In Sioux Falls, South Dakota, the developers of a proposed $8.9 billion carbon-capture pipeline slated to span five Midwestern states have announced plans to indefinitely postpone their project. This decision comes on the heels of South Dakota passing a law that restricts the pipeline company’s ability to secure land necessary for the endeavor.
Despite submitting a motion to the South Dakota Public Utilities Commission to pause the timeline for its pipeline permit application, Summit Carbon Solutions, headquartered in Iowa, reaffirmed its commitment to the project. Brett Koenecke, an attorney for Summit, explained that the legislative changes in South Dakota have impacted the company’s ability to conduct necessary route surveys.
“The new legal constraints around obtaining surveys mean adjusting the timeline for the Commission’s consideration of this application is essential,” Koenecke stated in the motion. Should the commission consent to this request, a new deadline for the permit application process can be established.
The proposed pipeline, stretching 2,500 miles, is designed to transport carbon emissions from ethanol production facilities in Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota, ultimately storing the emissions underground in North Dakota. The project is intended to reduce carbon emissions at these plants, thereby improving their carbon intensity scores and enhancing their competitiveness in the renewable fuels market.
While approvals have been secured in Iowa, Minnesota, and North Dakota, South Dakota’s new law prohibits the use of eminent domain specifically for carbon-capture initiatives. This legal measure, effectively preventing government seizure of private property with compensation for this purpose, has been a significant roadblock for the pipeline in South Dakota.
Republican Representative Karla Lems, who sponsored the eminent domain bill, remarked that Summit is now seeking to adjust to this ban. Frank James, director of the advocacy group Dakota Rural Action, which opposes the use of eminent domain for such projects, sees this development as a victory. “Our legislative efforts with partners were clearly impactful,” James said. “It indicates South Dakota’s citizens are questioning these supposed solutions to climate change.”
Contrarily, Tad Hepner, vice president of strategy and innovation at the Renewable Fuels Association, warned that halting the pipeline in South Dakota could disadvantage local ethanol producers compared to those in states where the pipeline proceeds. “We aim for no disparities,” he stated. “Our goal is to enable as many ethanol producers as possible to sequester CO2.”
North Dakota Governor Kelly Armstrong expressed uncertainty regarding Summit’s ability to introduce the pipeline into North Dakota, given South Dakota’s eminent domain stance. Armstrong voiced concerns as North Dakota, the third-largest oil-producing state in the U.S., had anticipated utilizing carbon dioxide for oil extraction.
Sabrina Zenor, a spokesperson for Summit, noted that the company has already invested over $1 billion into the venture. Despite the setback in South Dakota, Summit asserted that all possibilities remain under consideration. “Summit Carbon Solutions continues to be dedicated to navigating this process and advancing the project in states supportive of energy innovation,” the company stated.
