The massive carbon capture pipeline in the Midwest has been thrown into uncertainty after South Dakota’s Public Utility Commission denied its route permit application Tuesday.
The commission voted 2-1 to deny the application by Iowa-based Summit Carbon Solutions, with Commissioner Kristie Fiegen saying it was “incomplete” and lacked “the form and content required.”
South Dakota lawmakers passed an eminent domain ban for carbon capture pipelines in March that makes Summit’s planned route difficult, commissioners agreed. Summit said it will refile its application with a reduced route in South Dakota to satisfy landowners and plant partners.
“While we are disappointed in today’s decision, we remain committed to South Dakota as without it the ethanol industry, farmers, and land values in the state will all suffer,” the company said in a statement.
South Dakota is a crucial part of the 2,500-mile pipeline, which would transport carbon emissions from ethanol plants in Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, North Dakota and South Dakota to be stored underground permanently in North Dakota.
THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. AP’s earlier story follows below.
The company behind a planned $8.9 billion carbon capture pipeline in the Midwest has proposed reducing its route through South Dakota to secure the necessary permitting.
In a filing with the South Dakota Public Utilities Commission on Friday, Iowa-based Summit Carbon Solutions requested a timeline extension on its permit application to rework its route in a way that would satisfy landowners. The commission is expected to decide on this extension request during its meeting Tuesday afternoon.
Questions about the pipeline arose after South Dakota lawmakers approved a ban on eminent domain for carbon capture projects, in which the government can seize private property with compensation. Without that power, Summit would need to secure voluntary agreements with landowners along the South Dakota route.
Instead of pursuing legal action against the state, Summit said in its filing that additional time would allow it to “roll out new offers to landowners” and identify which branches to ethanol plants it can eliminate that face significant landowner opposition.
“The Applicant believes threatening legal action is counter-productive to attempting to do good-faith business with the state,” Summit attorney Brett Koenecke wrote in the filing. “Instead, the Applicant intends to make significant efforts and undertake several tasks in the coming weeks and months to advance the project and prepare to proceed with a new scheduling order.”
South Dakota is a crucial part of the 2,500-mile pipeline, which would carry carbon emissions from ethanol plants in Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, North Dakota and South Dakota to be stored underground permanently in North Dakota. The project already has approvals in Iowa, Minnesota and North Dakota, and Summit has invested more than $150 million into its route in South Dakota.
The ethanol industry is concentrated in the Midwest, with nearly 40% of the nation’s corn used to brew ethanol. Summit’s pipeline promises to lower the carbon intensity of ethanol to make it more competitive as a sustainable product.
Oaks excel at supporting the food web (including us). Arbor Day is a reason to plant one
Iowa considers whether to change constitution to address how traumatized witnesses testify in court
The Supreme Court won't revive a Minnesota ban on gun-carry permits for young adults
Tornado-producing storm deals deadly flooding and large hail to Oklahoma and Texas
Earth Day marks the chance to help save the planet. The environment is on the edge
Keir Starmer U-turns to say trans women are not women after Supreme Court ruling
