Latest news with #JimMehlhaff
Yahoo
25-02-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Senate OKs Mehlhaff's eminent domain bill
PIERRE, S.D. (KELO) — South Dakota senators weren't able on Friday to pass proposed changes that their Republican leader wants the Legislature make to state laws on eminent domain. So they reconsidered Senate Bill 198 on Monday, and this time — with an additional amendment — the measure got through. The proposal from Sen. Jim Mehlhaff would affect all eminent domain proceedings. It proposes that a developer of any transmission project couldn't start any condemnation action against a landowner until after receiving a permit for the project from the South Dakota Public Utilities Commission. HB 1025 dies in Pierre: A closer look at the vote SB 198 also would require that a condemner offer good-faith mediation, with the condemner responsible for the mediation costs. Democratic Sen. Jamie Smith switched from a no to a yes, and that proved decisive. The Senate's 18-17 vote on Monday for the latest version of SB 198 sets up a conflict with the House, where legislation has passed that would prohibit CO2 pipelines from using eminent domain. House Bill 1052 awaits a hearing in the Senate State Affairs Committee that Mehlhaff chairs. The House is also scheduled to debate on Tuesday a proposed moratorium on CO2 pipelines in South Dakota unless certain conditions are met. Several representatives from Glacial Lakes Energy, an ethanol producer, watched the Senate debate from the upstairs gallery on Monday. Summit Carbon Solutions has an application pending at the PUC for a state permit for a pipeline that would collect CO2 from ethanol plants in South Dakota and transport it to central North Dakota for burial. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
25-02-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
SD lawmakers endorse hurdles for eminent domain and environmental studies for carbon pipelines
Sen. Jim Mehlhaff, R-Pierre, speaks on the South Dakota Senate floor on Jan. 21, 2025. (Makenzie Huber/South Dakota Searchlight) PIERRE — South Dakota lawmakers advanced legislation Monday at the Capitol that would make it more difficult for carbon dioxide pipeline companies to use eminent domain and would subject their projects to required environmental impact statements. The bills are among several filed in response to controversy over Iowa-based Summit Carbon Solutions' proposed $9 billion, five-state pipeline that would pass through eastern South Dakota. Eminent domain is a legal process for obtaining land access from unwilling landowners with just compensation determined by a court, for a project beneficial to the public — traditionally for projects such as electrical power lines, crude oil pipelines, water pipelines and highways. A bill to ban eminent domain for carbon pipelines passed the House last month and is awaiting action in the Senate. Meanwhile, a bill approved by the Senate 17-16 on Monday would retain eminent domain as an option. But it would require entities using it to first attend mediation with the affected landowner and to also have a state permit before commencing eminent domain proceedings. The bill failed last week in a close vote with two members absent, and then passed Monday when it was reconsidered and will head to the House next. It is sponsored by Sen. Jim Mehlhaff, R-Pierre. He said the measure strengthens landowner rights in condemnation proceedings. 'What it simply does is it requires a developer to go through that process and get a permit prior to gaining the privilege to use eminent domain,' Mehlhaff said. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX Opponents said mediation could serve as a tool to force landowners into talks they don't want to have. 'If a landowner said no thank you, their wishes should be respected,' said Sen. Joy Hohn, R-Sioux Falls. Some senators also hope to pass the ban on eminent domain for carbon pipelines rather than merely imposing new eminent domain restrictions. The House Commerce and Energy Committee voted 9-4 to send a bill to the House floor that would require an environmental impact statement for carbon dioxide pipelines. The bill, sponsored by Rep. John Hughes, R-Sioux Falls, mandates state utility regulators to prepare or require the preparation of the statements before approving a carbon pipeline permit. The statements are detailed documents required at the federal level to assess the potential environmental effects of some projects. Lawmakers advance carbon pipeline moratorium and bill regulating land agents 'This is not an anti-pipeline bill,' Hughes said. 'This is a public safety bill and it's a bill that protects our resources.' Opponents, including representatives from the South Dakota Chamber of Commerce & Industry, utilities, and Summit argued that the bill would add an unnecessary regulatory burden. 