A news item in the Forum News chain suggests that carbon capture pipelines for ethanol production emissions might not be the golden ticket one Republican aspiring lieutenant governor candidate imagined them to be.
We noted doubts about ownership in South Dakotans & others get fantods over Summit Carbon Solutions' sketchy 10% owner.
And the project may further splinter the brittle unity of South Dakota's Republican Party. At the Mitchell Republic, Jason Haward reports in Carbon pipeline, opposed by some landowners, may split South Dakota's Republican caucus over eminent domain:
A carbon pipeline project promising to increase the competitiveness of South Dakota ethanol has grabbed the attention of legislators and their constituents across the state, possibly pitting the agricultural industry against the property rights of affected landowners during next year’s legislative session.
In total, the project, proposed by Iowa-based agriculture company Summit Carbon Solutions, consists of 2,000 miles of pipeline and 32 ethanol plants in Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, South Dakota and North Dakota, with 469 of those miles and seven ethanol plants in eastern South Dakota. . . .
As long as construction on the pipeline begins before January 2026, Summit Carbon Solutions would be eligible for the 45Q carbon sequestration tax credit, which pays $50 for each metric ton of carbon stored in 2026 and increases with inflation after that. With contracts in place to sequester at least 9 million tons of carbon per year and a maximum capacity of 12 million, Summit Carbon Solutions could receive a windfall of between $450 million and $600 million in tax credits in 2026 alone.
“Billions and billions and billions in tax credits that they'll trade away to their rich friends,” said Brian Jorde, an attorney representing South Dakota landowners in a lawsuit against Summit Carbon Solutions. “All on the backs of hard working South Dakotans. This is probably the worst possible project that could even be fashioned and the fact that it’s even being considered is outrageous.” . . .
The delays caused by moratoriums and the expected reveal by Summit Carbon Solutions of the final proposed route in October mean the state Legislature will have an opportunity to affect the process next session. Landowners say they are watching closely.
“So many of us have just lived our daily lives and gone about our business out here in the rural areas. A lot of times with the opinion of, well, there's not much we can do about it,” said Mark Lapca, a fifth-generation landowner in McPherson County. “Well, that's gone on for too long. So now we're starting to, well, we're not starting now. We are paying attention. And we're going to attempt to work with our legislators to try to get some of these laws fixed.”
Jorde added that he and his clients would “figure out which elected officials stand with landowners and which ones don't.”
The Legislature would have numerous options in terms of making it more difficult for the pipeline to be built, especially in the case that Summit Carbon is unable to build the project entirely through voluntary easements and public right-of-ways. For example, the Legislature could overturn 21-35-31, the law that has been used to allow biological and cultural surveys , in some cases without landowner permission. Jorde is representing dozens of landowners in a lawsuit trying to overturn the law as unconstitutional. . . .
State Sen. Al Novstrup, R-Aberdeen, told Forum News Service that many of his constituents in Brown County have expressed skepticism about the project. He said the issue of eminent domain was another area the Legislature could address.
“If eminent domain is going to come into play, which I imagine it will, then I think, state and local governments have to take a look at our laws of eminent domain and see if they're appropriate,” Novstrup said.
Multiple legislators told Forum News Service that their constituents were worried about eminent domain. James Wangsness, a former commissioner and representative from Hand County running as a Republican in the District 23 race, says his decision to re-enter politics was “partially due to the pipeline deal.”
But the issue could form a rift in the Republican party, with those concerned about property rights and precedent on one side and those concerned about agriculture on the other. Rep. Charlie Hoffman, R-Eureka, represents multiple counties in the proposed route. He wrote a column earlier this year expressing his support for the project.
Still, many legislators have paid attention to the process but have yet to take sides, especially since no bills have been written. Come session, staying neutral on the hot-button issue could prove difficult. . . .
One person who may engage in lobbying during the coming session is Dan Lederman, the chair of the South Dakota Republican who has been an outspoken advocate of the project.
Notably, Gov. Kristi Noem has not made a public comment on the issue. Noem’s office has referred media inquiries on the matter to the PUC.
“I was listening to some cable news station and our governor was on there talking about how she's working for the people of South Dakota to make sure they keep their freedoms,” ReEtta Sieh, who owns and operates a farm in McPherson County, told Forum News Service on July 22. “I'm a little disappointed in her that she hasn't come out to help us keep our freedom to do with our land what we see as right.” . . .
