Rep. John Hughes, R-Sioux Falls, speaks on the House floor on Feb. 9, 2026. Hughes has twice filed bills meant to force carbon capture pipelines file environmental impact statements as part of the state-level permitting process. (Photo by Makenzie Huber/South Dakota Searchlight)
A panel of South Dakota senators defeated a state lawmaker’s second attempt to require environmental impact studies for carbon dioxide pipelines.
Sioux Falls Republican Rep. John Hughes’ first attempt last year failed in the House on a 37-32 vote. This year’s version, House Bill 1173, cleared the House 44-22 last month.
The Senate Commerce and Energy Committee dashed Hughes’ hopes for a Senate floor vote with a 5-3 vote to defeat the bill on Tuesday.
‘Bossly bill’ aimed at preventing land survey abuses wins committee approval
The bill is one of many filed in recent years in response to a proposal from Iowa-based Summit Carbon Solutions to build a five-state pipeline through eastern South Dakota. The project would capture carbon dioxide from ethanol plants and sequester it underground in North Dakota to capitalize on federal tax credits that incentivize the prevention of heat-trapping emissions from entering the atmosphere.
Hughes argued that an environmental impact statement is a more accessible way to learn how a project might affect the environment than can be found in other public filings from the Public Utilities Commission, providing needed transparency.
“When you’re not allowed to look under the bed, you assume a monster’s under there,” Hughes said.
Opponents argued that the bill was unnecessary.
Last year, lawmakers and Gov. Larry Rhoden adopted a law banning carbon pipelines from using eminent domain, a legal process for obtaining land access when landowners are unwilling to grant it. That law, alongside fierce continued opposition from many landowners, has led some to conclude the Summit pipeline won’t be built through the state.
“Carbon is dead” in South Dakota, electric utility lobbyist Steve Willard told the committee.
Opponents also said state regulators’ current process is already robust and transparent. They noted that the commission can already choose to require an environmental impact statement.
The “simple answer” on whether an environmental impact statement would make a difference in the regulatory process was “no,” Public Utilities Commissioner Chris Nelson said.
GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.
