Commission to prepare a state environmental impact statement before issuing permits.

The moratorium, House Bill 10 85, passed on a 40-30 vote after floor debate that ranged from safety concerns to the economic impact of delaying large energy projects. Representative Tim Vazgard, the bill’s sponsor, told colleagues the measure was intended as a pause while federal pipeline safety rules are finalized and vetted during the federal comment period. “This bill simply asks that we take the time to sit back, take a step back, and wait till these rules are finished,” Vazgard said during debate.

Why it matters: proponents said CO2 pipeline incidents elsewhere and unsettled federal rules justify a temporary halt so state agencies, first responders and landowners can assess risks. Opponents said it would add uncertainty for developers and regional economic projects and would amount to adding regulatory hurdles beyond federal oversight.

The House also passed House Bill 12 49, sponsored by Representative Mike Knowles, which creates a civil remedy for landowners who can prove they were subject to deception, fraud, harassment, intimidation, misrepresentation or threats in transactions to acquire easements or easement options tied to carbon dioxide facilities. The bill, narrowed in committee to focus on carbon oxide facilities, includes a 12-month statute of limitations for landowners to file claims and places the burden of proof on the landowner. The final House vote was 36-34.

Why it matters: supporters said the bill levels the playing field for rural landowners facing aggressive easement tactics and provides courts with statutory tools to deter misconduct. Opponents — including representatives who cited existing causes of action under state contract and tort law — warned the language was vague and could invite litigation that would drive up costs for all linear projects.

A related measure that would have required the Public Utilities Commission to prepare, or require preparation of, a state environmental impact statement before issuing permits for carbon dioxide transmission facilities failed to clear the supermajority threshold the sponsor expected. House Bill 12 28 received 37 ayes and 32 nays; because the bill as introduced included an increase to a fee that is continuously appropriated, it required a two-thirds majority but fell short and was declared lost.

Sponsor view and technical points: Representative Hughes, sponsor of the environmental-impact measure, urged colleagues that an EIS under state law brings facts and science into the public record and noted large water and energy inputs estimated by proponents and opponents alike. “A CO2 pipeline is essentially a forever project. Once this is done, we’re married to it,” Hughes said. He cited chapter references in state code for environmental statements and said the requirement is a standard form of due diligence.

What the public heard: testimony and floor remarks referenced pipeline safety incidents in other states, federal rulemaking by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), and local emergency-responder training that emphasized risks from CO2 releases. Supporters of the moratorium also noted the federal rulemaking had a planned comment period and possible future changes under incoming administrations; opponents warned the pause would add financial and scheduling uncertainty for projects and those who invested in them.

Votes and next steps: The moratorium (HB 10 85) passed 40-30 and will proceed to the Senate. The landowner-protection bill (HB 12 49) passed 36-34 and will also go to the Senate. The environmental-impact mandate (HB 12 28) failed to secure the two-thirds vote required by its fiscal setup; sponsors indicated they may revisit the policy or the fiscal mechanism in future sessions.

Closing note: The cluster of votes signals a split approach in the Legislature: lawmakers approved protections aimed directly at landowner conduct and a near-term restriction on new CO2 construction while declining — at least for now — to impose a mandatory state-level environmental-impact report as a precondition for permitting. The topic is likely to return in committee work, in the Senate, and in further session debate.