Prohibit use of the South Dakota public utilities commission gross receipts tax fund for reimbursement of costs incurred by the Public Utilities Commission.
Summary
House Bill 1007 amends South Dakota law governing permit applications before the Public Utilities Commission, including applications under § 49-41B-12. The bill keeps in place the existing framework that requires applicants to pay minimum and, in some cases, additional fees to cover the commission’s actual costs of investigating, reviewing, processing, and serving notice of an application. It also preserves the higher fee cap that can apply when the commission determines an environmental impact statement is needed, and it states that the amended provisions apply to both pending and future permit applications.
The central change is a new restriction on funding: money from the South Dakota Public Utilities Commission gross receipts tax fund may not be used to reimburse the commission for any additional costs incurred. In practical terms, the bill shifts those costs away from the gross receipts tax fund and reinforces that application-related expenses should be paid through the fee structure tied to the applicant rather than through that fund. The bill does not otherwise alter the commission’s authority to assess fees or require cost recovery for permit processing.
Impact
HB1007 changes the funding source for certain Public Utilities Commission expenses by prohibiting use of the gross receipts tax fund for reimbursement of additional costs incurred by the commission. It amends § 49-41B-12, which governs fees and cost recovery for energy facility permit applications, and applies to all pending and future applications. The bill affects applicants before the commission, the commission’s budgeting and reimbursement practices, and the state fund established in § 49-1A-2.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have broad support overall, as reflected by strong do-pass votes in both chambers and unanimous final concurrence in the Senate on the amended version. The vote history suggests the measure was not especially controversial at the end of the process, even though the earlier House vote showed some opposition. The final legislative action indicates general agreement with the policy of limiting use of the gross receipts tax fund for commission cost reimbursement.
Contention
The main point of contention is likely the source of funding for Public Utilities Commission costs. Supporters of the bill appear to favor ensuring that commission expenses tied to permit applications are recovered through applicant fees rather than through the gross receipts tax fund. Any opposition likely centered on whether restricting that fund could affect the commission’s ability to cover administrative or review costs, or whether the fee structure should bear more of the burden. The final unanimous concurrence on the amended bill suggests those concerns were resolved or narrowed during amendment.