State denies Summit permit; both ethanol carbon pipelines proposed in South Dakota now rejected

Just in from the South Dakota Searchlight, which notes in its headline's kicker: "Companies can address regulatory concerns and reapply later."

It's not over until it's over.

State denies Summit permit; both carbon pipelines proposed in SD now rejected
By Joshua Haiar

PORT PIERRE — Some landowners who’ve been fighting against a proposed carbon dioxide pipeline shed tears of joy 
Monday as South Dakota utility regulators denied a permit application from Summit Carbon Solutions.

The decision means both carbon pipelines currently proposed in eastern South Dakota have been rejected in their first attempts to gain permits in the state.

“I’ve felt like there was a tractor on my chest, and that weight has finally been removed,” said Jared Bossly, of rural Warner, whose land is along the Summit route. 

The Public Utilities Commission made its latest decision following  a motion by its own staff to reject Summit’s application. The staff motion said Summit’s proposed route is in direct violation of “setback” ordinances adopted in Brown, McPherson, Minnehaha and Spink counties. Those ordinances establish minimum distances between pipelines, homes and other places. 

If commissioners approved the permit, the motion said, they would be sanctioning a project that violates county laws.

“There is simply not a path forward,” Staff Attorney Kristen Edwards told the commissioners Monday morning.

The decision occurred at the Casey Tibbs Rodeo Center on the first day of what was intended to be a three-week hearing on the permit application.  

Brett Koenecke, a lawyer for Summit, told the commission, “We sit here ready to prove the technical aspects of this application.” He argued unsuccessfully that because of the time and effort Summit put into preparing for the hearing, the hearing should move forward. 

Commissioner Chris Nelson made a motion to postpone the hearing rather than deny the permit. That motion failed 2-1 with Commissioner Gary Hanson and State Treasurer Josh Haeder — filling in for Commissioner Kristie Fiegen, who recused herself because of a conflict of interest — voting against it. After that, Haeder’s motion to deny the permit application passed unanimously. Fiegen recused herself because a relative of hers owns land that would be affected by the Summit project.

The decision came after Summit withdrew its request to have the commission overrule the county setback ordinances. Another company trying to build a carbon pipeline — Navigator CO2 — failed last week to convince the commission to use its power to preempt such ordinances. The commission also denied Navigator’s permit application, following a hearing that ran from July 25 to Aug. 8.

In the motion to deny Summit’s permit filed by Edwards, she pointed out that despite Summit’s assurance of complying with local regulations, there hasn’t been any tangible evidence to show that the company has obtained the necessary waivers or county permits. 

The door isn’t entirely closed for Summit or Navigator. The companies can reapply in the future and obtain permits, provided they can adequately address the commission’s concerns about the projects.

“I suspect that this project is ultimately going to be built,” Koenecke said. “Carbon capture is the future of agriculture.”

Summit also suffered a rejection of its route recently in North Dakota. A weeks-long hearing on its route in Iowa is underway.

Both companies seek to capture carbon dioxide emitted from ethanol plants in multiple states and transport it in liquid form to underground sequestration sites – North Dakota for Summit, and Illinois for Navigator. The multi-billion-dollar projects are eligible for billions in tax credits from the federal government, as incentives for removing heat-trapping carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

Summit has instigated dozens of eminent domain cases in an attempt to gain access to land from landowners unwilling to grant it. Navigator has not yet pursued eminent domain in South Dakota. Both companies have some voluntary access agreements — called easements — with a portion of affected landowners.

This South Dakota Searchlight article is republished online under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0.

Photo: Affected landowner Jared Bossly (in vest) and others attend a hearing Sept. 11, 2023 in Fort Pierre where the Public Utilities Commission rejected a permit application from Summit Carbon Solutions. (Joshua Haiar/South Dakota Searchlight)

Related posts

• Summit Carbon Solutions forges ahead despite SD PUC staff's motion to deny pipeline permit 
• SD PUC staff motion: non-mysterious portents in the air about potential denial of Summit Carbon Solution's pipeline permit application
• South Dakota Navigator pipeline decision might jeopardize Summit Carbon Solutions proposal
• Breaking: South Dakota Public Utilities Commission unanimously denies Navigator ethanol CO2 pipeline project permit
• Ethanol carbon pipeline news digest: permanent sequestration or enhanced oil extraction & more
•  Iowa governor denies influence over Summit Carbon Solutions’ pipeline project process
• SD PUC Navigator CO2 Ventures update: Pipeline permit, overruling counties decision by Sept. 6
• Ethanol carbon pipeline update: Navigator asks SD PUC to shoot down county pipeline rules
• Ethanol carbon pipeline news digest: Iowa Utilities Board evidentiary hearing for Summit Carbon Solutions begins in Fort Dodge
• Ethanol carbon pipeline news digest: action picking up on Summit Carbon Solutions
• After North Dakota's pipeline permit application denial, Summit Carbon Solutions asks again
• Iowa administrative judge: Summit should reveal communities threatened by pipeline leaks
• South Dakota PUC expresses concerns as Navigator CO2 carbon pipeline hearing ends
• ND Public Service Commission denies Summit Carbon Solutions permit for ethanol carbon pipeline
• Ethanol carbon pipeline news digest, SD edition
• 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