'It's hard not to see this bill as directed at Summit Carbon Solutions,' said Brett Koenecke, a lobbyist for the project. Opponents also said the regulators serving on the Public Utilities Commission already conduct a rigorous permitting process. 'What we're doing is so much more robust than this process,' Koenecke said. 'We are doing the things that the sponsor wants us to do already.' The Summit pipeline would capture some of the carbon dioxide emitted by 57 ethanol plants and transport it for underground storage in North Dakota. The project has received permits in Iowa, Minnesota and North Dakota, while its application is pending in South Dakota. Nebraska does not have a permitting process. The project would be eligible for federal tax credits incentivizing the capture of heat-trapping greenhouse gases to mitigate climate change. Hughes said other states, including Minnesota, mandate extensive environmental reviews. 'This project, when completed, will generate over $1.5 billion in federal tax credits,' Hughes said. 'We've got to get this right.' Among other pending carbon pipeline bills this legislative session is one that would put a moratorium on carbon pipelines until new federal safety rules are finalized, and another empowering landowners to sue pipeline companies for the alleged abuses of their land agents. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
21-02-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Ag groups support 67% threshold for CO2 easements
SIOUX FALLS, S.D. (KELO) — There's another option for eminent domain as it relates to the proposed carbon dioxide (CO2) pipeline in South Dakota. The South Dakota Farm Bureau (SDFB) and the South Dakota Corn Growers Association (SDCGA) said they support a legislative proposal that would require CO2 pipeline companies secure voluntary easements for at least 67% of the pipeline before invoking eminent domain. Those provisions are now proposed in an amended version of Senate Bill 198, whose prime sponsor now is Republican Sen. Jim Mehlhaff. He chairs the Senate State Affairs Committee, which recommended on a 5-3 vote this week that the full Senate approve SB 198. A key piece of Mehlhaff's bill is that it would apply to any party seeking to use eminent domain to route a project across someone else's property. The full Senate is scheduled to debate SB 198 today. SD Senate votes to maintain child marriage A news release from both agriculture organizations cites House Bill 1052 which passed 49 to 19 in the House on Jan. 27. HB1052 would prohibit the use of eminent domain for a pipeline that carries carbon oxide. Senate passage of SB 198 this afternoon would mean each legislative chamber has its own version of how to reform eminent domain. Landowner rights and eminent domain as it relates to CO2 pipelines have been the subject of much discussion for several years as originally, two companies proposed CO2 pipelines that would travel through the state. As of Friday, Summit Carbon Solutions is the only company that has proposed a CO2 pipeline in the state. A few hundred miles of a CO2 pipeline would travel through the state as it gathers CO2 from partner ethanol plants for planned burial in North Dakota. The South Dakota Public Utilities Commission will hold evidentiary hearings on the proposed project in August. On Wednesday, Senate Bill 49 which would have prohibited the exercise of the right of eminent domain for the construction of certain facilities and address the preemption of zoning requirement failed in the Senate State Affairs. The legislative list of bills for 2025 also included several other eminent domain or pipeline-related bills. Discussions on HB1052 on Jan. 27 included comments about the safety concerns of CO2 pipelines, how the federal government doesn't have money to support tax credits and similar for projects like CO2 sequestration. Those against HB1052 said the pipeline will have a positive economic impact, it will protect the ethanol industry because it will reduce the industry's carbon footprint and allow it to sell more fuel in carbon-restrictive markets. The summit will use 45Q for its proposed pipeline. The 45Q program is a tax credit program for carbon sequestration or carbon capture. Not only are those in the ethanol industry interested in 45Q, oil industry companies are also interested. Within industry media, there is discussion about oil industry investment in carbon capture. Other discussion includes states pursuing permits for CO2 sequestration wells. A version of this credit has been in place since George W. Bush's presidency and in 2025, it has billions of dollars attached to it. Some early indications are that the Trump Administration favors carbon capture. Secretary of Interior Doug Burgum mentioned carbon capture in his confirmation testimony. Burgum is the former governor of North Dakota. President Donald Trump expanded use of 45Q during his first term in office. Capitol Bureau reporter Bob Mercer contributed to this story. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
