Bluestem returns to sharing news about ethanol carbon action in South Dakota (see our related posts at the end this digest if you need to catch up on the issue).
At South Dakota News Watch, Bart Pfankuch reports in Carbon dioxide pipeline proposals in South Dakota: What you need to know:
For more than a year, a highly divisive debate has raged in South Dakota over two proposed carbon dioxide pipelines that would capture the toxic gas from ethanol plants and carry it to North Dakota and Illinois for disposal underground.
The stakes are extremely high on both sides of the argument, with billions of dollars of possible investment in play, hundreds of landowners potentially affected and the stability of the state’s $3 billion ethanol industry hanging in the balance.
At the same time, the ongoing state-permitting process and possible legislative involvement hold the potential to forever alter landowner rights in the state and further codify the ability of corporations to implement eminent domain to use the land of property owners without their consent.
And finally, hovering over the entire permitting process is the question of whether carbon-capture technology is a good investment of billions of federal dollars to reduce CO2 emissions.
Complex, multi-faceted discussions and permitting processes are taking place in six affected states over whether — and how — to site, build and put into operation the combined 3,300 miles of pipelines that operators hope to have in place and flowing in 2024.
But the debate in South Dakota, where one pipeline would cross 470 miles and the other 62 miles of mostly East River farmland, has taken on greater significance as Public Utilities Commission members face decisions that could alter the lands, the laws and the lives of South Dakotans for an inestimable number of years.
As regulators in Pierre hold hearings and grapple with approval decisions, and some lawmakers and local governments begin to seek ways to protect landowners from eminent domain, South Dakota News Watch is providing a platform on which to better understand the proposed projects and their potential outcomes.
Read News Watch’s previous coverage on carbon pipeline for more
Click the links below to access two in-depth articles published in 2022 that form a factual basis for readers to consider whether the pipelines proposed by Summit Carbon Solutions and Navigator CO2 are a good fit for South Dakota, the ethanol industry and in the fight to hold off climate change.
» CO2 pipelines could affect the land, lives and livelihoods of S.D. property owners
Meanwhile, at the South Dakota Searchlight, Joshua Haiar reported in Landowners plead for their right to keep carbon pipeline off their land:
Landowners urged the state Public Utilities Commission on Tuesday to help them prevent a liquid carbon dioxide pipeline from crossing their land.
It was the fifth day of a hearing at the Casey Tibbs Rodeo Center in Fort Pierre on Navigator CO2’s application for a permit to construct the Heartland Greenway pipeline. It was also the first day of landowner testimony, after prior days of testimony from company officials, experts and representatives of pipeline construction workers.
One of the testifying landowners was state Rep. Karla Lems, R-Canton. She introduced an unsuccessful bill during last winter’s legislative session that would have barred carbon pipelines from using eminent domain. That’s a legal process for gaining access to land when a landowner won’t grant it.
Lems’ property near Canton, which is south of Sioux Falls, would be crossed not just by the Heartland Greenway pipeline, but also by another carbon pipeline proposed by Summit Carbon Solutions, which will have its permit hearing in September.
Lems said she has invested “hundreds of hours” into learning about and fighting against the projects. She said carbon pipelines provide “private gain for a private company, not for public use.”
“Basically, what it comes down to is risk versus reward,” Lems said. “The landowners have the risk, and the company has the reward.”
Lems is particularly concerned about the potential impacts on the value of property her family intends to sell for development south of Sioux Falls, the state’s fastest-growing region.
“It would prohibit us from building structures, those kinds of things that would be needed,” Lems said. “It will obviously, definitely affect the economic development.”
Reading from prepared remarks, Lems added, “Please search your heart, and do right by the citizens who elected you to represent them and their best interests, which is to deny this application.”
The proposed 1,300-mile, approximately $3 billion Heartland Greenway pipeline would link 21 ethanol plants (including three in South Dakota) and several fertilizer plants across five states. The project would include about 112 miles of pipeline in eastern South Dakota, in Brookings, Moody, Minnehaha, Lincoln and Turner counties.
The pipeline would capture carbon dioxide emitted by the plants and transport it in liquefied form for underground storage in Illinois, or for commercial and industrial uses. The project would be eligible for up to $1.3 billion in annual federal tax credits, which are intended to help fight climate change by incentivizing the removal of heat-trapping carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
The company says it has offered landowners an average of $24,000 per acre in negotiations for easements to cross private land. Navigator has easements with about 30% of affected landowners. The company has not yet used eminent domain.