Earlier in July, Dakota Free Press reported that South Dakota Democrats were taking a position in Note to Landowners Threatened by Republican CO2 Pipeline: Democrats Support County Control of Planning & Zoning, Oppose Eminent Domain for CO2 Ventures.
Jeepers: freedom.
CURE works with Minnesota landowners
Back in Minnesota, Tom Cherveny reports for Willmar's West Central Tribune in CURE working with landowners concerned about proposed pipeline:
Clean Up our River Environment is working with landowners along the proposed route for the Summit Carbon Solutions pipeline who are expressing concerns about it.
CURE, based in Montevideo, issued a news release this week reporting that nearly 60 landowners and community members from Redwood and Cottonwood counties gathered July 15 in Lamberton to discuss their concerns.
Peg Furshong, programs director for CURE, told landowners attending the meeting to be careful. She told attendees that Summit must go through many stages of review and permitting before getting approval to build, including obtaining a route permit from the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission.
“Their strategy is to have many landowners sign voluntary easements to demonstrate local support for this project. But think twice before you hand over the rights to your land when the PUC hasn’t even approved the route,” Furshong said.
She also advised landowners to have any contracts reviewed by an attorney with expertise in pipeline easement agreements. . . .
Anita Vogel of Lamberton helped organize the meeting. Vogel said her parents signed an easement for the pipeline on their property.
“Signing a voluntary easement may seem like not a big deal to some,” said Vogel, “but I want to remind you that this is a ‘forever’ easement and once you sign this you can’t reverse that decision.”
CURE said landowners at the meeting said they want more transparency about carbon pipelines and the potential risks they may pose to their property and communities. They also expressed interest in finding ways to share information and work together.
For more information about these projects, go to www.carbonpipelinesmn.org or email [email protected].
We'll continue to look at the ethanol carbon pipelines, the folks that love and hope to profit from them and the tax breaks hitched to them, and those of us in the way.
Related posts:
- South Dakotans & others get fantods over Summit Carbon Solutions' sketchy 10% owner
- Matt Birk loves the ethanol carbon dioxide pipeline proposed by Summit Carbon Solutions
- Ethanol carbon pipeline news digest: from the Guardian to the Aberdeen American News
- Navigator CO2, POET sign letter of intent for carbon capture, utilization, and storage service
- Carbon capture pipeline blues: SD landowners call for dismissal of pipeline permit application
- Iowa Capital Dispatch: Group seeks end of ethanol carbon pipeline ‘harassment’
- Ethanol carbon capture pipeline digest: farmers, students, greenwashing, safety, law enforcement
- Storm Lake Time Pilot's Art Cullen: Ripping up CRP is a terrible signal for the planet
- Minnesota Public Utility Commission claims regulatory authority for carbon pipelines
- CO2 pipelines could affect the land, lives and livelihoods of South Dakota property owners
- SD News Watch: Proposed CO2 pipelines thrust SD into billion-dollar climate change debate
- About that permanent carbon storage by the Summit ethanol pipeline & Project Tundra
- Ethanol carbon capture pipeline news digest: political power and big money edition
- Ethanol carbon pipeline digest: trust & protest
- South Dakotans, Iowans don't hug CO2 pipeline
- Keloland: mostly negative public comments to SD Public Utilities Commission on CO2 pipeline
- Strib: Ethanol's per-gallon carbon output shrinks, but greenhouse gas from plants remains high
- We agree: It's time to move on from ethanol
- Another IA newspaper editorial board questions ethanol industry, carbon capture pipelines
- Ethanol CCS pipeline update: Reuters & Agweek
- Not a lot of easements for Midwest carbon pipeline, but plenty of political connections
- 2 ethanol CO2 headlines that make us go hmmm
- CO2 pipelines: who wins & who loses?
- Coming soon from a cornfield near you: mammoth carbon capture pipeline system
- Mother Jones: USDA Secretary Vilsack’s son works for a controversial ethanol pipeline project
- Iowa county boards scorn construction of CO2 pipelines, use of eminent domain to build them
- Digest of news about carbon dioxide pipeline
Photo: Corn--food, biofuels, or cropaganda?
If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen, 600 Maple Street, Summit SD 57266) or use the paypal button in the upper right hand corner of this post.
Or you can contribute via this link to paypal; use email [email protected] as recipient.
I'm on Venmo for those who prefer to use this service: @Sally-Sorensen-6
Recent Comments