12-02-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
5 bills on firearm legislation in South Dakota
SIOUX FALLS, S.D. (KELO) – Five bills relating to gun regulations and restrictions in South Dakota have been introduced during this year's legislative session. They range from prohibiting firearm restrictions on college campuses and allowing them for employees in government buildings. Here's a breakdown of the bills and where they are at: SB 100 prohibits the restriction of carrying concealed pistols on college campuses. If passed, no Board of Regents or public technical education institutions could restrict the lawful carrying of a concealed pistol, stun gun or pepper spray. The bill's prime sponsor, Sen. Mykala Voita, has proposed two amendments to the bill, although they haven't been voted on yet. The first amendment would require that the individual carrying a concealed pistol has an enhanced or restricted enhanced permit. The second would amend the bill to limit restrictions rather than prohibit them: Board of Regents or public technical education institutions could restrict concealed pistols in a designated portion of the building only if: Significant hazardous materials, more than 55 gallons of flammable liquid, or cylinders containing corrosive gasses are present A room is used for scientific research or manufacturing and has concentrated airborne particles Areas where federal security clearance is required During a special event where metal detectors are present SB 100 passed with a 7-2 vote in the Senate State Affairs Committee and is scheduled for debate on the Senate floor February 12. SB 81 would prohibit financial institutions from using firearms codes to flag transactions involving firearms, ammunition and other accessories. A firearms code is an indicator that financial institutions such as banks put on a transaction that identifies whether the seller is a firearms dealer or whether the transaction was for firearms or ammunition. The bill also says no government agency or person can keep a record of privately owned firearms except its owner. The exception is records kept during a criminal investigation. If a financial institution is found using firearms codes, they may be subject to a civil penalty of $25,000. Republican Sen. Jim Mehlhaff introduced the bill and worked with financial institutions, the National Rifle Association and retailers in the state to create the legislation. SB 81 passed through the Senate as well as the House and Senate Commerce and Energy Committees with little opposition. It heads next to the House and if passed, will go to Gov. Larry Rhoden's desk. HB 1222 expands who is allowed to carry a gun on school grounds. Currently, anyone who carries a weapon onto school property is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. The exceptions include law enforcement officers, a starting gun for sporting events, supervised firearm training, and individuals who hold an advanced concealed carry permit and have written permission from the principal. HB 1222 aims to include individuals with a concealed carry permit who could then carry on school property, but not in buildings used for class instruction. The bill is scheduled for its first hearing in the House Judiciary Committee on February 12. Republican Rep. Kaley Nolz introduced the bill. Under HB 1218, county commissioners, township supervisors or government municipalities wouldn't be allowed to prohibit or restrict a county, township or municipal employee, officer or volunteer from lawfully carrying a concealed firearm in a government building. Republican Rep. Aaron Aylward from Lincoln County introduced HB 1218. It was referred to the House Local Government Committee, but does not have a hearing date set. HB 1080 would void any agreements that prohibit or restrict the possession or use of firearms and ammunition. A 'covenant running with the land,' per the language in the bill, is an agreement that transfers to future owners of the same property. For example, there may be a covenant requiring certain yard maintenance; these agreements are common in home owners associations (HOAs). In this instance, if a covenant was made that restricted future land owners from the types of firearms used on that land, those agreements would be void if the legislation becomes law. 'I as a land owner cannot write a covenant on the land I own to tell an owner years or decades or centuries from now, 'They can't hunt on that land or have a gun in their house to protect themselves and their families,'' said the bill's prime sponsor, Republican Rep. Drew Peterson, in a committee hearing. The bill unanimously passed in House Judiciary and had one 'nay' vote on the House floor. It now goes to the Senate Judiciary Committee. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