Cross-examination
William Taylor, the attorney representing union workers who would construct the pipeline, said multiple pipelines already cross Lems’ land, and those projects had the authority to use eminent domain.
Lems testified that she allowed those pipelines to cross her land without the need for eminent domain. She said that’s because other pipelines carry products such as propane, natural gas and oil — “all things the public will use.”
She distinguishes those uses from liquid carbon dioxide, which would either be injected underground or sold to commercial or industrial customers to be used for things like oil extraction or dry ice.
Public Utilities Commissioner Chris Nelson referenced the one-time easement payment available to affected landowners and the greater potential demand for corn created by the pipeline. “Am I to infer there are things more important to you than dollars and cents?” Nelson asked.
“It’s called freedom,” Lems replied. “We should be able to say we want to be part of a project or say ‘no thank you.’”
More landowner testimony
Rick Bonander and other impacted landowners expressed similar concerns. Bonander lives near Valley Springs, 15 minutes from Sioux Falls. He asked the commission, “Who is going to want to live next to a CO2 pipeline?”
Some of the pipeline’s opponents are concerned about toxic carbon dioxide plumes from potential leaks. In 2020, a leak in a carbon pipeline in Mississippi caused the evacuation of about 200 people and sent 45 to the hospital. In response, federal regulators are reviewing the safety standards for carbon pipelines.
Bonander talked about carbon dioxide’s uses in the livestock industry and said “it’s a very effective way of euthanizing animals,” but not something people want to live near.
“I live in the United States of America and should be able to say no,” Bonander said.
Miles Lacey is a farmer from Valley Springs with land that would be impacted by the pipeline. He testified that the proposed route is too close to his home and livestock operation for his comfort.
“We could show up one morning and everything is dead,” Lacey said.
Moody County landowner Connie Beyer-Lalonde testified that if the pipeline is authorized and constructed on some of her family’s land, “I could not, in good conscience, continue to rent that out.”
The hearing is scheduled to continue through Saturday.
More hearing coverage from South Dakota Searchlight
- Day 1: Carbon pipeline permit hearing kicks off with clashes on multiple fronts
- Day 2: Economic projections questioned during second day of carbon pipeline hearing
- Day 3: Secret maps and toxic plumes dominate third day of pipeline testimony
- Day 4: Crop damage payouts debated as pipeline hearing continues
More carbon pipeline news and commentary
At Dakota Free Press, Cory Allen Heidelberger writes Navigator VP from Texas Claims CO2 Pipeline Won’t Affect Property Values; SD Legislator Rebuts with Local Reality deconstructing Navigator VP of engineering Stephen Lee 's supporting argument for his company's' project before turning to Lems' on-the-ground situation.
Heidelberger draws his Lems material from Bob Mercer's Landowners Testify Against Navigator CO2 Project at Keloland TV.
The Pfankuch article is republished with permission of South Dakota News Watch; the South Dakota Searchlight article is republished under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0.
Photo: Betty Strom, a Sioux Falls-area landowner, is an opponent of the Summit Carbon Solutions’ CO2 pipeline. She is shown here with a “no trespassing” sign at the Minnehaha County Courthouse in 2022. (Photo: Argus Leader file)
Related posts
- Thanks to federal tax credits, it’s boom time in the Midwest for carbon dioxide pipelines
- South Dakota Governor Noem is investor in ethanol plant partnered with carbon pipeline firm
- Commentary: Governor Noem’s actions speak louder than words on eminent domain
- New Midwest battles brew over CO2 pipelines
- South Dakota Searchlight: Environmental groups seek Biden moratorium on ethanol CO2 pipelines
- Iowa Capital Dispatch: Landowner battles against ethanol CO2 pipelines vary by state
- Ethanol CO2 pipeline news digest: PUC hearings in Minnesota; South Dakota lawsuits; IA setbacks
- CURE files appeal with MN PUC on Summit Carbon pipeline environmental review
- News digest: South Dakota and Minnesota PUCs deal with Summit carbon pipeline issues
- In Iowa, ethanol carbon pipeline opponents want pause until new safety regulations are ready
- Summit Carbon Solutions files permit for risky CO2 pipeline in Otter Tail and Wilkin Counties
- Will ethanol carbon capture pipelines fracture brittle unity of South Dakota Republicans?
- 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
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
Comments