Senate committee defers bill that would require EIS for CO2 transmission permits

Representative John Hughes, the House prime sponsor, told the Senate Commerce and Energy Committee that House Bill 1173 would require applicants for permits for carbon dioxide transmission facilities to prepare and pay for an environmental impact statement (EIS) and make it part of the permit record. Hughes said the measure is a transparency bill designed to give landowners, tribal governments and other South Dakotans a more readable synthesis of technical filings and cited a 28.1‑mile Minnesota EIS he posted as an example of the kind of public document he wants available.

Hughes said the bill would make an EIS mandatory for CO2 transmission facilities and emphasized the applicant — not the state — would bear the cost. “When you’re not allowed to look under the bed, you assume a monster’s under there,” Hughes said, arguing an executive‑summary style EIS helps lay readers understand complex projects.

Opponents from utilities and industry told the committee HB 1173 could have unintended consequences. Steve Willard, executive director and lobbyist for the South Dakota Electric Utility Companies, said the bill’s language could be read to affect a range of large transmission projects — including wind and solar lines and natural‑gas facilities — and raised concerns about importing a recently updated federal NEPA standard into state law. “I’m not sure doing this for carbon really…imperils an awful lot of other things,” Willard said, urging further study.

Brett Kenny of Clean Grid Alliance argued South Dakota already has a transparent, contested‑case permitting process: applicants file extensive materials, affected parties may intervene, and the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) conducts discovery and evidentiary hearings. Kenny said a late‑filed, applicant‑commissioned EIS that is not part of the contested record could mislead the public instead of helping it.

Mike Carbo of the American Petroleum Institute recommended a uniform review framework for pipelines rather than a commodity‑specific rule and referenced industry standards and federal oversight by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration in making that case.

Chris Nelson, chair of the Public Utilities Commission, told the committee the PUC’s current process produces extensive applications and discovery and that the PUC had last required an EIS for a permit proceeding in 1991. “We have always felt that we’ve gotten as much or more information through that process than we would through an environmental impact statement,” Nelson said, adding the PUC can ask for an EIS under current law.

Committee members questioned whether an applicant‑prepared EIS would be available in time to inform hearings, how much an EIS would cost, and whether federal NEPA obligations already trigger EIS requirements when a federal nexus exists. Hughes and Nelson said the PUC’s process produces detailed evidence but that an EIS is usually more accessible to lay readers and could better surface tribal and local impacts.

After debate the committee voted on a substitute motion to defer House Bill 1173 to the 41st legislative day; the chair declared the motion adopted. The committee did not adopt the bill for passage at this meeting.

The committee record shows the bill was deferred; no final statutory change was made and the PUC retains its existing authority to request an EIS in permit proceedings.